Tag: lawsuits

Sen. Thom Tillis Files Bill to Allow Victims of Migrant Crime to Sue Sanctuary Cities

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has filed a bill that would allow the victims of migrant crime to sue the sanctuary cities that facilitated that crime.

On Thursday, Tillis and nine other Republicans filed S. 185, a bill titled the “Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act.”

“For far too long, we have watched local jurisdictions in North Carolina and across the country ignore the lawful notification and detainer requests made by ICE agents and instead release dangerous criminals back into their communities, putting innocent lives at risk,” Tillis said in a statement. “It is time for Congress to step in and hold sanctuary cities accountable.”

Keep reading

California Democrat Proposes Legislation to Sue Oil Companies Over Wildfires That Had NOTHING to Do With Them

Scott Weiner, a Democratic State Senator in California, is introducing legislation that would allow people to sue oil companies over the wildfires that have ravaged the state in recent weeks.

This is typical Democrat political sleight of hand.

Oil companies had NOTHING to do with the destructive nature of these fires. If people want to sue someone, they should sue the Democrats who run the state and completely dropped the ball on being ready for these entirely predictable fires.

It’s amazing that this is even real.

From CBS News:

A newly proposed California state law would create a new pathway for victims of wildfires and insurance companies to sue oil companies over climate change.

Democratic State Senator Scott Weiner introduced the bill directly linking the wildfires to climate change caused by oil companies, as part of the statewide response to the Los Angeles-area wildfires.

“Absolutely catastrophic wildfires happening in the middle of winter,” Weiner said. “For insurance companies, they’re going to have to, if this bill passes, they’re going to have to take a very hard look at seeking compensation from the oil companies.”

Republican State Senator Roger Niello is opposed to the bill.

“It will be an invitation for lawsuits,” Niello said. “This furthers the narrative, the false narrative that this is all about climate change. It is of course much more complicated than that.”

This is Weiner. He is trying to place all of the blame for this on climate change and oil companies.

Keep reading

Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of OxyContin

Members of the family who own OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, and the company itself, agreed to pay up to $7.4 billion in a new settlement to lawsuits over the toll of the powerful prescription painkiller, the attorneys general from several states announced Thursday.

The deal, agreed to by Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family members who own the company and lawyers representing state and local governments and thousands of victims of the opioid crisis, replaces a previous settlement deal that was rejected last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the new one, the Sacklers agreed to pay up to $6.5 billion and give up ownership of the company, which would pay nearly $900 million. The maximum contribution from family members is $500 million more than the previous deal.

It’s among the largest settlements reached over the past several years in a series of lawsuits by local, state, Native American tribal governments and others seeking to hold companies responsible for a deadly epidemic. Aside from the Purdue deal, others worth around $50 billion have been announced — and most of the money is required to be used to stem the crisis.

The deal still needs court approval, and some of the details are yet to be ironed out. An arm of the federal Department of Justice opposed the previous settlement, even after every state agreed, and took the battle to the U.S. Supreme Court. But under President Donald Trump, the federal government is not expected to oppose the new deal.

Keep reading

CNN liable for defaming Navy veteran in Jake Tapper segment, $5 million awarded

On Friday, a Florida jury found CNN guilty of defamation in a case brought forth by US Navy veteran Zachary Young against Jake Tapper and the network. Young alleged that Tapper had defamed him on his show. The verdict came after eight hours of deliberation.

Young was working to evacuate Afghans during the Biden administration’s chaotic military withdrawal from that nation in August 2021. Tapper misrepresented Young and his work and Young stated that he hasn’t been able to work since.

CNN was ordered to pay compensatory damages, with jurors still needing to decide how much the outlet will pay in punitive damages. The damages will be at least $5 million, Law & Crime said. “In sum,” they write, “jurors awarded Young $4 million for lost employment and $1 million for pain and suffering, and said that CNN should also be subject to punitive damages.”

According to the Free Beacon, Young alleged that a segment which aired in November 2021 on The Lead with Jake Tapper singled him out and portrayed him as an “illegal profiteer” who operated in a “black market.” Young, who said the segment irreparably destroyed his business, Nemex Enterprises, and reputation, worked to evacuate Afghans during the Biden-Harris administration’s deadly and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He testified that since the segment ran. he hasn’t worked or made money. 

During closing arguments, CNN attorney David Axelrod claimed that the story was “accurate” and “tough but fair” and that Young should have gone out of his way to convince journalists with the outlet that he wasn’t “shady.”

“Mr. Young put himself in the story, not CNN. He inserted himself into it to make a buck,” Axelrod told the jury. He added, “Use your common sense. Do you see a conspiracy or do you see people just doing their best?”

Devin Freedman, Young’s lead attorney, told jurors, “This is supposed to be the most trusted name in news. CNN is so arrogant, they are so used to getting whatever they want.”

“But they stand up here and they talk down to us with bold-faced lies about what the segment’s gist really is, and they expect you to believe it,” he continued. “I mean, do they think we’re all stupid?”

During opening statements, Freedman said that they were able to confirm that 1.6 million people viewed the broadcast, with high-range estimates hitting 2.7 million. “The correction was seen by 942,000 people. But let’s be honest, the correction didn’t do anything. Doesn’t matter. The man can’t get hired. It doesn’t matter how many people saw it. They issued a correction because they were trying to get out of a lawsuit.”

Keep reading

Kentucky Cops Arrest Man for Shouting at Them

A Kentucky man is suing the police, claiming he was arrested in retaliation for shouting at a group of officers from an apartment balcony. In a complaint filed last month, Brandon Rettig alleges that he was arrested on bogus public intoxication charges after he angered the officers, who violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. 

According to the lawsuit, on June 8, 2024, Brandon Rettig was at his girlfriend’s apartment in Newport, Kentucky, when a team of police officers responded to an unrelated incident outside the building. From the balcony, Rettig shouted at the officers. In a later interview, Rettig claimed to have shouted “go get ’em boys” at the officers. The lawsuit insists that while the officers were angered by the comments, “Rettig did not utter fighting words or threatened to harm anyone.”

The suit claims that soon after Rettig made the comments, Officer Ronald Lalumandier shouted up to him, “Keep it up, I’ll take your ass to jail,” adding “I got keys to your apartment.” Three police officers, including Lalumandier, then entered the apartment building using a key card, which Lalumandier had access to as a former tenant.

According to body camera footage, the three officers confronted Rettig in the hallway of the apartment building and arrested him after a short argument. 

“Are you serious? I live here,” Rettig told the officers.

“Yes, 100 percent. We told you out there, you didn’t listen,” responded one of the officers. “You shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing…doesn’t mean you can act the way you were acting.”

Keep reading

Why Congress Members Face a Lawsuit for Funding Israel’s War on Gaza

On the last day of 2024, the deputy general counsel for the House of Representatives formally accepted delivery of a civil summons for two congressmembers from Northern California. More than 600 constituents of Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson have signed on as plaintiffs in a class action accusing them of helping to arm the Israeli military in violation of “international and federal law that prohibits complicity in genocide.”

Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, it conveys widespread anger and anguish about the ongoing civilian carnage in Gaza that taxpayers have continued to bankroll.

By a wide margin, most Americans favor an arms embargo on Israel while the Gaza war persists. But Huffman and Thompson voted to approve $26.38 billion in military aid for Israel last April, long after the nonstop horrors for civilians in Gaza were evident.

Back in February – two months before passage of the enormous military aid package – both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found that, in the words of the lawsuit, “the Israeli government was systematically starving the people of Gaza through cutting off aid, water, and electricity, by bombing and military occupation, all underwritten by the provision of U.S. military aid and weapons.”

Keep reading

Court Upholds $7.8 Million Verdict For Transit Workers Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

A federal judge in California has rejected an effort by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to overturn a jury verdict that awarded $7.8 million to six former employees who were fired for refusing to comply with the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

In a Dec. 30 order, Judge William A. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California acknowledged minor “imperfections” in the jury trial—including flawed instructions to the jurors—and determined they were not severe enough to invalidate the jury’s October decision requiring BART to pay each of the six former workers between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.

Alsup denied BART’s post-trial motions to overturn the verdict and seek a new trial, saying that the agency failed to demonstrate that accommodating the employees’ religious objections would have posed an undue hardship.

“Simply put, on the instructions given and evidence received, a reasonable jury could have found that BART had not carried its burden of proving its affirmative defense,” Alsup wrote, referring to the fact that, in order to prevail in the case, BART had to prove that granting accommodations such as masking, testing, or remote work in lieu of vaccination would have imposed an undue burden on the agency.

BART’s defense relied heavily on expert testimony to argue that no alternative measures were as effective as vaccination against COVID-19, with the judge noting that the agency claimed it had presented “‘unrebutted’ scientific expert testimony” to that effect. However, Alsup noted that the jury was entitled to weigh the credibility of the experts, particularly given their financial ties to the agency.

“In light of the large sums paid to the experts by BART, our jury was entitled to find that they were ‘bought and paid for,’ were merely parroting the ‘company line,’ and were not credible in light of their bias, common sense, and other evidence,” the judge wrote. “An expert witness is like any other witness, and it is up to the jury to decide how much weight their testimony deserves.”

Keep reading

State Department is Sued for Withholding Records on Censorship Efforts

The Functional Government Initiative (FGI), a government watchdog, has filed a lawsuit against the State Department, seeking critical documents related to its controversial censorship activities. At the heart of the case is the now-disbanded Global Engagement Center (GEC), an agency accused of using taxpayer dollars to suppress free speech and support efforts to blacklist media outlets.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

FGI’s legal action follows months of non-compliance from the State Department regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that aimed to uncover communications about censorship grants issued during the Biden administration.

FGI’s FOIA requests sought records from several State Department divisions, including:

The Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy: The request focused on discussions related to the European Union’s Digital Services Act and communications with the White House. FGI alleges the records would shed light on whether US officials were involved in discussions about EU censorship policies.

The Global Engagement Center: Similar to the first request, this inquiry sought records about the Digital Services Act, involving specific officials and communications with external organizations.

Internal Press Guidance: FGI requested records related to a New York Post article published on September 13, 2024. The article reportedly referenced internal press guidance, and FGI sought to uncover records detailing its preparation, implementation, and related communications involving key officials.

The lawsuit alleges that despite acknowledging receipt of the FOIA requests, the State Department failed to produce any records or claim exemptions. “Defendant has failed to comply with the time limit set forth…” the complaint states, adding that FGI has exhausted all administrative remedies.

The nonprofit argues that the requested documents could provide critical insights into State Department activities, including its approach to EU regulations and responses to media inquiries. “FGI is being irreparably harmed by reason of Defendant’s unlawful withholding of requested records,” the complaint asserts.

Keep reading

Woman housed in cell with trans-identifying male pedophile sues Washington state prisons over sexual assault

A former inmate at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW) filed a lawsuit against the state’s Department of Corrections on Friday, claiming she was subjected to alleged sexual abuse and harassment in 2022 after being housed with a trans-identifying biological male pedophile while incarcerated.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff Mozzy Clark-Sanchez alleged that WCCW staff placed her in a cell with a male inmate who was transferred from a men’s prison after he “claimed to identify as a woman.” That male, the lawsuit contends, is 35-year-old Christopher Williams, a 6’4 convicted pedophile serving a 28.5-year prison sentence for brutally assaulting his former girlfriend, court records show. He was previously convicted of child rape and is alleged to have subjected Clark-Sanchez to repeated harassment and sexual abuse. Clark-Sanchez is a survivor of child rape and previously said she was “raped by my uncle, and my mom used to sell me to pay for drugs.”

Clark-Sanchez alleged that Williams would frequently and graphically describe sexual acts he wanted to do to her and would fondle her as she slept. The plaintiff said in the suit that she would wake up to find Williams’ hands on her genitals, breasts, and legs. On at least one occasion, a prison guard caught Williams in the act and rather than remove him from the cell, ordered Williams back to his bunk. Clark-Sanchez said that on one occassion Williams brought a strap-on dildo into the cell and asked her to use it on him. Williams is also accused of repeatedly leering at female inmates while they showered.

Prison officials ignored her concerns, Clark-Sanchez said, and tried to convince her not to file official complaints. She said that they cautioned her about potential retaliation from Williams, Kiro 7 News reported. The suit claims that DOC officials were cognizant of William’s previous behavior, including sexual misconduct with another female cellmate, but they neglected to take the necessary measures to safeguard Clark-Sanchez.

The lawsuit also alleges that WCCW and DOC policies of housing biologically male prisoners who have known histories of violence and sexual offenses in women’s facilities violate the constitutional rights of female inmates.

Keep reading

Alabama Teen Killed During ‘No-Knock’ Drug Raid Had His Hands Raised, Lawsuit Says

A 16-year-old teenager had his hands raised when he was fatally shot by police during an unauthorized “no-knock” drug raid in Mobile, Alabama, last year, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed by his mother in federal court earlier this month.

The lawsuit against the City of Mobile and several anonymous Mobile police officers says Randall Adjessom came out of his room holding a gun when he heard someone break down the front door of the house where he lived with his mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters. When he realized the intruders were police, he put his hands in the air and stepped back, but a Mobile Police Department (MPD) SWAT officer shot him four times.

“The complaint is replete with revelations from our pre-suit investigation,” civil rights attorneys representing Adjessom’s mother said in a press release accompanying the suit, “perhaps none more repulsive than the fact that MPD body-worn camera (BWC) video of the shooting clearly shows Randall begin to retreat after realizing the intruders into his family home were members of the police force when he was repeatedly shot and killed in cold blood.”

And after he was shot, the suit says, police left Adjessom to bleed out on the floor for four minutes before half-heartedly rendering medical aid.

If true, the lawsuit’s narrative—which purports to be backed by video evidence, internal affairs reviews, and a recent independent audit of the Mobile Police Department—is another tragic example of what happens when the drug war, unregulated SWAT teams, and the Second Amendment right to self-defense mix.

An MPD SWAT team executed a “no-knock” search warrant on November 18, 2023, as part of an investigation into Adjessom’s older adult brother for suspected marijuana sales. However, the lawsuit says Adjessom’s brother did not live at the residence the MPD acquired a search warrant for—only Adjessom, who was a minor, and several women in his family.  

The lawsuit says there were numerous problems with the raid besides the absence of its only articulated target: MPD officers intentionally didn’t evaluate the risk to civilians in its pre-warrant threat assessment or note the presence of civilians in its search warrant affidavit; didn’t obtain authorization for a nighttime raid from a judge, supervisor, or prosecutor; and failed to announce themselves until after they had breached the front door and entered the house. 

All those errors became a force that swept together—like a malevolent current—the MPD SWAT officers and Randall Adjessom, who came out of his bedroom and turned into the hallway holding a gun with a laser sight.

Keep reading