Tag: lawsuits

Sarah Silverman’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI Is Full of Nonsense Claims

Is it a crime to learn something by reading a copyrighted book? What if you later summarize that book to a friend or write a description of it online? Of course, these things are perfectly legal when a person does them. But does that change when it’s an artificial intelligence system doing the reading, learning, and summarizing?

Sarah Silverman, comedian and author of the book The Bedwetter, seems to think it does. She and several other authors are suing OpenAI, the tech company behind the popular AI chatbot ChatGPT, through which users submit text prompts and receive back AI-generated answers.

Last week, a federal judge largely rejected their claims.

The ruling is certainly good news for OpenAI and for ChatGPT users. It’s also good news for the future of AI technology more broadly. AI tools could be completely hamstrung by the expansive vision of copyright law that Silverman and the other authors in this case envision.

Keep reading

Alabama Medical Marijuana Access Could Take Months, Even After Licensing Lawsuits End

Antoine Mordican has a medical cannabis cultivation license. And he is building out a facility to begin growing the product.

Under state law, he has to demonstrate he can maintain cultivation facilities; use an inventory control system approved by the state; can start cannabis cultivation within 60 days; can dispose of plant waste according to regulations; and can maintain financial stability.

“I’m building—getting everything in place, getting the necessary parameters and everything in place to be in compliance, such as security,” said Mordican, the CEO of Native Black Cultivation.

But when he will see actual marijuana plants grow depends on what approach he takes.

If he grows from seed, which Mordican plans to start out with, it would take about six to eight months before he can get the first harvest.

If growing from a clone, or a cutting from a growing plant, it would be closer to four to six months. Mordican said he might look at that approach, but added that he’s not in a rush.

“Everybody’s got their own techniques,” he said. “My goal is to be within compliance with the revenue rules and regulations.”

Keep reading

Week 2 of the #FluorideLawsuit: EPA Rests Their Case, Admits Harm Related to Fluoride Exposure

On Tuesday morning, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finished presenting their expert witnesses, and rested their case in the second phase of the long-delayed fluoride lawsuit. Judge Edward Chen ordered the EPA and the plaintiffs, led by Fluoride Action Network (FAN) attorney Michael Connett, to reconvene via Zoom on February 20th at 9:30 am for closing statements and questions from the judge.

The lawsuit was filed by FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation, and individual plaintiffs who are seeking to prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and should be banned. The lawsuit originally began after the EPA’s 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff’s petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The final 3 days of the proceedings centered around the EPA’s expert witnesses, Dr. David Savitz and Dr. Stanley Barone. A third EPA witness, Dr. Jesus Ibarluzea, was testifying in the form of a prerecorded video. Judge Chen decided he would view this video privately after the court adjourned.

The closing days of the trial featured several revealing moments, including Judge Chen and the EPA’s witnesses acknowledging that fluoride can cause neurodevelopmental issues, and Dr. Barone struggling to answer a question regarding pregnant mothers and fluoride exposure.

Much of the discussion focused on the EPA’s argument that while there is clearly an association between fluoride exposure and lower IQ, it is only at levels above 2 milligrams per liter of fluoridated water, not at, or near, the 0.7 milligram per liter recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

At one point Judge Chen asked Dr. Savitz if he agreed with the conclusion that there is evidence of harm from fluoride around 1.5 milligrams per liter of fluoridated water. Savitz said he would place emphasis on the 1 to 2 milligram per liter, and called for more studies in that range.

Keep reading

Newsom Sued Over Transgender Policy, Teachers Claim They Are Forced To Lie To Parents

Teachers are suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta in federal court over policies they say force them to conceal the transgender status of young students from parents.

The lawsuit comes after the governor signed several laws in September 2023 that expanded California’s protections for LGBT individuals.

One law establishes timelines for required so-called cultural competency training for public school teachers and staff. Another law creates an advisory body to determine the needs of LGBT students. A further law requires families to demonstrate willingness to meet the needs of a child in foster care, regardless of the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There is also a law requiring elementary and secondary schools to have gender-neutral bathrooms for students.

“California is proud to have some of the most robust laws in the nation when it comes to protecting and supporting our LGBTQ+ community, and we’re committed to the ongoing work to create safer, more inclusive spaces for all Californians,” Mr. Newsom said at the time.

“These measures will help protect vulnerable youth, promote acceptance, and create more supportive environments in our schools and communities.”

At the same time, the governor vetoed legislation that would have compelled judges making custody and visitation orders to consider whether a parent accepts a child’s professed gender identity.

In the lawsuit, San Diego-area teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who are devout Christians, filed suit to object to policies they say mandate dishonesty.

The legal complaint in the case, Mirabelli v. Olson, was originally filed in April 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Escondido Union School District (EUSD), in San Diego County, and officials with the California State Board of Education.

The lawsuit was prompted by the K–8 school district’s recent policies affecting transgender students.

Keep reading

Epstein Victims File Lawsuit Against the US Government, Claim FBI Enabled His Sex Trafficking

A dozen victims of dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein have filed a lawsuit against the US government, alleging that the FBI enabled his sex trafficking operation to continue for over two decades.

The victims, whose names are not public, allege the FBI had received tips about Epstein’s behavior as far back as 1996 but did nothing with the information.

The Hill reports, “A probe finally began in 2006, the suit says, but ended once Epstein pleaded guilty to a soliciting prostitution charge in Florida and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The suit claims the FBI continued to ignore tips until Epstein was arrested on sex trafficking charges in 2019. He killed himself in prison months later.”

“As a direct and proximate cause of the FBI’s negligence, plaintiffs would not have been continued to be sex trafficked, abused, raped, tortured and threatened,” the complaint states, according to the report. “Jane Does 1-12 bring this lawsuit to get to the bottom — once and for all — of the FBI’s role in Epstein’s criminal sex trafficking ring.”

The lawsuit additionally claims the FBI had evidence of his continued crimes but refused to investigate further.

“During the FBI investigation, the FBI was complicit in permitting Epstein and co-conspirators to continue to victimize Jane Does 1-12 and other young women,” the lawsuit alleges. “The FBI had photographs, videos and interviews and hard evidence of child prostitution and failed to timely investigate and arrest Epstein in deviation from the FBI protocols.”

“The FBI had a non-discretionary obligation, governed by established policies, procedures, rules, and protocols, to handle and investigate tips concerning potential and ongoing underage child erotica, rape, sex with minors, and sex trafficking in a reasonable manner and to act against Epstein and to prevent him from committing repeated crimes,” the complaint continued.

Keep reading

In Lawsuit Against Spying On Assange Visitors, CIA Will Invoke ‘State Secrets Privilege’

The CIA plans to invoke the “state secrets privilege” to block a lawsuit against the agency for allegedly spying on Americans, who visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while he was living under political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy.

In December, United States Judge John Koeltl dismissed multiple claims brought by four American attorneys and journalists against the CIA. But Koeltl also determined that the Americans had grounds to sue the CIA for violating their “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Americans alleged that the CIA and CIA Director Mike Pompeo directed UC Global, a Spanish security company, to carry out a spying operation against Assange. The security company copied the contents of their electronic devices and provided the data to the CIA.

On February 8, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean-David Barnea notified the court [PDF] that the CIA would assert the state secrets privilege.

“After the court’s recent decision on the government’s motion to dismiss, the sole remaining claim in this case is the plaintiff’s allegation that, at the CIA’s request, the Spanish defendants illegally downloaded the contents of the plaintiffs’ electronic devices when they visited Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and transmitted these materials to the CIA.”

The government continued, “Any factual inquiry into these allegations—whether they are true or not—would implicate classified information, as it would require the CIA to reveal what intelligence-gathering activities it did or did not engage in, among other things.”

“Because the CIA cannot publicly reveal the very facts over which it is seeking authorization to assert the state secrets privilege,” the government indicated that it would not respond to the Americans’ discovery requests or any allegations in the complaint. 

Keep reading

Maui Fire Victims’ Families Offered Up to $1.5 million in Compensation if They Don’t Sue State Agencies

Over 6 months ago, a devastating wildfire swept through the Maui island town of Lahaina in Hawaii and incinerated much of the surrounding region.

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that a state water official delayed the release of water that landowners wanted to help protect their property from fires because water is to be revered and not used. Additionally, Hawaiian green energy mandates may have led Hawaiian Electric to divert fiscal resources away from fire-prevention practices.

There was also a delayed evacuation order.

A detailed timeline of events describes a series of calls to emergency dispatchers, reporting a fast-spreading fire at 2:55 p.m. Officers soon began evacuating neighboring areas, the report said.

But it does not explore the county’s delay before issuing a broader evacuation alert. The county made a decision not to use its all-hazards siren system and waited until 4:16 p.m. to send a cellphone evacuation alert. That alert was targeted at residential neighborhoods above the Honoapiʻilani Highway.

Fire had already consumed much of the area targeted for evacuation. At the exact time the evacuation alerts were going out, the new timeline shows, officers were reporting that the fire had spread all the way down to the highway and was jumping the road — toward waterfront areas that never received an evacuation alert.

Now, the relatives of fire victims could receive over $1 million in compensation…as long as they choose not to sue state agencies and companies involved.

Keep reading

Everything You Need To Know About Week 1 Of The 2nd Phase Of The #FluorideLawsuit

On January 31st, the second phase of the fluoride lawsuit resumed in San Francisco, California after nearly four years of delays. The proceedings are the latest in an eight-year legal battle between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The lawsuit began following the EPA’s 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff’s petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The FAN is attempting to prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and should be regulated or banned under the TSCA.

The hearings are scheduled for 9 days from January 31st to February 13th. The Last American Vagabond (TLAV) has been in the courtroom daily to report on the proceedings and interview the various witnesses testifying for the plaintiffs and the defense.

The Plaintiff’s Opening Statement

During his opening statements, Fluoride Action Network lead attorney Michael Connett discussed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standards for hazard assessment.

“The observed hazard is the first type of risk,” Connett stated. “But the challenge of risk assessment is this type of risk is rare. When EPA decided to ban lead we didn’t have observed risk in this area, despite there being harms.”

Connett also stated that it is an “undisputed fact that fluoride passes into the placenta (during pregnancy) and into the fetal brain”, noting that the blood-brain barrier is still developing and this period is considered to be a “critical window of development”.

Connett told the court the EPA will present research which did not conclude fluoride is a neurotoxin. However, Connett stated, the researchers behind the studies are “long time promoters of water fluoridation”. Connett zeroed in on one study in particular which will factor into the final days of the hearing, a study led by Dr. Jesus Ibarluzea titled Prenatal exposure to fluoride and neuropsychological development in early childhood.

This study found that fluoride actually increased IQ for boys by 15 points. Connett said these were “implausible findings” and hinted at the reasons the plaintiffs believe the study is not credible.

Keep reading

Middle schooler kicked out of school for wearing t-shirt saying ‘There are only two genders’ has his day in court: Lawyer blasts school that ‘teaches there are unlimited genders’ for ‘censoring’ youngster

A Massachusetts student who was allegedly kicked out of his school for wearing a t-shirt with words stating that there are only two genders has appeared in court over the ordeal.

Liam Morrison, who is now in the eighth grade, claimed his father had to pick him up from John T. Nichols Jr. Middle School, in March when he refused to change.

His parents filed a federal free speech lawsuit against the town of Middleborough, the previous acting school principal Heather Tucker, the Middleborough School Committee and Middleborough Public Schools superintendent Carolyn J. Lyons.

Morrison appeared at the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston on Thursday wearing the same controversial ‘there are only two genders’ t-shirt.

He claims that by forcing him to change out of the shirt, the school district was stifling his First Amendment right to free speech and said officials ‘took away my ability to have a different opinion’.

Keep reading

‘Deliberately indifferent’: Jailers ridiculed woman wrongly arrested for DUI after suffering massive brain hemorrhage in crash, lawsuit says

A Washington state woman alleges in a lawsuit she was arrested for a DUI when she was suffering from a medical emergency after a car crash and the nightmare she endured to get immediate treatment led to a lifelong severe traumatic brain injury.

Nicole McClure, 38, alleges in a lawsuit that authorities ridiculed her for being drunk and offered her “another shot” at the Thurston County Jail on March 21, 2022, and only took her to the hospital the next morning after finding her unresponsive in a puddle of urine on the jailhouse floor.

“Dubin Law Group takes Nicole’s injuries and experiences very seriously,” said her attorney, Anne Vankirk, in a statement to Law&Crime. “She is fortunate to still be alive today, but she will never be the same person she was that night. Justice for Nicole is at the forefront of our considerations.”

The lawsuit, alleging negligence, breach of duties, and vicarious liability, names as defendants Thurston County, the jail and Washington State Patrol (WSP). Chris Loftis, a WSP spokesperson, said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation. The trooper involved was not disciplined, he said.

The complaint obtained by Law&Crime lays out the allegations that started that March night, when McClure was in a collision as a result of a medical emergency while driving home from work.

Before the crash, a trooper noticed her vehicle was traveling “at a noticeably slow rate of speed.” He approached with lights and sirens, but McClure’s vehicle continued to travel slowly west.

The trooper deactivated his lights and sirens and called for backup. Then McClure’s vehicle collided with the center of a roundabout at a traffic circle in Olympia. The impact disabled her vehicle.

She was arrested at gunpoint and handcuffed and was not given a Breathalyzer or roadside sobriety test, court documents said. Troopers saw that her eyes were bloodshot, and her speech was repetitive and slurred. Her eyelids were tremoring.

“Troopers observed that plaintiff’s behavior was erratic and she had difficulty following very simple instructions,” the complaint said.

She was taken to a hospital, where her blood was drawn, but a trooper made no mention of the crash to medical staff, the lawsuit alleges.

After the hospital visit, McClure was booked into the Thurston County Jail on charges of DUI and felony eluding, court documents said.

Over the next 24 hours, “jail staff made fun of plaintiff and ridiculed her for being a drunk,” court documents said.

“Jail staff offered plaintiff ‘another shot’ but did not get her the basic medical care she desperately needed, or even attempt to complete the booking process,” the documents added.

She was found the next morning unresponsive in a pool of her urine. She couldn’t stand and began vomiting profusely. She was taken to a hospital emergency department a few hours later.

Medical staff quickly took her into surgery. She had part of her skull removed to try to relieve pressure and to save her remaining brain function. She was hospitalized for 17 days.

Court documents said the delay in treatment resulted in sunken brain syndrome, a cranioplasty, and a lifetime of decreased capacity.

She continues to suffer from hemorrhage symptoms and a significant brain injury. She can’t work and will never be the same again, her lawyer said.

Keep reading