Tag: lawsuits

US Jury Awards $42 Million To 3 Iraqi Men Tortured At Abu Ghraib By Defense Contractor

The released photos documenting torture of prisoners at the United States government’s Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the Iraq War disgusted many people who could look beyond the war propaganda to feel sympathy for their fellow human beings.

Even if it was assumed that all the people pictured in the midst of their torture were themselves guilty of heinous crimes — an assumption that lacked foundation, the torture was a breach of civilized behavior.

Two decades later, some accountability has been meted out by a jury in Alexandria, Virginia.

The jury decided Tuesday that the military contractor CACI Premier Technology Inc. is liable to pay a total of 42 million dollars in damages to Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Zuba’e — three former detainees at Abu Ghraib in the 2003 through 2004 time period who had brought a lawsuit against the company whose employees worked as interrogators at the prison.

Keep reading

Record labels unhappy with court win, say ISP should pay more for user piracy

The big three record labels notched another court victory against a broadband provider last month, but the music publishing firms aren’t happy that an appeals court only awarded per-album damages instead of damages for each song.

Universal, Warner, and Sony are seeking an en banc rehearing of the copyright infringement case, claiming that Internet service provider Grande Communications should have to pay per-song damages over its failure to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. The decision to make Grande pay for each album instead of each song “threatens copyright owners’ ability to obtain fair damages,” said the record labels’ petition filed last week.

The case is in the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled last month that Grande, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband, violated the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat infringers. Subscribers were flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads monitored by Rightscorp, a copyright-enforcement company used by the music labels.

The one good part of the ruling for Grande is that the 5th Circuit ordered a new trial on damages because it said a $46.8 million award was too high. Appeals court judges found that the district court “erred in granting JMOL [judgment as a matter of law] that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages.” The damages were $33,333 per song.

Record labels want the per-album portion of the ruling reversed while leaving the rest of it intact.

Keep reading

Missouri v. Biden UPDATE: Judge Orders ‘Jurisdictional Discovery’ to Settle Govt’s Bad Faith Arguments

Experts have said that the Missouri v. Biden case is “the most important free speech case in a generation.”

The case involves the federal government wholesale deleting and deplatforming millions of Americans from social media based entirely on their truthful political statements.

Just this past week, the trial court has issued a new order in the case, after an appeal to the Supreme Court was successful for the Biden administration, which sought to undo a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the censorship regime.

Now, the trial court is ordering the two sides to conduct “jurisdictional discovery” so that it can prove one issue critical to the case moving forward: whether the Plaintiffs on the side of free speech have enough legal ‘standing’ to move forward. What this means is that the parties are now going to fight about whether the specific Plaintiffs in the case can prove that they were specifically harmed.

You can read the court order here.

Whereas previously the parties could show the massive censorship regime and show that they were deplatformed, now the parties must show the connection and demonstrate that the specific Biden speech suppression complex deplatformed these specific Plaintiffs.

Thus the court is allowing both parties to issue ‘discovery’ to primarily third parties right now, meaning demand evidence, documents, and depositions from people, organizations, and companies, in order to build the record of evidence both parties need to make their arguments.

The claims in the case cannot rest on mere speculation, the parties need to be able to get tangible evidence to back up their claims. Lawyers involved in the case say the critical issue at this juncture is: proving that the federal government targeted a specific Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s speech was harmed as a result.

Keep reading

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden-Harris DOJ to Block Destruction of Jack Smith’s Records Exposing Lawfare Against President Trump

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Paxton’s legal action seeks to secure a preservation order that would block any potential destruction of records from Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit highlights a pattern of record destruction by past special counsels and raises concerns about accountability in a “weaponized” justice system under the Biden-Harris regime.

Paxton initiated the lawsuit following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request he filed, seeking access to documents and communications related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.

“Past Special Counsels, including—notoriously—Robert Mueller, destroyed records at the end of their investigations to avoid accountability. It is not clear why nobody was prosecuted for doing so. This request is part of my Office’s efforts to ensure that Americans are not cheated out of accountability or information again. This pattern of weaponizing the justice system for partisan retribution must end,” Ken Paxton said.

The letter reads in part:

“The State of Texas is requesting a waiver of all fees, and meets the criteria per Justice Department policy. This information request is in the public interest, as it will provide critical information for the public understanding of the Office of Special Counsel’s activities.

This request does not serve the commercial interest of the Attorney General’s office. This request is made in the State of Texas’s sovereign capacity. And this FOIA request seeks information that is important for the American people.

FOIA serves as “a means for citizens to know what their Government is up to.” And it provides “a structural necessity in a real democracy.” The Texas Attorney General’s Office frequently updates constituents on important, newsworthy information.

The Office issues press releases, and posts news on its website that is frequently reported on by the press. The information from this FOIA request will significantly contribute to the public’s understanding of the Special Counsel’s investigation, particularly when the subject of that investigation has been elected as the 47th President of the United States.”

Smith, appointed by Garland in November 2022, was tasked with investigating Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 presidential bid.

Jack Smith spent over $50 million of taxpayer money to hunt down Trump for non-crimes.

Since then, Smith’s investigation has led to a series of high-profile indictments against Trump.

Keep reading

Woman Fired For Refusing COVID Vaccine Wins Record $12 Million From Rogue Employer

A woman fired for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine has won a record $12 million settlement from her employer.

Lisa Domski, who worked at the insurance company Blue Cross Blue as an IT specialist for over three decades, was fired from her position for refusing to take the jab, which has since been proven to have been neither safe nor effective.

After suing the company for religious discirmination against her Catholic faith, Domski was awarded significant damages by a federal jury in Detroit, according to the Associated Press.

The ruling included $10 million in punitive damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, as well as $1.7 million in lost wages and $1 million in noneconomic damages.

Her lawyer, Jon Marko, pointed out that during the so-called pandemic, Domski always worked remotely. Even before the virus broke out, the vast majority of her work was carried out remotely.

“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion. Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience,” Marko said in a statement after the verdict was confirmed.

“Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known,” he continued.

Keep reading

Counsellor wins £70,000 after ‘trans heresy hunt’ at rape charity

A trauma specialist has been awarded almost £70,000 and won a public apology from the rape crisis charity who forced her out of her job in a row over women-only spaces.

The payment to Roz Adams was twice the anticipated figure and came after a tribunal found she was the victim of a “heresy hunt” at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC), where her “sex realist” beliefs were at odds with those of Mridul Wadhwa, the trans activist who was the centre’s chief executive.

Adams suffered harassment after she stood up for a female victim who wanted assurances she would receive counselling from a woman, with Wadhwa identified as the “invisible hand” behind the counsellor’s persecution.

For 16 months under Wadhwa, who identifies as a trans woman but has no gender recognition certificate, the ERCC had no women-only spaces. Referrals to the centre have been paused while its safeguarding procedures are revamped.

In his remedy ruling, Ian McFatridge, the judge, ordered the centre to publish a statement and to refer survivors of sexual assault to Beira’s Place, the women’s refuge established by the author JK Rowling as an alternative source of support for female victims of sexual violence.

The ERCC has been ordered to apologise publicly to Adams for alleging that she was transphobic and acknowledge that there was no evidence to support the allegation and that its disciplinary action against her was wrong.

The centre is also required to acknowledge Adams “was motivated by a wish to act in the best interests of service users when she questioned how to respond to the service user” and that nothing the counsellor did constituted bullying or harassment.

Keep reading

RNC poll watchers allowed into Georgia county buildings, lawsuit still pending

Republican National Committee poll watchers have now been allowed into the buildings in Georgia counties necessary to observe the election process, according to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley. 

“Following our pressure campaign, our poll watchers have now been let into the building in all four Georgia counties,” Whatley wrote on the social media platform, X on Saturday. “Our lawsuit over the offices remaining open is still pending, but we have eyes in the room as votes are being counted. We will continue our aggressive efforts to enforce Georgia law and protect the vote.”

Whatley announced earlier that the election integrity wing of the RNC had filed a lawsuit against counties in Georgia. 

“Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett counties decided at the last minute to accept ballots over the weekend — which disregards the law,” Whatley wrote on the social media platform, X.

“They have also failed to let our poll observers in to watch the process,” he added. “The Secretary of State has issued guidance to allow Republican poll watchers in but local officials REFUSE. Our election integrity operation has filed a lawsuit.”

Keep reading

‘Transgender’ Biological Man Sues Hooters for Refusing to Hire Him After He Was Banned from Restaurant

A “transgender” biological man who identifies as a woman has filed a lawsuit against Hooters for refusing to hire him — after he was already banned from the restaurant for sexually harassing waitresses.

The allegations in the lawsuit have caused leftist protesters to target the restaurant in Colonie, New York, twice.

“I’m suing Hooters for sex-based discrimination, on the basis of accommodation and on the basis of employment,” said Brandy Livingston, according to a report from News 10. “They would use male pronouns. They would refer to me as ‘he.’”

Livingston claims that the staff was also upset about his use of the women’s restroom.

“I overheard one of the servers after I left the restroom talking to one of the managers and said that, ‘Why are you allowing him in the women’s restroom?’ And the manager said, ‘Oh, I don’t like it any more than you do’,” he told News 10.

Despite repeated clashes with the staff, Livingston applied to work at the Hooters location three times.

“I said, do you want to see my experience or anything? Because I had previous jobs I had written down. And he said, “Oh, we don’t care about experience. We hire on the basis of personality. And there’s an image that needs to be met,” Livingston said.

Keep reading

Unmasking a Social Media Crackdown: NCLA Seeks Full Discovery on Government Censorship Tactics

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is pushing forward in Missouri v. Biden, aiming to uncover the depth of government-led censorship on social media. This legal action follows a June Supreme Court ruling that vacated a preliminary injunction in the case, previously known as Murthy v. Missouri, which barred officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and the Surgeon General’s office from pressuring social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

NCLA’s clients, including prominent figures such as Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, as well as free speech advocate Jill Hines, allege that they were systematically blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and even suspended across major social media platforms due to their viewpoints on Covid-19, public health, and government policies. NCLA claims this censorship campaign was orchestrated as part of a “whole-of-government” initiative that saw coordinated efforts across a dozen federal agencies, with direction from top White House officials.

We obtained a copy of this new filing for you here.

While the Supreme Court ruled that NCLA’s clients lacked the standing needed to sustain the preliminary injunction, the organization argues that this ruling does not spell an end to the lawsuit. According to NCLA, the standard for standing at the injunction stage is higher than what’s required to advance a case through its initial pleadings. The Alliance is seeking further discovery to show that government actions indeed stifled speech and violated the First Amendment—an assertion that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch echoed in their partial dissent, in which they warned that the government’s actions raised “serious First Amendment concerns.”

Keep reading

Roman Polanski won’t face LA trial for ‘raping underage girl in 1973

Director Roman Polanski will no longer face trial in the US over the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl more than 40 years ago.

The case against Polanski, 91, was due to proceed in civil court in Los Angeles next August, but has now been settled. 

The French-Polish director fled the United States decades ago after admitting to the statutory rape of another 13-year-old.

The latest case was ‘settled in the summer to the parties’ mutual satisfaction and has now been formally dismissed,’ Polanski’s attorney Alexander Rufus-Isaacs said.

The suit, filed last year, claimed Polanski took a then-teenager to dinner at a restaurant in Los Angeles in 1973.

He allegedly gave her tequila, and when she began to feel dizzy, drove her to his home, where he forced himself on her.

‘She told him: “Please don’t do this”,’ the plaintiff’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, told reporters in March.

‘She alleges that he ignored her pleas. She also alleges that defendant Polanski removed plaintiff’s clothes and he proceeded to sexually assault her, causing her tremendous physical, emotional pain and suffering.’

The plaintiff, known as Jane Doe, appeared with Allred at a news conference in 2017 in which she said she had been 16 at the time of the alleged assault.

She said she had spoken about what happened to one friend the day after but had not told anyone about it ever since. 

The civil suit, which sought unspecified damages, was filed in June 2023, just before the expiration of a California law that allowed for an extended window for claims against the alleged perpetrators of sexual crimes.

Court papers filed in California in July said a ‘conditional’ accord had been reached.

Keep reading