Tag: lawsuits

Reddit must share IP addresses of piracy-discussing users, film studios say

For the third time in less than a year, film studios with copyright infringement complaints against a cable Internet provider are trying to force Reddit to share information about users who have discussed piracy on the site.

In 2023, film companies lost two attempts to have Reddit unmask its users. In the first instance, US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that the First Amendment right to anonymous speech meant Reddit didn’t have to disclose the names, email addresses, and other account registration information for nine Reddit users. Film companies, including Bodyguard Productions and Millennium Media, had subpoenaed Reddit in relation to a copyright infringement lawsuit against Astound Broadband-owned RCN about subscribers allegedly pirating 34 movie titles, including Hellboy (2019), Rambo V: Last Blood, and Tesla.

In the second instance, the same companies sued Astound Broadband-owned ISP Grande, again for alleged copyright infringement occurring over the ISP’s network. The studios subpoenaed Reddit for user account information, including “IP address registration and logs from 1/1/2016 to present, name, email address, and other account registration information” for six Reddit users, per a July 2023 court filing.

In August, a federal court again quashed that subpoena, citing First Amendment rights. In her ruling, Beeler noted that while the First Amendment right to anonymous speech is not absolute, the film producers had already received the names of 118 Grande subscribers. She also said the film producers had failed to prove that “the identifying information is directly or materially relevant or unavailable from another source.”

Keep reading

Inmate who identifies as a trans Muslim woman sues NYC for $22 MILLION after being placed in a men’s detention center while waiting for domestic abuse trial

A transgender woman is suing the City of New York after they were placed in a  men’s detention center while awaiting transfer to another state on domestic violence charges. 

Ali Miles, who also goes by Dylan Miles, was born a biological male but is in ‘the process of transitioning into a woman’, wears women’s clothing and is undergoing hormone therapy. 

Miles, a self-identified Muslim woman, is now seeking more than $22,000,000 in compensation, claiming she was discriminated based on gender identity.

Miles was held at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island from June to July 2022 before being transferred to Yavapai County Jail in Arizona. 

Subsequently, she was convicted of aggravated harassment, disorderly conduct, harassment, threatening or intimidating, and false reporting to a law enforcement agency.

In October of 2022, she was placed on supervised probation for a period of three years and sentenced to 312 days in jail.

The lawsuit, filed on August 24, 2023, states that despite expressing a female gender identity and allegedly having a court order for her to be placed in a female unit, Miles was housed in a male facility at Rikers. 

The filing contends that Miles faced discrimination, assault, and human rights violations during this time despite ‘wearing women’s clothing and in all appearance expresses as a person of the female gender.’

Following her arrest, Miles informed a judge about being transgender and the need for special housing, with the court purportedly agreeing.

However, Miles alleges that after being placed in a male jail, she suffered ‘shock and distress.’ 

‘As Miles approached the inside of the building, Miles realized it was a male jail which caused shock, panic and fright to Miles,’ the suit reads. 

Keep reading

Feds Will Release Marijuana Rescheduling Memo And Related Documents ‘In Their Entirety’ In Response To Lawsuit

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has agreed to release documents related to its recommendation to federally reschedule marijuana “in their entirety” amid litigation over a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that was filed by a lawyer last year.

“Good afternoon and thank you for your patience,” a Department of Justice attorney handling the case said in an email to attorney Matt Zorn on Thursday. “The agency has advised that it will release the letter and its enclosures in their entirety.”

Zorn posted a screenshot of the email on his blog, noting that the release could mean that “rescheduling is imminent—or not.”

When the government announces a marijuana rescheduling through a Federal Register notice, he pointed out, it would “attach the letter and its enclosures” to that posting.

Zorn last month obtained more than 250 pages of the rescheduling advisory letter and supporting documents sent by HHS to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) last year, though the vast majority were released only in highly redacted form.

In a phone interview with Marijuana Moment, Zorn said the new development comes after a “little scuffle” with the federal government over the timeline in his FOIA lawsuit. The Justice Department had filed a motion to vacate a deadline for summary judgement that was set for January 18, and while Zorn said he would typically accept such a request, he instead filed an opposing brief and the judge ultimately denied the government’s motion.

He added that, “realistically, the lawsuit could have accelerated” the timing of the government’s scheduling announcement, though it’s also possible that just the letter will be released without DEA immediately announcing a decision in the ongoing scheduling review.

In October, HHS released a highly redacted version of the one-page letter from the health agency to DEA in response to public records requests by news organizations such as Marijuana Moment and lawyers, including Zorn.

Shane Pennington, a lawyer who co-writes the On Drugs blog with Zorn, applauded his colleague’s work in pushing for the documents to be released.

“Matt has demonstrated once again that litigation is a powerful tool for unlocking doors, solving problems, and doing the ‘impossible,’” he told Marijuana Moment in an email. “I’m proud to work with him on On Drugs and so many other projects.”

Broadly, the documents are believed to discuss new scientific information that’s come to light in recent years, which HHS suggests might necessitate rescheduling marijuana.

Keep reading

Landmark Case Means Americans Can Now Sue Big Pharma for Vaccine Injuries

Up until now, the drug companies have been shielded from liability for all the COVID vaccine injuries and deaths that they have caused. They’re protected by something called the PREP Act, which stands for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness. A judge in a landmark Michigan case, however, has now ruled that the PREP Act does not shield the Big Pharma companies from liability if their medicines are contaminated.

That’s it. The floodgates are finally open. If you were hurt by a COVID shot or if one of your loved ones died from it, you can now sue the Big Pharma companies.

The Michigan case was brought by Dan Nowacki, an elderly man who was hospitalized with COVID. Mr. Nowacki was treated with Remdesivir, which is a COVID treatment drug made by pharmaceutical company Gilead. Remdesivir is a relatively new treatment, so it’s shielded under the PREP Act.

Mr. Nowacki was treated with Remdesivir intravenously. His attorneys just proved in court that at least two of the vials that Mr. Nowacki was administered were contaminated with shards of glass. It caused him to have two catastrophic strokes in the hospital. He’s now permanently bedridden. About 55,000 vials of Remdesivir were recalled in November of 2021 due to glass contamination.

The judge ruled that the pharmaceutical companies’ liability shielding does not protect them in the case of contamination. If the Big Pharma companies are being protected from being sued, then they still have to meet basic safety standards. They can’t just inject their medicines into people if they know that those medicines are contaminated with shards of glass, arsenic, or… just to name one possible contaminant off the top of our head… cancer-causing monkey viruses.

Keep reading

Teacher’s Union Sues to Stop New York Congestion Pricing Plan

When the New York Legislature first approved a plan to toll drivers entering congested lower Manhattan in 2019, interest groups scrambled to get their own special exemptions to the forthcoming tolls.

Now, with all the exemptions handed out, the toll schedules set, and final implementation just around the corner, everyone who didn’t get their requested carve-out is suing to halt the whole congestion pricing scheme.

On Thursday, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), which represents teachers in New York City’s public school system, along with Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella and individual teachers filed a federal lawsuit accusing federal and New York transportation officials of failing to conduct an adequate environmental review of its congestion pricing program. Their lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

“Federal, state and city transportation authorities conducted a rushed and hurried approval process for the congestion pricing plan,” said the union on X (formerly Twitter). “The current plan would not eliminate air and noise pollution or traffic, but would simply shift that pollution and traffic to the surrounding areas.”

The teachers’ lawsuit follows New Jersey’s earlier environmental lawsuit challenging congestion pricing filed last summer. Both argue that federal highway officials greenlit New York’s tolling program without conducting a thorough enough environmental analysis, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA requires that federal officials study the environmental effects of decisions they make—whether those are big decisions (like funding a new highway) or small ones (like approving a new vape device).

In New York’s case, federal sign-off of congestion pricing was required before the state could impose tolls on federally funded highways entering Manhattan.

Because NEPA allows third parties to sue over allegedly inadequate environmental studies, it’s become a favorite tool of environmentalists, slow growth activists, and garden variety NIMBY (not in my backyard) trying to stop or delay infrastructure projects.

To head off these legal challenges, federal agencies and their state partners will produce voluminous “litigation-proof” documents that attempt to leave no impact unexamined.

Keep reading

Bill Clinton to be unmasked as ‘Doe 36’ and identified more than 50 times in Jeffrey Epstein doc dump

Former President Bill Clinton will be identified as “John Doe 36” in a trove of court documents related to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein which are expected to be released this week, according to a report.

Clinton, 77, is mentioned more than 50 times across redacted documents related to a 2015 lawsuit from Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, according to ABC News.

Many of the references to Clinton are believed to stem from Giuffre’s attempts to compel the former president to testify against the late sex offender and his former paramour and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Other Clinton mentions are expected to be related to attempts from both Maxwell and Giuffre to make Epstein come clean in 2016 after he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights during a deposition in that lawsuit.

The documents are not expected to implicate Clinton in any illegal activity, ABC reported.

The names of more than 170 people — known only as John and Jane Does previously — with ties to Epstein are expected to be revealed in the documents after Manhattan federal Judge Loretta Preska ruled just before Christmas they would be unsealed in the new year.

Because of the New Year’s Day holiday, the documents are expected to be released beginning on Jan. 2.

Keep reading

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Mississippi’s Ban On Marijuana Advertising, Citing Free-Speech Rights

Mississippi’s medical cannabis advertising ban is preventing a small dispensary from attracting customers, Tru Source owner Clarence Cocroft is arguing in a federal lawsuit that casts the law as a violation of his free-speech rights.

Though medical marijuana is now legal for Mississippians with qualifying conditions and a medical cannabis card, state law prohibits dispensary owners and cultivators from advertising cannabis products.

“It’s a daunting task to stay in the industry when you can’t advertise,” Cocroft told the Mississippi Free Press on December 8. “And it’s legal. If they allow you to get licensed, they should allow you to promote your business.”

Cocroft owns Tru Source, the state’s first Black-owned medical cannabis dispensary, located in the southeast industrial zoning area of Olive Branch, Mississippi. Cocroft and his dispensary filed a lawsuit on November 14 against the officials in charge of the regulations at the Mississippi State Department of Health, the Mississippi Department of Revenue and the Mississippi Alcohol Beverage Control Bureau.

To open a medical cannabis shop in the state, a person must apply for a dispensary license, register for a sales tax permit and pay thousands of dollars in fees. A person must have a medical cannabis card and be over the age of 21 to enter a dispensary.

“The fight was, ‘OK, we’re paying you all a lot of taxes. We’re abiding by all your rules that you have set forth. All we’re asking is simple: Allow us to advertise. It’s going to increase your tax rate as a state,’” Cocroft said.

Tru Source relies on its website, word of mouth and signs posted on the building for advertising. But Cocroft cannot advertise his dispensary or its website in any other advertising medium. The owner said many customers would not have known about the store if they had not driven by the area.

“It’s not just me in my location that cannot advertise,” he said. “It’s every location in Olive Branch; it’s every dispensary in DeSoto County and all 82 counties,” Cocroft said.

Keep reading

Tennessee police took part in multiyear sex trafficking conspiracy to shield a serial rapist — whose victims included children — in exchange for ‘hundreds of thousands’ in cash, lawsuit claims

Multiple Tennessee police officers took large sums of money from an accused rapist — whose victims included children — in order to protect him from criminal prosecution, a lawsuit filed in federal court alleges.

The shocking allegations are the latest wrinkle in the often dramatic, yearslong, multi-chapter effort to bring Sean Williams, 52, to justice.

Women in Johnson City had complained to law enforcement about the wealthy man’s allegedly predatory behavior since at least November 2019, according to the 85-page filing obtained by Law&Crime.

The defendant was ultimately arrested in April on wholly unrelated drug charges. In September, he was indicted on myriad state and federal child sex offenses. The apparently slow pace of those concomitant investigations was due, at least in part, by a local law enforcement conspiracy of cash and silence, the lawsuit claims.

“For years, Sean Williams drugged and raped women and sexually exploited children in Johnson City, Tennessee, and for years, officers of the Johnson City Police Department (‘JCPD’) let him get away with it,” the second amended complaint begins.

Filed by nine unnamed Does in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the lawsuit alleges that “at least eight” reports about Williams drugging and raping women in his downtown apartment were swept under the rug by numerous police officers, who, instead, treated the business owner and sports car collector like he was “untouchable.”

”In exchange for turning a blind eye, JCPD officers took hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash from Williams, all while refusing to take meaningful steps to protect women and children in Johnson City and to stop his known sexually predatory behavior,” the filing continues. “JCPD was not only turning a blind eye to Williams’ crimes, but also engaging in a pattern and practice of discriminatory conduct towards women who reported rape and sexual assault by Williams.”

The lawsuit claims that Johnson City police, at the highest level, were knowing participants in a sex trafficking operation.

Keep reading

Video Shows Vermont State Trooper Arrest Man for Flipping Him Off

Newly released video footage shows a Vermont state trooper arresting a man on disorderly conduct charges for the First Amendment–protected activity of flipping him off.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment advocacy group, released dashcam footage today showing the 2018 arrest of Gregory Bombard, who is pursuing a lawsuit alleging his free speech rights were violated by the arrest.

Bombard was driving through his hometown of St. Albans, Vermont, on February 9, 2018, when he was pulled over by Vermont State Trooper Jay Riggen. 

Riggen accused Bombard of giving him the finger. Bombard denied it, but he was incensed about being pulled over for such a trivial matter. “That would be considered freedom of expression, so I’m going to file a complaint against you,” Bombard said.

“And you’re more than welcome to,” Riggen responded. “So here’s the issue: Although it may be freedom of expression, it’s so unusual that it requires intervention to make sure you don’t need help of some kind.”

As Bombard’s lawsuit explains, Riggen’s reasoning was legally deficient. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers Vermont, held in 2013 that the middle finger’s “nearly universal recognition” as an insult made it unreasonable for an officer to interpret it as a distress signal.

Bombard tried to continue the conversation, but Riggen concluded the traffic stop and walked back to his car. Bombard was not content, however. As Bombard pulled away, he actually did flip Riggen off.

“It looks like as he pulled away he called me an asshole and said, ‘Fuck you,'” Riggen relayed into his radio. “Flipped the bird. I’m going to arrest him for disorderly conduct. There were multiple people around there.”

Keep reading

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s husband quit the U.S. military over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Now the couple are suing the government for lost salary and out-of-pocket medical costs

In September 2021, an Air Force technical sergeant named Andrew Gamberzky requested a religious exemption, due to his Christian beliefs, from the military’s then-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

In his written request to the Oregon Air Force National Guard, Gamberzky decried the lack of “long-term research on the impacts and effects to human health and behavior” of the COVID-19 vaccine. (Decades of vaccine history and data from more than 1 billion people who have received COVID-19 vaccines suggests limited danger from the vaccines themselves although new research on the impacts of those with Long COVID have shown its at-times devastating health impacts.) He objected to the use of any “fetal material” in its research, development and the vaccines themselves. (While historic fetal cells from the 1970s and 80s were used in the production and development of COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccines themselves don’t contain fetal cells.) He also noted that, having been injured while on duty in Afghanistan and having been previously infected with the virus, he had antibodies to the virus and would be able to “continue to serve my country well.”

Gamberzky — who, at the time, was married to Anna Paulina Luna, a self-described Republican media personality who would go on to win a congressional race in 2022 to represent Florida’s 13th district, outside Tampa — quoted three verses of Scripture and ended the letter with the name and phone number of his pastor at his family’s church in Largo, Florida.

Gamberzky ultimately resigned although it is unclear if the military formally ruled on his request. In his complaint, Gamberzky was told “by members of his squadron not to bother” pursuing the request “as they were all getting denied.” He was one of roughly 17,000 service members who refused the vaccine. More than 2 million other service members, and nearly 350,000 Defense Department civilian employees, were vaccinated.

Now, Gamberzky and Luna, a member of the House Freedom Caucus and an ardent Trump supporter, are suing the Department of Defense, the Air Force, the National Guard and the Oregon Military Department in federal court, claiming the vaccine mandate violated both their constitutional First Amendment rights and religious freedoms. They are seeking damages for Gamberzky’s lost salary, medical expenses, retirement benefits and bonus pay, along with attorneys’ fees.

The complaint, filed in late November and amended this week, also cited Luna’s “then ongoing medical treatments” and the loss of healthcare coverage to them. It’s unclear from the complaint what specific medical treatments Luna paid for, and exactly how much, but the suit alleges “thousands of dollars” in out-of-pocket medical bills. She gave birth to her first child this August.

Keep reading