General Law and Lawsuits

[sugar magnolia]

Well hell, the judge got in a pissing match with the other attorney (Adams) after he found Steel in contempt and before he was actually removed. I missed that exchange yesterday and only saw the removing him part of it. I would be fit to be tied if I was ANY of those attorneys, defense or prosecution. Paraphrasing the MAGAts "If he can do it to them, he can do it to us.

[bob]

Edit: If as bob posited the judge believes the reporter is the subject of a leak, he has every right to replace the reporter, and deal with it after the trial.

To be sure, no court reporter has the "right" to be anywhere. Court reporters have been banished from a particular judge's courtroom for the most venal of reasons.

But given all these shenanigans, I'm surprised the entire staff hasn't been replaced.

[Sam the Centipede]

Edit: If as bob posited the judge believes the reporter is the subject of a leak, he has every right to replace the reporter, and deal with it after the trial.

To be sure, no court reporter has the "right" to be anywhere. Court reporters have been banished from a particular judge's courtroom for the most venal of reasons.

But given all these shenanigans, I'm surprised the entire staff hasn't been replaced.

venial??

[raison de arizona]

Not your typical trial news site.

UPDATE: Brian Steel has been granted Supersedeas Bond by the Supreme Court of Georgia.

He will not need to go to jail, while waiting for his Contempt order to be appealed.

Brian Steel’s emergency Motion for Bond has been transferred to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

The Court of Appeals says because the underlying case is a criminal prosecution with a murder count, the Supreme Court of Georgia has jurisdiction.

[RTH10260]

8 Black men removed from American Airlines flight for 'body odor,' lawsuit claims

By FOX TV Digital TeamUpdated
May 31, 2024 1:56pm CDT

Three men have filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against American Airlines, claiming they and five other Black men were selectively removed from a flight from Phoenix to New York because of "body odor" complaints, only to be let back on the plane an hour later.

The men – Alvin Jackson, Emmanuel Jean Joseph and Xavier Veal – were flying from Phoenix to JFK Airport in New York in January when the incident occurred.

According to the lawsuit, an American Airlines representative approached several Black men on the plane, all of whom had flown separately, and "ordered them off the plane immediately, without explanation."

"In fact, it appeared to plaintiffs that American had ordered all of the Black male passengers on Flight 832 off the plane," the lawsuit states.

When the passengers demanded to know why they were removed, they were told there was a "complaint about body odor," the lawsuit states.

"Plaintiffs were not told that they personally had body odor, and in fact none of the Plaintiffs had offensive body odor. When Plaintiffs pointed out that it looked like they had been singled out because they were Black, at least one of the American representatives said, ‘I agree. I agree,’" according to the lawsuit.

The men were all reportedly told they’d have to be rebooked on another flight, but the lawsuit says American wasn’t able to rebook them on different flights, so they were let back on the same plane after about an hour of waiting.

"Plaintiffs then had to reboard the plane and endure the stares of the largely white passengers who viewed them as the cause of the substantial delay," the lawsuit states.

Joseph, one of the plaintiffs, requested a different seat to avoid interacting with the White male flight attendant who initially made them deplane.

"There was an available seat in first class that American could have given to Mr. Joseph," the lawsuit states. "Instead, American staff upgraded an Asian woman to first class, and then allowed Mr. Joseph to take her assigned seat in coach."



https://www.fox7austin.com/news/america ... en-removed

ETA was also posted at https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 66#p264666

[RTH10260]

cause it popped up in my feed, FWIW

Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuit: Deadline and Other Updates

Veterans Disability Lawyers | Berry Law
17 views 19 Jun 2024

The deadline to file your Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit is August 10th, 2024! Were you stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 and diagnosed with cancer or another serious illness? You may be entitled to compensation.

This video covers:

The August 10th deadline and what it means for you
How much you could receive in a settlement (settlements have ranged from $100,000 to $550,000!)
How the lawsuit affects your VA benefits
What to expect from the legal process

<removed lawyers link>

0:00 Intro
0:30 Attorney Fees: What You Need to Know
1:00 Settlement Amounts: What You Could Receive
1:40 How the Lawsuit Affects Your VA Benefits
2:00 The Legal Process: What to Expect
2:30 Don't Miss the Deadline!

Video

► Show Spoiler

[Frater I*I]

The deadline to file your Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit is August 10th, 2024! Were you stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 and diagnosed with cancer or another serious illness? You may be entitled to compensation.

I was there off and on between 94-96...

[RTH10260]

Hawai'i

Court orders deconstruction of Big Island house built on wrong lot

By Jeremy Lee
Jun 25, 2024 Updated 5 mins ago

Court mandates removal of house on wrong lot

A judge ordered a house, built mistakenly on the wrong lot in Hawaiian Paradise Park, to be removed.

HAWAIIAN PARADISE PARK, Hawaii (Island News) -- A Hawaii County judge ordered an "illegal" house, built by mistake on the wrong lot, to be removed.

The house itself cost roughly $300,000 to construct on a one-acre lot worth approximately $100,000, on the current market with clear title.

[raison de arizona]

They can't just trade lots?

[sugar magnolia]

They can't just trade lots?

I think that's the one where the woman went out to the lot and spoke to the trees and meditated or something, and they told her to buy it and build a house. The trees didn't like the alternate lot they offered.

[RTH10260]

I drop this here cause it's a tangent on a court case

Feds charge 5, including man acquitted at trial, with conspiring to bribe Minnesota juror with $120K

BY MICHAEL GOLDBERG
Updated 4:42 AM CEST, June 27, 2024

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Five people were charged Wednesday with conspiring to bribe a Minnesota juror with a bag of $120,000 in cash in exchange for the acquittal of defendants in one of the country’s largest COVID-19-related fraud cases, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI announced Wednesday.

Court documents made public reveal an extravagant scheme in which the accused researched the juror’s personal information on social media, surveilled her, tracked her daily habits and bought a GPS device to install on her car. Authorities believe the defendants targeted the woman, known as “Juror 52,” because she was the youngest and they believed her to be the only person of color on the panel.

According to court documents, the group came up with a “blueprint” of arguments for the juror to help persuade other jurors to acquit, injecting the idea that prosecutors were motivated by racial animus: “(w)e are immigrants, they don’t respect us,” the list of proposed arguments read.

The juror reported the bribery attempt and was removed from the case before deliberations began.

The bribe attempt brought renewed attention to the trial of seven Minnesota defendants accused of coordinating to steal more than $40 million from a federal program that was supposed to feed children during the coronavirus pandemic. More than $250 million in federal funds were taken overall in the scheme and only about $50 million has been recovered, authorities say.



https://apnews.com/article/juror-briber ... 2f9125613a

[RTH10260]

Plano Woman Behind 2022 Racist Attack Sentenced to Jail Time
Esmeralda Upton unleashed a racist tirade against a group of Indian American women in Plano. Now, she'll serve time in jail for the hate crime.

By Jacob Vaughn
June 18, 2024

Anamika Chatterjee and her friends were just trying to have a nice night out in Plano on Aug. 24, 2022, when they were subjected to racist attacks by a woman named Esmeralda Upton. They had just finished eating at Sixty Vines, a Plano restaurant and wine bar.

“I hate you fucking Indians,” Upton, a complete stranger to the group, yelled. “We don’t want you here.” Upton called the group “curry ass bitches.” She continued hurling insults, eventually assaulting three of the women and threatening to shoot them.

When the women asked Upton to leave them alone, she yelled, “Go back to India … If things are so great in your country, then stay there!”

Chatterjee and her friends are all American citizens and the whole incident was caught on a video that received national attention. Now, about two years later, Upton has been sentenced to 40 days in the Collin County jail after pleading guilty to three counts of assault and one count of making terroristic threats. The charges and conviction included a hate-crime specification under Texas law.

Upton will be allowed to serve her sentence on the weekends starting on July 19. The judge warned her if she failed to appear, she would be serving her time consecutively. The sentence was part of a plea deal between the Collin County District Attorney’s Office and Upton’s counsel. Upton’s legal representation didn’t respond to requests for comment.



https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/pla ... l-19645852

[pipistrelle]

40 days on weekends for assault? That'll show her. Probably get more for shoplifting.

[raison de arizona]

BREAKING

The #FaniWillis v #YoungThug judge realized he’s been checkmated

He finally follows the law and transfers motions to recuse to another judge as required by law

He saw the handwriting on the wall, probably after colleagues weighed in

[RTH10260]

Tulsa race massacre survivors condemn dismissal of reparations case and urge Biden to act
Lessie Benningfield Randle, 109, and Viola Fletcher, 110, appeal to president after Oklahoma supreme court dismisses historic case

Adria R Walker
Tue 2 Jul 2024 23.57 CEST

Tulsa race massacre survivor Lessie Benningfield Randle, 109, made her first public appearance since the Oklahoma supreme court dismissed her historic lawsuit last month. Randle, along with fellow survivor Viola Fletcher, 110, had sought restitution for the survivors and descendants of the 1921 massacre, in which an estimated 300 Black Tulsans were killed, thousands were displaced, and Greenwood, the thriving district once known as “Black Wall Street”, was decimated in an act of racist violence.

A judgment in Randle and Fletcher’s favor would have been the first ruling to address the longstanding damage the massacre had on Tulsa’s Black community. But the court said that while the plaintiffs’ grievances were legitimate, the suit did not fall within the scope of the state’s public nuisance statute.

Randle and Fletcher’s statement on Tuesday, recited by a litigation associate on their behalf, read: “We are deeply saddened that we may not live long enough to see the state of Oklahoma or the United States of America honestly comfort and right the wrongs of one of the darkest days in American history. At 109 and 110 years old, we are elderly and we know that we are living on borrowed time … Oklahoma and the United States of America have failed its Black citizens. This failure is profound, systemic and marred by lip service and clever platitudes.”

The statement described how the two survivors witnessed the atrocities of the massacre, including white pilots flying over the neighborhood and dropping dynamite into the streets, an act considered to be one of the first aerial bombardments of a US city.

No one was prosecuted for the crimes, the city of Tulsa never paid victims reparations or otherwise redressed the massacre and insurance payments were unpaid or insignificant. The Black Tulsans who survived either fled or remained in Oklahoma and lived in fear.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... nvestigate

[bob]

"For completeness," the plaintiffs filed in state court.

Although Biden could order a federal investigation, it is unlikely there is a court remedy.

[RTH10260]

LGBTQ+ youth rules blocked in 4 states
Order against protections under Title IX to be in effect for duration of trial

Today at 3:37 a.m.
by JOHN HANNA The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. -- Enforcement of a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students has been blocked in four states and a patchwork of places elsewhere by a federal judge in Kansas.

U.S. District Judge John Broomes suggested in his ruling Tuesday that the Biden administration must now consider whether forcing compliance remains "worth the effort."

Broomes' decision was the third against the rule from a federal judge in less than three weeks, but more sweeping than the others. It applies in Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming, which sued over the new rule. It also applies to a Stillwater, Okla., middle school that has a student suing over the rule and to members of three groups backing Republican efforts nationwide to roll back LGBTQ+ rights. All of them are involved in one lawsuit.

Broomes, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, directed the three groups -- Moms for Liberty, Young America's Foundation and Female Athletes United -- to file a list of schools in which their members' children are students so that their schools also do not comply with the rule. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a Republican who argued the states' case before Broomes last month, said that could be thousands of schools.

The Biden administration rule is set to take effect in August under the Title IX civil rights law passed in 1972, barring sex discrimination in education. Broomes' order is to remain in effect through a trial of the lawsuit in Kansas, though the judge concluded that the states and three groups are likely to win.



https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2024/jul ... -4-states/

[pipistrelle]

Apparently Moms for "Liberty" define that term differently than I do.

[RTH10260]

Federal judge in Georgia blocks ‘most severe’ law on bail fund restrictions
Lawsuit challenges law as unconstitutional, meant to target fund helping Cop City protestors

Timothy Pratt
Fri 5 Jul 2024 12.00 CEST

A federal judge has temporarily blocked part of a new Georgia law from taking effect this week that would have stopped people and charitable organizations from posting bail for someone else more than three times a year.

The judge’s order at the end of last month came in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center. They represent a non-profit organization and a church group that raise money and pay bail for low-income people who would otherwise remain behind bars before going to trial or otherwise having their cases resolved.

Andrea Young, the ACLU of Georgia’s executive director, said she was “quite pleased the judge ruled quickly, and prevented this cruel law from going into effect. It’s an indication we’re likely to prevail.”

The complaint asserts that the section of the law limiting the number of times a bail fund can help others violates the constitutional freedoms of speech and association and the religious liberty of the plaintiffs. The section would also require people paying bail for others to meet the same requirements as bail bond companies – including having a certain amount of money in escrow, paying fees and holding a business license, as well as obtaining a sheriff’s approval.

Signed into law by Brian Kemp, the Georgia governor, on 1 May, SB 63 “imposes what are arguably the most severe restrictions on charitable bail funds in the nation”, according to the lawsuit, serving to “effectively eliminate” them.

The judge’s stay will last 14 days, while both sides of the lawsuit submit briefs and a hearing is held. But the law has already had an impact, with a national organization, the Bail Project, pulling out of Atlanta in June.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... aw-blocked

[RTH10260]

NFL hit with $4.7 billion verdict in 'Sunday Ticket' antitrust trial

By Mike Scarcella
June 28, 20248:20 AM GMT+2Updated 10 days ago

Summary

• Jury finds NFL conspired to inflate 'Sunday Ticket' prices
  NFL plans to contest the decision, calling claims baseless
  Plaintiffs pleased with verdict, representing 2.4 million residential and 48,000 commercial subscribers

June 27 (Reuters) - The National Football League must pay more than $4.7 billion in class-action damages for overcharging subscribers of its “Sunday Ticket” telecasts, a California federal jury said on Thursday.

Jurors in Los Angeles agreed with the plaintiffs that the NFL conspired with member teams to artificially inflate the price of "Sunday Ticket" for millions of residential and commercial subscribers.

The jury awarded $4.6 billion to a residential class, and $96 million to commercial subscribers such as bars and restaurants, according to an attorney for the plaintiffs.

A judge could award triple damages under U.S. antitrust law, bringing the total judgment to more than $14 billion.

The NFL in a statement said it was disappointed by the jury's verdict. "We will certainly contest this decision as we believe that the class action claims in this case are baseless and without merit," it said.

The NFL earlier this week asked the court to rule for the league and its teams as a matter of law, which could nullify the verdict.


https://www.reuters.com/legal/nfl-hit-w ... 024-06-27/

[RTH10260]

CNN Could Be On The Hook For $1B+ In Defamation Payout: Report

By Daniel Chaitin
Jun 25, 2024

CNN could be on the hook for a big payout stemming from a defamation lawsuit over a report about a military veteran who sought to help people flee Afghanistan when the U.S. withdrew from the country in 2021 that aired on anchor Jake Tapper’s show.

New details about the court battle are coming to light ahead of CNN’s presidential debate on Thursday between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Tapper is expected to moderate alongside fellow anchor Dana Bash.

A Florida appellate court affirmed this month that U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and his company, Nemex Enterprises Inc., could seek punitive damages for the Afghanistan story that the plaintiff alleges had improperly suggested he was an illegal profiteer.

Vel Freedman, Young’s lawyer, told NewsBusters his client lost $40-60 million in economic opportunity and could get up to $600 million if a jury awards him emotional damages. With punitive damages, CNN could also end up paying $1 billion, per the report.

The lawsuit alleges CNN wrecked Young’s reputation and business with its report by correspondent Alex Marquardt. Tapper introduced the segment by telling of a “black market” with demands of “exorbitant fees” and “no guarantee of safety or success.”

Internal communications produced in the case showed CNN employees call Young, the sole operator profiled in the TV and online report, a “shitbag” and “a-hole.” There was also a remark about how they were “going to nail this Zachary Young mfucker.”

Other CNN messages revealed discussions about how the story was “full of holes like Swiss cheese” and Young telling Marquardt hours before publication that there were factual inaccuracies in the reporting — which CNN went and published anyway.

CNN argued in its appeal that it “did not intend to harm,” that its “language was either opinion or ambiguous,” and that the internal communications were “journalistic bravado that reflected a sincere belief in the reporting,” the appeals court noted in its opinion.




https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-coul ... out-report

[Greatgrey]

A Trump appointed judge. He sent his resignation in last week.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... cation.pdf

[northland10]

CNN Could Be On The Hook For $1B+ In Defamation Payout: Report

By Daniel Chaitin
Jun 25, 2024

CNN could be on the hook for a big payout stemming from a defamation lawsuit over a report about a military veteran who sought to help people flee Afghanistan when the U.S. withdrew from the country in 2021 that aired on anchor Jake Tapper’s show.

New details about the court battle are coming to light ahead of CNN’s presidential debate on Thursday between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Tapper is expected to moderate alongside fellow anchor Dana Bash.

A Florida appellate court affirmed this month that U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and his company, Nemex Enterprises Inc., could seek punitive damages for the Afghanistan story that the plaintiff alleges had improperly suggested he was an illegal profiteer.

Vel Freedman, Young’s lawyer, told NewsBusters his client lost $40-60 million in economic opportunity and could get up to $600 million if a jury awards him emotional damages. With punitive damages, CNN could also end up paying $1 billion, per the report.

The lawsuit alleges CNN wrecked Young’s reputation and business with its report by correspondent Alex Marquardt. Tapper introduced the segment by telling of a “black market” with demands of “exorbitant fees” and “no guarantee of safety or success.”

Internal communications produced in the case showed CNN employees call Young, the sole operator profiled in the TV and online report, a “shitbag” and “a-hole.” There was also a remark about how they were “going to nail this Zachary Young mfucker.”

Other CNN messages revealed discussions about how the story was “full of holes like Swiss cheese” and Young telling Marquardt hours before publication that there were factual inaccuracies in the reporting — which CNN went and published anyway.

CNN argued in its appeal that it “did not intend to harm,” that its “language was either opinion or ambiguous,” and that the internal communications were “journalistic bravado that reflected a sincere belief in the reporting,” the appeals court noted in its opinion.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-coul ... out-report

From the ruling

After reviewing the totality of the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to Young, we conclude that he did. Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages. Whether Young can ultimately prevail is not the issue before us. The trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping role and granted Young’s motion to amend. The order on appeal is

AFFIRMED.

https://acis-api.flcourts.gov/courts/b8 ... a20d89a7c8

This essentially was about a motion to file an amended complaint that included punitive damages. All the appeals court said was that there was enough to allow for that step. They made no ruling on the merits.

CNN did request a hearing en banc.

It's funny how Klayman has "clients" suing the media and other places, yet in this case, the plaintiff apparently chose an attorney who is actually representing his client's interests and has been somewhat successful so far.

[RTH10260]

Federal court declares federal ban on at-home distilling unconstitutional

Dan Greenberg • Devin Watkins •
07/11/2024

Late last night, after months of litigation, a federal court in Texas decided the federal ban on at-home distillation of beverage spirits is unconstitutional. The district court’s decision is fair; it is correct on the law; and it is historic.

Lawyers at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) represent several amateur home-distilling enthusiasts who want to pursue the essentially harmless hobby of at-home distilling of beverage spirits for personal use without the looming threat of legal sanctions. Under federal law, distilling in one’s home or backyard can result in a $10,000 fine and a five-year imprisonment.

The court found that:

• The federal ban on home distilling exceeds the scope of the federal government’s limited powers.
  The Constitution’s tax power does not allow the federal government to ban home distilling, largely because the ban does not add money into the federal treasury or protect federal tax revenue.
  The Constitution’s power to regulate interstate commerce does not allow the federal government to ban home distilling, largely because the ban neither regulates interstate commerce directly nor is it related to any larger regulatory scheme.

This decision does not affect the regulatory powers of state governments; the states’ powers to regulate health and safety matters, and thus to regulate home distilling, are untouched by this decision.

“This decision is a victory for personal freedoms and for federalism,” said CEI General Counsel and plaintiffs’ attorney Dan Greenberg. “We’re pleased to see that the court determined that the home distilling ban is unconstitutional – and that it blocked enforcement of the ban against our clients. More broadly, the court’s decision reminds us that, as Americans, we live under a government of limited powers.”

“While the federal government has become more enthusiastic about inflating the scope of its powers over the last century, this case shows that there are limits to the government’s authority,” said CEI attorney and plaintiffs’ attorney Devin Watkins. “If the government appeals this decision to a higher court, we look forward to illuminating those limits.”


https://cei.org/news_releases/federal-c ... titutional

[MN-Skeptic]

I'm not sure I'm following this Young Thug lawyer situation correctly. This is my impression; please let me know if I have misunderstood.

The judge and the DA had a conversation with a witness (who is in jail because he refuses to testify for whatever reason). So then the defense attorney confronts the judge with knowledge of this conversation (and maybe knowledge of the contents of that conversation). The judge doesn't like that the defense attorney knows about this conversation and holds him in contempt.

If this is right, why would a judge and DA have a private convo with a witness? Is that normal (or at least not illegal or unethical)? Do I have the situation right?

I think the contempt stems from the defense counsel’s refusal to tell the judge how he learned about the conversation. There are times when an ex parte conversation is appropriate, but given the 5th and 6th amendment implications, it’s really rare in a criminal trial. And the judge usually makes an air-tight record of why he thought it necessary for an ex parte conversation with the DA and a witness.

So... going back to this court case...

This is from today -

Jozsef Papp
@JozsefPapp_

BREAKING: Judge Ural Glanville has been recused from handling the YSL/Young Thug case.

Full order from Judge Krause: https://embed.documentcloud.org/documen ... lle-final/