Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

General Law and Lawsuits

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

General Law and Lawsuits

#701

Post by MN-Skeptic »

Brett Favre Sues Mississippi Auditor Shad White, Alleging Defamation Over Welfare Scandal
Retired NFL star Brett Favre is suing Mississippi State Auditor Shad White, accusing the Republican official of defamation over comments he made related to Favre’s role in Mississippi’s ongoing welfare scandal.

“Shad White, the State Auditor of Mississippi, has carried out an outrageous media campaign of malicious and false accusations against Brett Favre—the Hall of Fame quarterback and native son of Mississippi—in a brazen attempt to leverage the media attention generated by Favre’s celebrity to further his own political career,” the lawsuit says. “By shamelessly and falsely attacking Favre’s good name, White has gained national media attention he previously could have only dreamed of, including appearances on television shows on CNN and HBO, a popular ESPN podcast, as well as interviews for print and online media. None of these national media outlets would have paid White the slightest attention had he not been attacking Favre. White himself acknowledged this, admitting that his own wife was ‘shocked’ by his appearance on the ESPN Daily Podcast.”

“In his media appearances, White has made egregiously false and defamatory statements accusing Favre of ‘steal[ing] taxpayer funds’ and knowingly misusing funds ‘designed to serve poor folks,'” the lawsuit continues. “There is no basis for these offensive falsehoods, which White made knowing that they were false or, at a minimum, with reckless disregard for the fact that they were false.”

In a statement to the Mississippi Free Press in response to the news on Thursday, which The Daily Mail first reported, White denied the allegations.

“Everything Auditor White has said about this case is true and is backed by years of audit work by the professionals at the Office of the State Auditor,” the auditor said. “It’s mind-boggling that Mr. Favre wants to have a trial about that question. Mr. Favre has called Auditor White and his team liars despite repaying some of the money our office demanded from him. He’s also claimed the auditors are liars despite clear documentary evidence showing he benefitted from misspent funds. Instead of paying New York litigators to try this case, he’d be better off fully repaying the amount of welfare funds he owes the state.”
More at the link above. Favre's complaint is here.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

General Law and Lawsuits

#702

Post by pipistrelle »

User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

General Law and Lawsuits

#703

Post by raison de arizona »

Didn’t they have Favre dead to rights with text messages?
0F130253-FAD8-492E-ACAB-3B46E3B045A8.jpeg
0F130253-FAD8-492E-ACAB-3B46E3B045A8.jpeg (37.36 KiB) Viewed 956 times
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

General Law and Lawsuits

#704

Post by sugar magnolia »

raison de arizona wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:51 pm Didn’t they have Favre dead to rights with text messages?
0F130253-FAD8-492E-ACAB-3B46E3B045A8.jpeg
They have him dead to rights several different ways.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

General Law and Lawsuits

#705

Post by Slim Cognito »

How trumpian of him.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#706

Post by RTH10260 »

No Reparations for St. Louis Man Wrongfully Imprisoned for Three Decades

Kalyn Womack
Wed, February 15, 2023 at 7:10 PM GMT+1

A Missouri judge recently overturned the conviction of Lamar Johnson, a man falsely accused of a murder 28 years ago. After spending three decades in prison, Johnson finally has his freedom but was offered no financial compensation for the time he lost and the new life he now has to build, per CBS4 News.

In October 1994, Johnson was convicted in the murder of Marcus Boyd, a man shot to death by two masked men, per AP’s report. A key witness, James Elking, said he was initially coerced by investigators to place Johnson at the scene of the crime, but later recanted his statement. The two suspects, James Howard and Phil Campbell, sent affidavits—while in prison for other offenses— confessing to the murder years later. Johnson also had an alibi: his girlfriend, who testified he wasn’t at the scene of the crime.

The conflicting credibility of the statements made it doubtful that Johnson pulled the trigger. In 2019, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner sought a new hearing based on the new evidence but the state Supreme Court ruled she “lacked authority” to seek a new trial.

Her efforts resulted in a 2021 law allowing prosecutors to examine wrongful convictions upon new evidence, per St. Louis Public Radio. Johnson’s case was given another chance.

However, Missouri still lacked legislation to give financial compensation to exonerated individuals. Why? Something as simple as the absence of DNA testing.

Read more from KMOV News:




https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/st-loui ... 30443.html
(original: The Root)
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#707

Post by RTH10260 »

Scientology leader David Miscavige went missing to hide from a human trafficking lawsuit, federal judge rules

Natalie Musumeci
Thu, February 16, 2023 at 5:28 PM GMT+1

Church of Scientology leader David Miscavige is facing a federal human trafficking lawsuit.

A Florida judge ruled this week that he has now been considered served in the case.

Miscavige has been "actively concealing his whereabouts or evading service," the judge ruled.

Church of Scientology leader David Miscavige has been hiding from a federal human trafficking lawsuit filed against him and the religious organization, according to a judge who ruled this week that he has now been considered served in the case.

Florida Magistrate Judge Julie Sneed wrote in a ruling filed on Tuesday that Miscavige has been "actively concealing his whereabouts or evading service" in the suit.

Attorneys for the three plaintiffs in the case attempted to serve Miscavige a total of 27 times at five different locations in Florida and five different sites in California but were never able to track the Scientology head down, according to the court documents viewed by Insider.

"While Miscavige repeatedly asserts that Plaintiffs have attempted to effectuate service at the wrong address or addresses at which he was not present, Miscavige has never provided Plaintiffs or the court with the correct address," Sneed wrote in the ruling.

The judge also said that the plaintiffs have been "diligently attempting to locate and effectuate personal service on Miscavige over the course of several months" since they filed their original complaint in April of last year.

"The court finds that Miscavige has been properly served" in the case, Sneed ruled. Miscavige was given 21 days to respond to the order.

The trafficking lawsuit against Miscavige and the Church of Scientology was filed by Valeska Paris and married couple Gawain and Laura Baxter, who allege that they were trafficked into Scientology as children and forced to work long hours by the organization, which they said considered them adults.
(original:INSIDER)
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

General Law and Lawsuits

#708

Post by MN-Skeptic »

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#709

Post by RTH10260 »

How two supreme court battles could reshape the rules of the internet
Lawsuits brought by families of terrorist attack victims will consider whether companies are responsible for users’ content

Johana Bhuiyan and Kari Paul
Wed 22 Feb 2023 00.51 GMT

A pair of cases going before the US supreme court this week could drastically upend the rules of the internet, putting a powerful, decades-old statute in the crosshairs.

At stake is a question that has been foundational to the rise of big tech: should companies be legally responsible for the content their users post? Thus far they have evaded liability, but some US lawmakers and others want to change that. And new lawsuits are bringing the statute before the supreme court for the first time.

Both cases were brought by family members of terrorist attack victims who say social media firms are responsible for stoking violence with their algorithms. The first case, Gonzalez v Google, had its first hearing on 21 February and will ask the highest US court to determine whether YouTube, the Google-owned video website, should be held responsible for recommending Islamic State terrorism videos. The second, which will be heard later this week, targets Twitter and Facebook in addition to Google with similar allegations.

Together they could represent the most pivotal challenge yet to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a statute that protects tech companies such as YouTube from being held liable for content that is shared and recommended by its platforms. The stakes are high: a ruling in favor of holding YouTube liable could expose all platforms, big and small, to potential litigation over users’ content.

While lawmakers across the aisle have pushed for reforms to the 27-year-old statute, contending companies should be held accountable for hosting harmful content, some civil liberties organizations as well as tech companies have warned changes to section 230 could irreparably debilitate free-speech protections on the internet.




https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/fe ... ternet-law
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

General Law and Lawsuits

#710

Post by realist »

Supreme Court justices appeared wary of making major changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, observers said — in part because of wariness over their understanding of the internet.

Key Quotes: At one point, Justice Samuel Alito said he was “completely confused” after petitioner’s counsel Eric Schnapper discussed how video thumbnail placement might be considered partly YouTube’s own speech as well as that of a third party. Justice Elena Kagan suggested that the issue might be better left to Congress, since the justices were “not, like, the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

The Case in Question: The Supreme Court is considering Gonzalez v. Google, in which the plaintiffs — parents of an American college student killed in an ISIS terrorist attack — are suing Google for allegedly violating the Anti-Terrorism Act by hosting ISIS videos on YouTube.

What’s Section 230? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows online platforms like Facebook to host content posted by third parties without bearing the legal responsibility of a “publisher” of that content. Without that protection, experts say, sites like Google couldn’t function the way they do today. Some Democrats and Republicans have previously called for reforming the law, albeit for different reasons.

How the Media Covered It: Coverage was common across the spectrum, with some articles placing more emphasis on justices’ purported lack of internet expertise. However, The Verge (Lean Left bias) took a different approach, calling the hearing both “remarkably entertaining” and “unexpectedly measured.”
https://www.allsides.com/story/supreme- ... oogle-case
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

General Law and Lawsuits

#711

Post by Jim »

IANAL but, I was reading this article and I was wondering...

Pregnant Florida suspect in Uber murder seeks release because unborn baby not charged with crime
A Florida woman accused of murder after allegedly opening fire during an argument inside a packed Uber should be freed from jail because her unborn child has not been charged with any crime and is being "held unlawfully," her attorney argued.

Natalia Harrell has remained in the custody of the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center since July 26, 2022, when she was ordered held without bond for second-degree murder in the July 23 shooting death of Gladys Yvette Borcela, records show.

The fatal spat was caught on video and showed several people inside a ride-share vehicle as the pair began arguing and Harrell allegedly opened fire.

Months later, Harrell’s attorney, William M. Norris, is arguing his client’s unborn child and Harrell should be immediately released from jail because the fetus "has not been charged with a criminal offense."
If the Republicans are successful in creating personhood for an unborn fetus, would that mean the fetus' rights would trump the victim's rights?
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#712

Post by RTH10260 »

The fetus is accessory to the murder as the baby did not prevent the shooting, therefor incarceration is valid. :twisted:
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

General Law and Lawsuits

#713

Post by Jim »

RTH10260 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:52 pm The fetus is accessory to the murder as the baby did not prevent the shooting, therefor incarceration is valid. :twisted:
Doesn't work, there were others in the Uber who could have stopped it better than a fetus and they weren't arrested, so...
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#714

Post by RTH10260 »

Court: News outlets didn't defame ex-coal CEO Blankenship

LEAH WILLINGHAM
Wed, February 22, 2023 at 11:03 PM GMT+1

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Fox News, CNN and other major news outlets didn't defame former coal executive Don Blankenship when they referred to him as a “felon” after he served a year in prison on a misdemeanor charge in connection with the worst U.S. mine disaster in decades, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Fourth Circuit Court Chief Judge Roger Gregory affirmed a district court's determination that 16 outlets sued by Blankenship did not act with “actual malice" amid coverage of his unsuccessful 2018 U.S. Senate campaign, even if they failed to meet journalistic standards.

"Failure to fact-check is not enough to manufacture a genuine issue of actual malice here,” Gregory wrote.

The chief judge said Blankenship's arguments are “mostly speculative and do not come close to the quantum of evidence needed to create a jury question.”

Blankenship couldn't be immediately reached for comment. His attorney didn’t return email and phone messages, and an email sent to an account listed for Blankenship could not be delivered. He did not respond to a direct message sent to him on Twitter.

The former CEO of Massey Energy, which owned West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch Mine where a 2010 explosion killed 29 workers, was indicted on several federal charges in the wake of the disaster, including multiple felony counts.

A jury ultimately acquitted him of the felony charges, but Blankenship was sentenced to one year in federal prison — the statutory maximum — on a misdemeanor charge for conspiring to violate federal mine safety laws. He was also fined $250,000.

Blankenship was released from prison in 2017. While still on supervised release in January 2018, Blankenship announced his plans to run as a Republican for U.S. Senate in West Virginia.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-news-o ... 44253.html
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#715

Post by RTH10260 »

As White Castle Faces $17 Billion Fine For Privacy Violations, Other Employers Should Beware

February 21, 2023
Lawyers Marc C. Lombardi Partner

As employers explore new ways to store and process biometric employee information, a new decision by the Illinois Supreme Court should cause them to exercise extreme caution when doing so.

The case, Cothron v. White Castle, relates to a federal class action law suit raising issues under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Among other things, BIPA requires any private entity that uses, collects or retains biometric information to provide the individual with a specific form of notice about the collection and use of their biometric information, and obtain their written acknowledgement and consent before collecting or using it.

Latrina Cothron, the plaintiff, sued her employer, White Castle, accusing White Castle of violating BIPA by requiring employees to scan their fingerprint in order to access pay stubs, and then disclosing the fingerprint images to an external vendor responsible for managing the fingerprint scanning system.

The plaintiff argued that each time her fingerprint was scanned or transmitted without her consent, a separate BIPA violation occurred – subject to separate statutory penalties between $1,000 and $5,000 each.

White Castle argued there should be only one statutory penalty per person, regardless of how many times that person’s biometric information was scanned or transmitted.

The federal court asked the Illinois Supreme Court to resolve the question of whether BIPA claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission.

Recognizing the significant consequences of their decision, and the potential $17 billion liability of White Castle, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the statutory language of BIPA was clear in favor the Plaintiff’s position and must be given effect.

The Court referred the policy concerns over excessive damages and their destructive effects on companies to the legislature and suggested it clarify its intent under BIPA.

Although this decision only impacts White Castle directly for now, it serves as a stark warning to those who collect or process biometric information to take their obligations seriously under applicable data privacy laws.

BIPA was one of the first state laws to protect biometric information used in business, but many other states, including Connecticut, have followed along.

Connecticut’s Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring (the “CTDPA”), which takes effect on July 1, 2023, requires the individual’s consent before collecting or processing sensitive data (including biometric information) in addition to a privacy notice describing how the individual’s personal data (including sensitive biometric information) are used and shared with other parties.





https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/insights ... gn=article
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#716

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p177125

Cross posting from Arizona Behaving Badly thread.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#717

Post by RTH10260 »

Alec Baldwin Sued by Three ‘Rust’ Crew Members for ‘Blast Injuries’ in Shooting

Gene Maddaus
Mon, February 27, 2023 at 11:46 PM GMT+1

Three “Rust” crew members sued Alec Baldwin and the film’s producers on Monday, alleging they have suffered anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the shooting death of the film’s cinematographer.

The three crew members were in the church building at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe, N.M., when Baldwin’s gun fired, striking cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and director Joel Souza. Baldwin has denied pulling the trigger, though prosecutors have charged him with involuntarily manslaughter for allegedly firing the weapon while it was pointed at Hutchins.

The plaintiffs in the latest suit are Ross Addiego, the dolly operator, Doran Curtin, the set costumer, and Reese Price, the key grip. According to the suit, all three were in close proximity to Baldwin when the gun was fired, and suffered “blast injuries” from the deafening sound of the shot.

According to the complaint, Hutchins fell to the ground directly in front of Curtin.

“She watched in shock as Hutchins grabbed at her abdomen,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff Curtin put her hands on Hutchins’ stomach, trying to find the source of Hutchins’ pain and figure out what was going on. As the chaos continued, Plaintiff Curtin was ushered out of the church. Once outside, she collapsed from the effects of the blast and the shock of the shooting.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the producers cut corners and hired people who had been the subject of previous safety complaints, including David Halls, the first assistant director. The suit also faults the producers for hiring armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed despite her lack of experience, because they allegedly wanted a “quick and cheap production.”

The lawsuit faults Baldwin for not paying attention during weapons training, for failing to ensure that the gun was not loaded with a live bullet, and for discharging the round.




https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ale ... 32871.html
(original: Variety)
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#718

Post by RTH10260 »

$1M settlement in lawsuit over federal immigration raid

Tue, February 28, 2023 at 7:22 PM GMT+1

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal judge has approved a settlement of more than $1 million in a class action lawsuit that challenged a federal immigration raid at an eastern Tennessee meatpacking plant where about 100 people were arrested.

The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Travis McDonough on Monday calls for the U.S. government to pay $475,000 to six individual plaintiffs and an additional $550,000 to a class settlement fund for nearly 100 workers detained almost five years ago, news outlets reported.

The lawsuit claimed the Southeastern Provision workers’ 4th and 5th Amendment constitutional rights were violated in April 2018 when armed officers raided the Bean Station plant, using racial slurs, shoving guns in their faces and punching one worker in the face. It also alleged that officers didn’t know workers’ identities or immigration statuses, only that many were Hispanic.

White workers at the plant, meanwhile, were not accosted, detained, searched or arrested, and many stood outside smoking during the raid, the lawsuit said.

During the raid, officers were helping to execute an Internal Revenue Service search warrant for financial documents related to James Brantley, the plant’s owner. Agents did not have warrants for the arrest of any of the workers — only to search the business for tax violations, according to the lawsuit.




https://news.yahoo.com/1m-settlement-la ... 05371.html
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#719

Post by RTH10260 »

NYC to Pay Record Settlement to George Floyd Protesters

Jeff Zymeri
Thu, March 2, 2023 at 2:40 PM GMT+1

Protesters who were restrained with zip ties, battered with batons, and pepper sprayed will be paid millions in a new settlement reached with New York City and the NYPD.

According to documents filed in federal court on Tuesday, the city has agreed to pay out a total of $7 million to the protesters, which comes out to $21,500 each, the highest per-person settlement award in a mass arrest class action lawsuit.

On June 4, 2020, about 300 people marched through the Bronx to protest the killing of George Floyd. According to a lawsuit, as an 8 p.m. curfew approached, police used their bicycles to form a wall and prevent the protesters from moving forward, while other officers pushed from behind – a tactic known as “kettling.”

Just after the 8 p.m. curfew, “the police moved in on the protesters, unprovoked and without warning, whaling their batons, beating people from car tops, shoving them down to the ground, and firing pepper spray in their faces,” according to a Human Rights Watch report.

Bill de Blasio had instituted the curfew just one night before and argued in an emergency executive order that it was “necessary to protect the City and its residents from severe endangerment and harm to their health, safety and property.”

Several protesters filed an initial complaint against de Blasio, the city of New York and NYPD officials in October 2020. De Blasio was dismissed from the suit in 2021, according to the Washington Post, but the case against the NYPD and city continued for two years.

“The highest levels of the NYPD coordinated a pre-planned assault on peaceful protesters, and we’re gratified that this historic settlement will provide some measure of justice to those who suffered from this brutality. We hope this historic award forces the City to finally account for how it polices peaceful demonstrations,” plaintiffs’ attorney Ali Frick said in a statement.

The New York Police Department explained in a statement that the demonstration came at a challenging time for officers, who “were suffering under the strains of a global pandemic” and had to balance protestors’ rights with public safety.

“Two-and-a-half years after the protests of 2020, much of the NYPD’s policies and training for policing large-scale demonstrations have been re-envisioned based on the findings of the department’s own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period,” read the statement.





https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-pay-reco ... 36097.html
(original: National Review)
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#720

Post by RTH10260 »

Lake Worth Beach settles lawsuit with four men arrested 200+ times on panhandling charges

Giuseppe Sabella, Palm Beach Post
Fri, March 3, 2023 at 1:49 PM GMT+1

Lake Worth Beach, the target of a federal lawsuit filed by four homeless people, has joined a growing number of cities throughout the nation that are paying settlements and walking back their anti-panhandling rules.

The city commission voted in February to approve a combined $75,000 total settlement with the four men. According to their lawsuit, they racked up thousands of dollars in court fees after being arrested more than 200 times combined — all for alleged violations of a panhandling ordinance.

Such rules, which prevent people from asking for money or other assistance in public areas, are a violation of the First Amendment, and they fail to address the root causes of homelessness, the suit argued.

“Peaceful requests for money do not inherently threaten public safety,” it said.

The commission revoked two ordinances last year, amid the ongoing lawsuit. One rule targeted panhandling near the right-of-way at certain intersections and interstate exits, while the other tried to prevent "aggressive panhandling" throughout the city.

The repeal followed a recommendation by Glen Torcivia, the city attorney, who sought to avoid a costly fight that Lake Worth Beach was likely to lose.

“Over the past year, a number of courts nationwide have struck down panhandling ordinances,” Torcivia said in a letter to commissioners last year. “The courts have generally established that ‘solicitation of charitable contributions is protected speech' under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Lake Worth Beach followed in the footsteps of West Palm Beach




https://www.yahoo.com/news/lake-worth-b ... 01514.html
(original: Palm Beach Daily News)
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#721

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

RTH! Calling RTH! Pick up the Fogbow courtesy phone!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ca ... r-AA18gyw7
Can American-made cheese be called Gruyère? Yes, a U.S. court rules.

For over 900 years, farmers in an Alpine region between Switzerland and France have turned barrels of raw milk into wheels of smooth, nutty cheese known as Gruyère.

The tradition, combined with the location where it’s produced, have afforded the cheese name-protected designations in Europe. But a United States court ruled Friday that the Gruyère label could apply to any cheese — whether it’s made near the French-Swiss border or Wisconsin.

The reason: “Cheese consumers in the United States understand ‘GRUYERE’ to refer to a type of cheese, which renders the term generic,” judges at the Virginia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote in their ruling.

The decision, hailed as “a significant win for America’s dairy farmers” by the U.S. Dairy Export Council, followed a long-running legal saga between American cheesemakers and their Swiss and French counterparts — one that aimed to settle whether a cheese by any other location can still be Gruyère.

“Like a fine cheese, this case has matured and is ripe for our review,” the judges wrote of a battle for Gruyère that has curdled since 2015 — when Switzerland’s Interprofession du Gruyère and France’s Syndicat Interprofessionnel du Gruyère asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to certify that the cheese hails only from the hilly European region.

[The history of Gruyère has been omitted from this copy and paste.]

Yet the same rules don’t apply in the United States — and the judges found holes in the arguments made by the Swiss and French cheese producers.

For instance, between 2010 and 2020, the majority of the Gruyère-labeled cheese that was imported to the United States came from the Netherlands and Germany instead of Switzerland and France, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. The country also received “hundreds of thousands of pounds” of the cheese from Denmark, Tunisia, Egypt and Italy, the ruling states.

The judges also highlighted the American production of Gruyère, pointing out that supermarket Wegmans “sold more domestic gruyere-labeled cheese than Swiss gruyere-labeled cheese each year between 2016 and 2021 (except 2020).”

“This evidence strongly indicates that to the American purchaser, GRUYERE primarily signifies a type of cheese (much like brie, swiss, parmesan or mozzarella) regardless of regional origin,” the ruling states.

The decision came as a disappointment to the Swiss and French cheese producers, Richard Lehv, the attorney representing them, said in a statement.

“We think the actual situation in the U.S. market is different than as stated by the Court of Appeals, and we will continue to pursue vigorously our efforts to protect the certification mark for the high-quality Gruyère PDO product in the U.S.,” Lehv said.

Across social media, many from these countries were less than amused.

“The disrespect of the American law for [products with a protected designation] is unbearable,” a French user said. “Gruyère: a French culinary symbol under attack,” another person added.

But the misfortune for the European-made cheese appears to be far from over: Last week, a fire broke out inside a Swiss cheese depot, destroying the 12,000 wheels of Gruyère inside.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#722

Post by RTH10260 »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:19 am RTH! Calling RTH! Pick up the Fogbow courtesy phone!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ca ... r-AA18gyw7

:snippity:
Mr V mentioned it in the Food thread viewtopic.php?p=178069#p178069
RTH10260 wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:23 am rescued from the fire ;)

20230304_141700.jpg
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

General Law and Lawsuits

#723

Post by neonzx »

Cool. Now do champagne. :daydreaming:
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

General Law and Lawsuits

#724

Post by Sam the Centipede »

neonzx wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 am Cool. Now do champagne. :daydreaming:
I recall that in all/some countries of Yurp when Champagne first became a protected (in some way) name, the knock-offs started being labeled "Méthode champenoise". Although this term is still used and correct, producers in Champagne persuaded the EU that using it on labels was Avon to passing off, so that's not seen now.

Anyway, I like Freixnet cava from Spain: the same fun at a third of the price.

Oh gosh, my tongue still curls at the vile memory of some sticky yellow rubber from Australia that I bought in a Hong Kong supermarket – it was labeled "Parmesan". So I like origin labels.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

General Law and Lawsuits

#725

Post by raison de arizona »

Sam the Centipede wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:20 pm
neonzx wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 am Cool. Now do champagne. :daydreaming:
I recall that in all/some countries of Yurp when Champagne first became a protected (in some way) name, the knock-offs started being labeled "Méthode champenoise". Although this term is still used and correct, producers in Champagne persuaded the EU that using it on labels was Avon to passing off, so that's not seen now.

Anyway, I like Freixnet cava from Spain: the same fun at a third of the price.

Oh gosh, my tongue still curls at the vile memory of some sticky yellow rubber from Australia that I bought in a Hong Kong supermarket – it was labeled "Parmesan". So I like origin labels.
We used to do Cava, but now we do Prosecco.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”