tagged w/ Lawsuit
-
This is a teaser from an article I wrote on Examiner.com:
From Public School, to church, to the movies and the major media and elections themselves, the American public is induced to believe that the Judges of America are men of integrity beyond reproach.
So with all of those credentials and long years of propaganda and censorship one faces a mighty steep mountain of indoctrination, propaganda and goodwill in exposing the true nature of Minnesota and the Country's Judiciary.
With the Judiciary's reputation reputation for integrity and honesty firmly embedded in the minds of WE THE PEOPLE, what standing do I have to challenge their reputations. In my estimate, what ever I might say would be easily dismissed, for what is my word to the word of these prestigious Judges.
To overcome this handicap, I will use the American Legal Systems own words to expose the true nature of their character.
Let us begin with the words of former FBI director J Edgar Hoover:
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.''
Whatever could the former director of the FBI, with all of the domestic intelligence information at his disposal, have meant by such a statement? I leave it to the reader to reach their own conclusion.
Next, I am going to use the words of Judges themselves. Judges have a strange little way of reaching conclusions allegedly using case law and jurisprudence. This effectively means they theoretically use the findings of previous judges to base their decision on the current case. Most of these rulings are reduced to short citations of a single sentence or a paragraph along with the case caption and where it is publicized (When judges do bad things and don't follow the law, they just don't publish their rulings - You see the secret is, Judges just censor from the general public most of the bad, unjust things they do.)
I recently had cause to research various rulings on immunity for Judges and State Governments. And I was astonished and devastated to learn the liberties they had taken and leaps of logic they had used to write the rules in their favor.
Using their own words, the first case I will cite is Wiggins v Hess (1976, CA8 Mo) 531 F2d 920 and Harley v Oliver (1976, CA9 Ark) 539 F2d 1143
"Judicial immunity applies even when judge acts maliciously and corruptly; judge loses his immunity from liability for damages in violation of 42 USCS &1983 ONLY if he acts in clear absence of jurisdiction."...
To read the rest of this article for free, please click here->;
Examiner. com Legal Evil? In their own words - Part 1 of 3 http://exm.nr/jhsah8
Those were my thoughts.
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashakThis is a teaser from an article I wrote on Examiner.com:
From Public School, to... more
-
-
Playstation 3 customers who have paid subscription services like Playstation Plus and DC Universe Online have been wondering aloud since the PSN outage whether they would be refunded their money now that their services are no longer accessible. It appears that in light of the ongoing outage Sony may be considering...Playstation 3 customers who have paid subscription services like Playstation Plus and... more
-
-
-
One of the best parts of a lawsuit (as long as you aren't being the one sued) is the DISCOVERY PROCESS!! This is when you get to find out all kinds of interesting hidden information.
Oh, I hope they don't settle out of court!
-----------------------
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/huffington-post-writer-sues-the-huffington-post-aol.html
Writer sues Huffington Post and AOL for piece of $315-million sale price"
April 12, 2011
Jonathan Tasini, a social activist and commentator, is suing AOL and its newest purchase, the Huffington Post, over claims that he and other writers weren't paid appropriately for their work.
Tasini-p1-smallTasini's suit, which is seeking class-action status and was filed on Tuesday in a New York U.S. District Court, argues that none of the $315 million AOL paid to buy the Huffington Post has gone to the writers and producers of the news and opinion website, while estimating that about $105 million should have.
DOCUMENT: Read the suit
Between December 2005 and February 2011, Tasini said in the suit that he contributed 216 "pieces of content" for the Huffington Post and was never paid for any of his work. Tasini also alleges in his complaint that as many as 9,000 other "content providers" have also worked for free for the Huffington Post.
"TheHuffingtonPost.com has been unjustly enriched by engaging in and continuing to engage in the practice of generating enormous profits by luring carefully-vetted contributors, with the prospect of 'exposure' (which TheHuffingtonPost.com deceptively fails to verify), to provide valuable content at no cost to TheHuffingtonPost.com, while reaping the entirety of the financial gain derived from such content," the complaint said.
The suit also alleges that, of the $315 million AOL paid for the Huffington Post, "the value
added by the content provided by Plaintiff and the Classes to TheHuffingtonPost.com's price
was at least $105 million, none of which was shared with Plaintiff and the Classes."
Mario Ruiz, a spokesman for the Huffington Post, said the suit was without merit.
"As we've said before, our bloggers use our platform -- as well as other unpaid group blogs across the Web -- to connect and help their work be seen by as many people as possible," Ruiz said. "It's the same reason hundreds of people go on TV shows to promote their views and ideas. HuffPost bloggers can cross-post their work on other sites, including their own. Aside from our group blog, to which thousands of people from around the world contribute, we operate a journalistic enterprise with hundreds of staff editors, writers, and reporters, all of whom have commensurate responsibilities -- and all of whom are paid."
In a post on his personal website, Tasini explained a bit more about why he filed the lawsuit.
"The Huffington Post was, is and will never be, anything without the thousands of people who create the content," Tasini wrote. "Ms. Huffington is acting like every Robber Baron CEO ... who believes that they, and only they, should pocket huge riches, while the rest of the peons struggle to survive. Ms. Huffington stance has been clear: only she deserves the fruits of the labor of the people who work for her.
"Actually, Arianna Huffington is worse than the CEOs of the banks, the Walton family of Wal-mart. At least, they pay their workers something -- even if those wages aren't enough to make ends meet.
"Huffington pays zero. Nothing. Nada."
Tasini's complaint against the Huffington Post isn't the first the writer has lobbed agianst a publication he's worked for.
In Tasini's Huffington Post biography, the writer is described as having been both a writer and activist in labor issues for more than 25 years.
"From 1990 to April 2003, he served as president of the National Writers Union (United Auto Workers Local 1981)," the bio reads. "He was the lead plaintiff in Tasini vs. The New York Times, the landmark electronic rights case that took on the corporate media's assault on the rights of thousands of freelance authors.
"For the last 25 years, he has written about labor and economics for a variety of newspapers and magazines."
In 2010, Tasini also made an unsuccessful bid for Congress.
-------------------------------------One of the best parts of a lawsuit (as long as you aren't being the one sued) is... more
-
-
WASHINGTON - Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates the U.S. Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the nation's largest federal employee union.
The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.
"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.
Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.
The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.
"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."
http://bit.ly/hCpV4XWASHINGTON - Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates... more
-
-
The parents of a murder victim are suing Facebook after a paramedic pleaded guilty to photographing their daughter's corpse and posting the image to the social networking site, according to court documents.
Caroline Wimmer, 26, was found by her parents, Ronald and Martha, after she was strangled with a hair-dryer cord in March 2009 in Staten Island, New York.
The couple is suing Facebook in an effort to force the company to turn over the image, identify who may have downloaded the photograph and prevent the image from being further disseminated, according to the couple's attorney Ravi Batra.
They "would like to move on," Batra said, adding that "it's very tough to heal when you know there are sick people out in the world look at their dead daughter's image."
But the social networking site could be protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Martha Wimmer said Tuesday that she is traveling to the state capitol in support of pending legislation that would enact harsher penalties for a public worker who broadcasts or publishes an image of a crime scene outside their official duties.
The law would raise the offense to a Class E felony.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/29/new.york.facebook.suit/index.htmlThe parents of a murder victim are suing Facebook after a paramedic pleaded guilty to... more
-
-
On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.
Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States and Canada, in the past, when there are patented genetic material has inadvertently contaminated their crops.
A copy of the lawsuit can be found at:
(http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf)
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.
“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s transgenic seed or pollen should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”
Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed can contaminate and destroy organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually impossible to grow as a result of contamination.
Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa also face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops as well.
Monsanto is currently developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.
“Monsanto’s threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto’s genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now,” stated Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. “Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace – to decide what kind of food they will feed their families.”
“Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts,” said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, one of the plaintiffs. “Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington.”
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT’s Ravicher, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case.
“Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false,” added Ravicher who is also a Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Ravicher continued, “Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that’s not possible, and it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher. “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB’s and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”
cont.On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural... more
-
-
As reported here and here, attorney Orly Taitz filed a Freedom of Information violation suit regarding Obama's questionable social security number reserved for Connecticut applicants and the continued stonewalling by the Social Security Administration on numerous FOIA requests. Attorney Taitz just filed her First Amended Complaint in the case. Attorney Taitz reports that she has obtained new documents that prove Obama lied about his days at Columbia University. Full complaint with exhibits embedded below...
More Info..........
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2694348/postsAs reported here and here, attorney Orly Taitz filed a Freedom of Information... more
-
-
Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:18 AM EDT
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne is asking judge to void Walker's anti-union bill that was "passed" last week in violation of the State's open meeting law. Walker signed the bill last Friday, but there is one more step before the law can take effect, and this complaint seeks to prevent this step of publishing the legislation, as well as voiding the measure and financial penalties of $300 forfeiture plus court costs and attorney's fees as well as a declaration that they violated two state constitutional provisions. The defendants are: "Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon; Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau; Senate president Michael Ellis, R-Neenah; Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford; and La Follette," a Democrat.
UPDATE: A little explanation of the DA's strategy. This complaint is a civil action, and lawmakers have a constitutional privilege from civil process during legislative sessions. Final resolution of this civil action is not likely to happen before March 25th, the date the Secretary of State intends to publish the bill and then it becomes effective the next day. Thus, the DA is seeking an injunction to stop the bill from becoming effective, to prevent this measure from becoming law before the court determines whether the open meeting laws and constitution etc were violated and warrant a voiding of the actions. In other words, the DA is trying to ensure that the court faces the issue of voiding a measure that is not yet effective. The DA is also seeking a finding that named defendants violated the open meeting law knowingly as this would support his request for penalties of $300 forfeiture as well as payment of court courts and attorney's fees.
.
DA Ozanne filed a civil complaint in court today that alleges:
a joint Assembly-Senate conference committee met without providing the required 24 hours' notice, and that notice of the meeting did not give the public enough information about what would be discussed.
Ozanne also alleges that the space for the meeting, the Senate Parlor, was not large enough to accommodate members of the public and that people who wanted to attend the meeting were barred from entering the Capitol, also in violation of state law.
The complaint also seeks to "bar Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the legislation, as he has said he would do on March 25, the last step before it takes effect."
This complaint was triggered when citizens filed complaints about the committee's actions in passing this measure. One complaint was filed by Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) who had voiced objections at the conference committee meeting that the meeting violated the State's open meeting law.
Last week, Senate Chief Clerk Rob Marchant argued that the committee was not required under Senate rules to give advance notice of meetings other than posting notice on a legislative bulletin board. However, the DA stated in the complaint that a different set of legislative rules apply, the joint rules, because the committee consisted of lawmakers from the Senate and Assembly and "there is no joint rule — the rules that govern joint Assembly-Senate operations such as conference committees — providing an exception to the Open Meetings Law. And that law requires 24 hours' notice 'unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical.'" If good cause is shown, then the law requires 2-hour notice, but the GOP did not meet that standard either.
The DA cited in his complaint how the state open meeting law codifies mandates of the Wisconsin Constitution that are key to democracy, specifically, that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged" and that the "doors of each house shall be kept open except when the public welfare shall require secrecy."
The DA is asking the court to:
1. Find that Senator Scott Fitzgerald and a few other defendants violated the state's open meeting law.
2. A judgment declaring that the actions taken violate two provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution.
3. A judgment that the actions taken by the conference committee be voided because the public interest in enforcing the open meeting law outweighs any public interest to maintain the validity of these actions.
4. A judgment of forfeiture against certain defendants, including Sen. Scott Fitzgerarld. The amount of the forfeiture would be $300 "plus court costs and attorney's fees."
5. A temporary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Secretary of State from publishing this measure.
Courts generally do not like to void legislative actions, but there is a pretty good case here of violating a number of provisions key to open government and democracy. However, even if the legislative actions are not voided, if the judge finds that the GOP lawmakers violated the law, this can help the recall drive and a forfeiture of $300 plus court costs and attorney's fees is at least some personal penalty of the kind treasured by them.
A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow.
My diary from last week provides more background on the open meeting law requirements: Wisconsin GOP Did Not Provide Proper Notice.
UPDATES: (I tried update feature but did not appear to work, but if it does later work, you will see this repeated.)
Walker may have violated open meeting laws today:
Ozanne's court filing came the same day Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) boycotted a meeting of the Building Commission because they said it violated the open meetings law. The administration shut the doors and stopped allowing the general public into the meeting once all 50 or so seats were taken.
"It's not a public meeting if you don't let the public in," Pocan said in an interview outside the meeting room.
Risser, who has served on the commission for long stretches over the past 40 years, said he had never seen the doors to the room shut during a meeting. He said that he'd seen more people packed into the room and that past meetings had been moved when there was a heavy turnout.
But in a news conference later in the day, Walker said the meeting was "100% open" as it always is. "We can't put more people in than there is space to stand and sit around in," he said.
A Democrat is proposing constitutional amendment to prevent lawmakers from leaving state in the future:
But Sen. Tim Cullen (D-Janesville) said earlier Tuesday he would introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow the Senate to proceed with a simple majority in all cases. That would make it impossible for a minority of lawmakers to block action on future bills by leaving the Capitol, though it takes at least two years to change the state constitution.Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:18 AM EDT
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne is... more
-
-
An Ecuadorian judge on Monday ordered Chevron Corp. to pay $8.6 billion to clean up oil pollution in the country's rain forest in what is believed to be the largest-ever judgment in an environmental case.
And if the U.S. oil giant doesn't publicly apologize in the next 15 days, the judge ordered the company to pay twice that amount.
The ruling brings to an end one chapter of a legal drama that has played out in courtrooms in Ecuador and the U.S. for nearly two decades.
The case has been bitterly fought by both sides, with each accusing the other of improprieties. In recent months, Chevron uncovered a secret memo revealing the plaintiffs' strategy for enforcing any favorable Ecuadorian ruling around the world. That means that Chevron could be forced to defend itself in any of the dozens of countries where it does business.
The oil company, which denies responsibility for the pollution, has no assets in Ecuador and has vowed to fight any efforts to seize its property overseas. Other multinational corporations are closely watching the case.
The plaintiffs, residents of Ecuador's oil-rich Amazon rain forest, are seeking to hold Chevron accountable for environmental damage they say was caused by Texaco Inc., which operated in the country from 1965 to 1992. Chevron inherited the case when it acquired Texaco in 2001.
Chevron has said for more than a year that it expected to lose the case in Ecuador, where it says collusion between the government and the plaintiffs have made a fair ruling impossible. On Monday, the company vowed to appeal and said it won't pay the fine or apologize as the judge demanded.
"We believe it to be illegitimate and unenforceable," Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson said. "It's the product of fraud, and it's contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence."
The plaintiffs deny Chevron's fraud allegations and say scientific evidence backs up their claims of environmental damage.
The ruling was a rare piece of good news for the plaintiffs after months of setbacks in U.S. courts that left their team divided and scrambling for cash.
But the victory could be short-lived. Last week a panel of international arbitrators in The Hague granted Chevron a preliminary injunction that could block the plaintiffs' efforts to enforce the judgment.
Steven Donziger, a New York lawyer who led the case for years until Chevron's continued attacks caused him to step down as lead plaintiffs' attorney, declined to comment. Instead, the plaintiffs released a statement from their Ecuador-based attorney Pablo Fajardo.
"We believe today's judgment affirms what the plaintiffs have contended for the past 18 years about Chevron's intentional and unlawful contamination of Ecuador's rain forest," he said.
Under Ecuadorian law, Chevron doesn't have to pay any judgment until after an initial appeal, which could take months.
Meanwhile, Chevron is using the U.S. courts, in hopes of never paying anything at all. The company sued the plaintiffs and their lawyers in the U.S., where a federal judge recently issued a temporary stay blocking the plaintiffs' American lawyers from seeking to enforce any judgment.
Chevron has also sued the country of Ecuador under the terms of a trade agreement between it and the U.S. Last week, a panel of arbitrators in The Hague ordered Ecuador to take "all measures at its disposal" to block enforcement of any ruling, both in Ecuador and overseas, until the panel rules on the case. That could make it much more difficult for the plaintiffs to convince a foreign court to seize Chevron's assets.
Ecuador has asked a U.S. court to block Chevron's trade suit and has challenged the panel's jurisdiction.
Even if Chevron never has to pay, the ruling could worsen what has already been a public relations nightmare for the oil giant when all oil companies are under added scrutiny in the wake of last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Investors, however, shrugged off the ruling Monday. Chevron's shares rose 1.3% to $96.95 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
The judge ruled Chevron must pay $5.4 billion to restore polluted soil and $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, among other penalties. The court also ruled that Chevron should pay the Amazon Defense Front, a coalition formed by the plaintiffs, an additional 10% in damages, or about $860 million. That could bring the total judgment to $9.5 billion.
In the ruling, Judge Nicolas Zambrano said that Texaco had the knowledge and technical ability to avoid damages; the damages "were not only foreseeable, but also preventable."
Few legal experts expected the case to get this far. The plaintiffs first sued Texaco in New York in 1993. Texaco, and later Chevron, successfully argued that the case should instead be heard in Ecuador, which was then run by a government seen as friendly to American business interests.
In 2007, however, Ecuador elected as president Rafael Correa, who has publicly supported the plaintiffs' cause. Chevron accuses the left-leaning government of interfering in the case, a charge the government denies.
Many of Chevron's fraud allegations involve a report from a court-appointed expert, Richard Cabrera, who in 2008 estimated Chevron's liability at more than $27 billion. Chevron said the report was actually written by experts hired by the plaintiffs, who then sought to cover up their involvement. In his ruling, however, the judge said he didn't base his opinion on the evidence presented by Mr. Cabrera, because of the fraud allegations.
The plaintiffs have taken steps that may leave them better prepared for the next phase of the case. They have secured millions of dollars in new financing, some of it from a London-based hedge fund that specializes in backing class-action suits. And they have hired new lawyers, led by Washington law firm Patton Boggs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576144464044068664.htmlAn Ecuadorian judge on Monday ordered Chevron Corp. to pay $8.6 billion to clean up... more
-
-
-
Blogger Andrew Breitbart has been sued by former U.S. Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod who contends her reputation was damaged by Breitbart's posting last year of an edited video.
The New York Times reports today Breitbart was served with the lawsuit at CPAC Saturday. Sherrod contends in the suit that a video clip he posted last year "has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."
Breitbart, who first posted the clip on July 19, 2010, at his BigGovernment.com site, had been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March 2010 before a group of NAACP members.
Fox then posted an online article reporting on the clip, linking to Breitbart's video. Breitbart did not seek comment from Sherrod prior to his report; Fox News also gave no indication that they had done so. She was forced to resign later that day.
Breitbart has recently claimed that Sherrod was not fired because of his video but because of her part in the 11-year-old Pigford case, in which black farmers sued for discrimination against the Agriculture Department.
He stated such a claim again on Thursday in an interview with Media Matters, in which he admitted he had no proof of the assertion, revealing it was a theory.
Breitbart responded to Sherrod's lawsuit Saturday with an online statement that said, in part:
I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.
Sherrod could not immediately be reached for comment Sunday.Blogger Andrew Breitbart has been sued by former U.S. Agriculture Department official... more
-
-
Arizona is counter-suing the US government, charging that Washington has failed to protect it from an invasion of illegal immigrants and related violent crime, its governor has said.
The lawsuit, which seeks federal compensation, is in response to a federal lawsuit filed by President Barack Obama's administration last year challenging Arizona's enforcement of a new immigration law along the US-Mexican border.
"Our citizens have lived with this dark cloud for too long .. It's time for the federal government to do its job and secure the border," said Governor Jan Brewer, announcing the lawsuit outside the federal courthouse in Phoenix.
The lawsuit notably charges that the US federal government has failed to reimburse Arizona for more than $760 million in costs for incarcerating illegal immigrants.
"While control of the border is a federal responsibility, illegal aliens who successfully cross the border and commit crime in Arizona become an Arizona responsibility," said Attorney General Tom Horne.
Brewer said the boundary between Arizona and Mexico remains a dangerous place despite stepped-up enforcement along the nearly three thousand mile border by federal authorities.
She also cited the recent death of a US Border Patrol officer as evidence of illegal incursions across the border by criminal drug cartels. "Our border and immigration system are still broken," she said.
The lawsuit also seeks compensation from the federal government for the cost to the state of securing the border.
Brewer claimed fighting illegal immigration had cost the state more than a billion dollars, funds the state simply does not have while facing a serious budget crisis.
She noted that the legal action is being paid for with private funds and is not costing taxpayers. Horne said he expects the lawsuit to be settled in the US Supreme Court.
But other state officials challenged Brewer over the merits of another legal fight with the government.
"Filing a lawsuit won't solve our problems," said attorney Kyrsten Sinema, who serves in the Arizona state Senate. "It won't solve the immigration crisis all of us face in this country," Sinema said.
A throng of opponents were kept back by police, but jeered and shouted "We are not illegal" at the governor, who had to speak loudly to be heard over the demonstrators.Arizona is counter-suing the US government, charging that Washington has failed to... more
-
-
Democratic political consultants Peter Daou and James Boyce, both 45, reached the point of no return last November 15. On that day, they sued Arianna Huffington, the doyenne of Democratic dish, for failing to acknowledge what they claim was their critical role in the creation of the Huffington Post, her online juggernaut.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/02/ariana-huffington-201102Democratic political consultants Peter Daou and James Boyce, both 45, reached the... more
-
-
bambuu
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
WASHINGTON – Former President Jimmy Carter has become the target of a class action lawsuit over ostensibly mean things he said about Israel in his best-selling 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
The lawsuit, filed in New York by an Israeli firm, alleges that the book "contained numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author's agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised."
The five American plaintiffs, two of whom are dual citizens of the US and Israel, seek $5 million in damages over the book (which is being sold for less than $10 on Amazon) on the basis that its criticisms of Israel violated consumer protection safeguards.
The plaintiffs alleged in a press release that the 39th US president and Nobel Peace Prize winner "violated the law and, thus, harmed those who purchased the book" by unfairly "attacking Israel."
Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said her clients' lawsuit "will expose all the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Carter's book and prove that his hatred of Israel has led him to commit this fraud on the public."
Full Story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/carter-sued-5-million-attacking-israel-book/WASHINGTON – Former President Jimmy Carter has become the target of a class... more
-
-
Being a citizen journalist is getting really scary, with copyright trolls lurking in the dark.
One of the worst is the wrongly named Righthaven, run by online jackal Steve Gibson.
“I’ve been a political journalist and blogger for over a year”, says Brian Hill (right) from Mayodan, North Carolina, in an email.
Brian 20, is one of Gibson’s latest victims.
He runs USWGO Alternative Newsn (ref: http://uswgo.com/). a non-profit site “where I write my own articles and mirror others articles with links to the source (Sometimes include pictures) to educate people that certain political agendas are going on but that got me sued this time”, he says.
He carried a Denver Post picture of a Transportation Security Administration guy groping — and we do mean groping — a passenger.
The pic makes it look as though the agent is searching for buried treasure.
“A Transportation Security Administration agent performs an enhanced pat down on a commuter at a security area at Denver International Airport in Denver, CO, November 17, 2010″, says the caption, attributing the photo to Craig F. Walker/ The Denver Post.
But neither one is going after Brian, who says he’s “mildly autistic”.
Rather, lowlife Gibson got his hands on the copyright and in one of the most egregious copyright troll cases yet, is suing Brian, who only found out about the suit when he was contacted by a reporter.
“Then I searched up my name and righthaven and found a court docket/filing verifying that this lawsuit against me over the TSA photo is real”, he told me.
Brian has posted the document on scribd. In it, Gibson says he could be “irreparably harmed”, demanding damages and costs.
Meanwhile, “Number of copyright Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Righthaven, as of February 2, 231 says Righthaven Lawsuits, going on:
Estimated Total Money Settlements Righthaven’s Efforts Have Earned to Date: $318,500 (based on 91 cases closed as of January 25, 2011 and an educated guesstimate of an average of $3,500 settled per case)”
Righthaven LLC “is owned 50/50 by two limited liability companies”, says Righthaven Lawsuits, adding >>>
The first is Net Sortie Systems, LLC, which is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson (right) – the Nevada attorney who is behind all of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven. The second is SI Content Monitor LLC, which is owned by family members of investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens whose investments include Stephens Media, LLC which owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
While Righthaven owes its origins to Stephens Media, Righthaven recently picked up another media company client interested in pursuing the same type of copyright enforcement efforts on its behalf — WEHCO Media (which owns several weekly and daily publications including the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Chattanooga Times Free Press, but also has a partnership with Stephens Media regarding WEHCO’s Northwest Arkansas publications). News coverage of Righthaven’s new “client” here, here, here, and here.
While no lawsuits have yet been filed by Righthaven on behalf of WEHCO Media, a third media company – Media News Group – is also using Righthaven’s “services” – as reflected by numerous copyright infringement lawsuits that have been filed by Righthaven in the Colorado over material appearing in the Denver Post, which is owned by Media News Group. News coverage of Righthaven’s Colorado “client” can be found here and here (see also Denver Posts’ “Notice to readers about Denver Post copyright protections” on November 14, 2010).
Will Gibson get away with this legal extortion? Or will someone, somewhere, pick up the case for Brian and make sure Gibson gets what he deserves?
Stay tuned.Being a citizen journalist is getting really scary, with copyright trolls lurking in... more
-
-
Undercover DEA agent Lee Paige learned the hard, painful way that whatever happens on video… immediately goes on YouTube. Paige is currently attempting to sue the U.S. government for releasing a video of him shooting himself in the foot with a Glock during a presentation about drug education at a Florida community center in 2004.
In April of 2006, Paige filed a complaint alleging that the video’s release harmed his reputation after it appeared online and was broadcast on several television news shows. According to Paige, the DEA possessed sole footage from the talk and, therefore, someone within the department must have put it online or released it to the media. In fact, his lawyers claimed someone within the DEA “with animosity for Paige” had released the video on purpose and with malicious intent. At the time, lawyers for the government felt Paige did not provide evidence to back up his claims, and the identity of the person responsible for circulating the video remains unknown. A mystery is afoot, one might say.
Earlier this week, Lee was able to successfully get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn a December ruling terminating his original lawsuit.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/dea-agent-is-suing-government-for-allegedly-releasing-video-of-him-shooting-himself-in-the-foot/Undercover DEA agent Lee Paige learned the hard, painful way that whatever happens on... more
-
-
First the hack and now the lawsuit! Troubles for Facebook are not nearing end anytime soon, it seems. Just a day after Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg's official fan page got hacked, a disgruntled user has filed a lawsuit against the Palo Alto, California based company.First the hack and now the lawsuit! Troubles for Facebook are not nearing end anytime... more
-
-
Alstom
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
In a lawsuit filed on behalf of Amanda Obney, a resident of California, and the customers of Taco Bell, it has been alleged that meat used by the company is not all meat but contains binders and fillers in high quantity.In a lawsuit filed on behalf of Amanda Obney, a resident of California, and the... more
-
-
Alstom
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
According to Robin Marty of Care2.org, today’s young whippersnappers are snorting bath salts and plant food to get their kicks. I knew I was getting old when I had to check the media to find out about the latest youth drug menace.
But, before you go and blow your allowance at the Body Shop or the garden center, keep in mind that “bath salt” and “plant food” are just euphemisms that web-based head shops use to sell these amphetamine-like drugs , according to a 2010 report by the UK Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The active ingredients of this legal high are mephedrone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
Despite what the media would have you believe, these designer drugs are not ingredients in common household products. You cannot get high on actual bath salts or plant food. Sorry. Gardeners, if you bought exotic imported “plant food” online, and it arrived in an impossibly tiny packet, don’t feed it to your plants.
Anti-choice black op linked to James O’Keefe
At least a dozen Planned Parenthood clinics across the country have recently been visited by a mysterious, self-proclaimed “sex trafficker” who was apparently part of a ruse to entrap clinic employees. Planned Parenthood reported these visits to the FBI.
In each case, the man reportedly asked to speak privately with a clinic worker, whereupon he asked for health advice regarding the underage, undocumented girls he was supposedly trying to traffic.
Jodi Jacobson reports at RH Reality Check:
[Prominent anti-choice blogger] Jill Stanek and other anti-choice operatives, including Lila Rose of Live Action Films are effectively claiming responsibility for sending pseudo “sex traffickers” into [Planned Parenthood] clinics, and also warn of “explosive evidence,” of which they of course present…..none. They appear to have no credible response to exposure of their efforts to perpetrate a hoax on Planned Parenthood.
As Jacobson points out, sex trafficking is a very real problem. And a sex trafficking hoax diverts time and resources that the authorities who could be hunting down real traffickers. She adds:
Victims of sex trafficking, after all, also need sexual health services because they are effectively being raped regularly and are more likely to contract sexually transmitted infections and experience unintended pregnancies. Does this help them get treatment?
Lila Rose of Live Action Films is a former associate of right wing hoaxster James O’Keefe, who orchestrated a sting operation against the social justice group ACORN. O’Keefe was sentenced last year to three years’ probation for scamming his way into the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in January, 2010.
Sex, lies, and the classroom
To mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the National Radio Project presents a discussion of sex ed in American schools, federal funding for sex ed, and advocacy by interest groups and parents. Guests include Phyllida Burlingame of the ACLU and Gabriela Valle of California Latinas for Reproductive Justice.
Hot coffee!
Remember the woman who sued McDonald’s after she spilled a hot cup of coffee in her lap? Corporate interests made Stella Liebeck into a national joke, even though she won her suit. Hot Coffee is a new documentary that tells the story behind the one-liners. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviews Ms. Liebeck’s daughter and son-in-law.
McDonald’s corporate manuals dictated that coffee be served at 187 degrees, in flimsy styrofoam cups. A home coffee maker usually keeps the brew between 142 to 162 degrees, and most people pour their Joe into something sturdier than a styrofoam cup. If you spill that coffee on yourself, you have 25 seconds to get it off before you suffer a 3rd degree burn. Whereas if you spill 187-degree coffee on yourself, you’ve got between 2 and 7 seconds.
Companies are expected to produce products that are safe for their intended use. McDonald’s was serving coffee to go, through drive-through windows, with cream and sugar in the bag. By implication, it should be safe to add cream and sugar to hot coffee in a car. In the pre-cup-holder era, millions of Americans were probably steadying their coffees between their legs to add cream and sugar every day. A responsible restaurant would not dispense superheated liquids in flimsy to-go cups. Indeed, McDonalds’ own records showed that 700 people had been scalded this way.
In 1992, the plaintiff was a passenger in a parked car, attempting to add cream and sugar to her coffee while steadying the cup between her knees. When she opened the lid, the cup collapsed inward, dousing her with scalding coffee. The 79-year-old woman sustained 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body. She needed skin grafts to repair the damage. Initially she only sued to recoup part of the cost of the skin grafts. But the judge who heard the case was so outraged by McDonald’s disregard for customer safety that he urged the jury to award punitive damages.
Another theme of Hot Coffee is how medical malpractice caps are forcing taxpayers to cover the medical costs of people who are injured by negligent health care providers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
According to Robin Marty of... more
-
