#California Civil Litigation Attorney

[andrewdosalaw]

This outline breaks down civil lawsuits into three easy-to-follow phases. Learn how lawsuits progress from the initial filing, through the evidence gathering and trial phase, to the final judgment. Perfect for anyone wanting a clear understanding of how civil cases move through the legal system.

[wyrmfedgrave]

NBC News: Democratic governors vow to protect their states from Trump and his policies

Democratic governors are intent on bolstering the fundamental rights & values of their states - just as they did during tRump's 1st presidency.

Governor Newsome (California) is focusing on civil rights, reproductive freedoms, climate action & on immigrant families.

California's Justice Dept. will soon have additional resources to pursue litigation against unlawful acts by the tRump administration.

"We won't sit idle", Newsome stated, "We've faced this problem before & know how to respond."

Governor Pritzker (Illinois) says he'll fight against "anyone trying to take away our freedoms, dignity & opportunities."

"We are", he continued, "a refuge for human rights being denied elsewhere."

This includes political asylum, reproductive health care & safety from persecution of one's sexual orientation."

Pritzker's already codified abortion rights & has made gender-affirming care covered by local health insurers!

He's now looking into protecting outsiders needing reproductive care - by protecting their medical records...

Even environmental regulations are now being codified - just in case.

And, labor protections are being strictly maintained.

A united effort, with other Midwestern states is on the schedule. They've all survived the Rapist Con Man's last time & learned their lessons well.

Governor Hochul (NYS) has just announced the "Empire State Freedom Initiative", that addresses "policy & regulatory" threats from Republikkkans.

Things like federal attacks on legal, reproductive, immigration, civil, environmental & other issues.

Hochul states that she "wants to make NY a safer, stronger & more livable place."

Her administration has already developed legal, regulatory & appropriate responses to counter any federal actions.

Massachusetts Governor Healy will use "every tool in our 'toolbox' to protect residents, democracy & the rule of law."

As a State Attorney, she actually challenged Prez tRump's immigration laws during his 1st presidency.

She's firmly promises that her State Police won't help carry out tRump's mass deportation scheme.

Finally, NJ Governor Murphy vowed to "fight to the death" on issues pertaining to when immigration & reproductive rights are federally challenged...

Good to know that someone remembers that we're supposed to have inalienable rights.

End.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ken White for The UnPopulist:

In modern America, defamation cases—like war—are the continuation of politics by other means. The politics in question can be anything from ludicrously petty to historically consequential. Americans use defamation claims to fight everything from social media spats to rap beefs. Increasingly, America’s rich and powerful—especially President Donald Trump—use them to attack political opponents and to litigate political disputes over who won national elections. Notice that I didn’t say we use defamation claims to resolve those disputes. Most defamation claims ultimately fail, and almost none of them reach trial. But winning often isn’t the point. The point is inflicting ruinous expense and suffering on the defendants and soliciting attention, support, and sometimes fundraising for the plaintiffs. It works. That’s why you see rich and powerful people increasingly abusing defamation lawsuits—sometimes dressed up unconvincingly as fraud lawsuits—to harass political enemies. This is a grave threat to free speech and the people who do it—like Donald Trump and Elon Musk—are ascendant. Trump, who has long favored bogus litigation as a weapon against his enemies, has been on a censorial bender. In the last year alone he: sued a pollster for bad poll results; CBS for supposedly editing a Kamala Harris interview to make her look better; and ABC and George Stephanopoulos for bungling a description of E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse verdict against him. Musk, meanwhile, has sued both Media Matters and the Center for Countering Digital Hate for reporting about hate speech on X.

The Justice System Is Broken

Political litigation works because the justice system is broken. It’s cheap and easy to file a defamation complaint, even a big splashy one. I could draft one in 20 minutes and file it in state or federal court for less than a thousand bucks. But it’s ruinously expensive to defend a case, even if the claim is bogus. It costs a minimum of tens of thousands and up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend a civil suit in America. When Donald Trump was awarded more than $300,000 in attorney fees for defeating Stormy Daniels’ defamation case at an early stage, litigators weren’t surprised. The vast majority of Americans cannot possibly afford to defend themselves if someone sues them for their speech, even if that speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. This is bad for everyone, not just the folks who get sued. When a lawyer sends you a threatening letter demanding that you take down a Facebook post or retract a letter to the editor or apologize for a comment, giving in may be the only economically rational choice, freedom of expression be damned. It’s cold comfort to know that your free speech rights would be vindicated at trial if it will bankrupt you to get to that stage. Moreover, penury isn’t the only threat. Whether you win a defamation suit or lose, you’ll suffer the whole time. Litigation is humiliating, terrifying, and will destroy your health, your relationships, and your joy in life. I’ve never had a client enjoy litigation. They’re always grateful for it to be over.

[...]

State Anti-SLAPP Statutes Aren’t Enough

Numerous states have followed California’s example and enacted anti-SLAPP statutes. Ohio just passed one this month. Unfortunately, their quality is inconsistent; some states’ statutes protect only a very narrow range of speech or lack the procedural protections that make statutes effective. There’s also a bigger problem: state anti-SLAPP statutes don’t apply to federal claims. Even worse, the different Circuits of the United States Court of Appeals disagree for arcane reasons about whether state anti-SLAPP statutes apply to state claims heard in federal court. Drake sued UMG in federal court in New York, which has a robust anti-SLAPP statute, but UMG won’t get its benefit because federal courts in the Second Circuit don’t apply state anti-SLAPP statutes. The same goes for Texas, within the Fifth Circuit, a popular defamation tourist destination—Trump sued CBS and Musk sued Media Matters there, thwarting defendants’ ability to use state anti-SLAPP laws.

Fortunately, there’s a solution: a federal anti-SLAPP statute that would apply in federal courts across the nation to both federal and state claims heard in federal court. This is the most effective way of thwarting forum-shopping litigants who rush to Texas to suppress speech. It would mean that performative, retaliatory lawsuits like those filed by Trump and Musk would be halted in their tracks and, if meritless, dismissed. The defendants could recover fees and feel justifiably more secure in their speech rights. Plaintiffs without deep pockets would be deterred from filing bogus cases in the first place. Anti-SLAPP statutes have already proven effective in thwarting the powerful—consider Elon Musk’s humiliating loss against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, or Sheldon Adelson’s loss to the National Jewish Democratic Council. In both cases, the defendants prevailed through an anti-SLAPP statute.

Congress has repeatedly considered federal anti-SLAPP statutes, but they’ve never passed one. In December 2024 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle proposed a new one. It has strong and diverse backing. It ought to pass on its merits. After all, both parties pay lip service to free speech and purport to oppose frivolous lawsuits, and there are plenty of nonpartisan stories of financially ruinous and frivolous litigation. This can be spun in a way that appeals to everyone.

Yet the proponents face a grim political reality. Donald Trump has a compliant Republican Congress that is sensitive to his extreme tenderness to offense. Even if backers don’t spin the bill as a rebuke to Trump’s habit of bad-faith litigation, Republicans may perceive the bill as such. Trump himself has a long history of wanting to make it easier, not harder, to sue for defamation, repeatedly saying that he wants to “open up” libel laws to allow aggrieved plaintiffs to “sue them and win money.” The bill’s sponsors need to find a way to frame this fight so that it flatters his ego, or he’ll veto it out of pique.

But nobody promised fighting for free speech would be easy. Anti-SLAPP statutes are so stunningly effective that it’s worth our time to agitate for this one, even under these grim circumstances. The Public Participation Project will continue to promote anti-SLAPP bills in Congress law and provide information about supporting such bills, so follow them. Nobody likes a bully. Bullies like SLAPP suits. Regrettably, America is overrun by bullies—and some of them, like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, have absolutely no scruple about abusing the legal system to punish their political enemies. Support state and federal anti-SLAPP statutes to help stick a thumb in the bullies’ eyes.

Anti-SLAPP laws with real teeth are needed, because malcontents like Elon Musk and MAGA acolytes are using it to silence dissenters against their wicked and Satanic agenda.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Democracy Docket

Marc Elias

Wednesday, January 29

Lawsuits over birthright citizenship, DOJ actions and more are already underway and Democracy Docket is closely following every update. Upgrade now for $120/year to stay ahead of the curve and get the most crucial updates with exclusive analysis sent straight to your inbox.

Illinois Republicans sue over legislative map, claiming it favors Democrats

Illinois Republicans filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging the state House map, arguing it’s gerrymandered to favor Democrats. Currently, Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly.

Trump’s DOJ drops case challenging Virginia’s voter purge program

President Donald Trump’s U.S. Department of Justice dropped its lawsuit challenging Virginia’s unlawful voter purge program that targeted voters shortly before the 2024 election. The move aligned with a recommendation from a Project 2025 contributor to end litigation against voter purge programs.

The latest on state voter roll maintenance lawsuits

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by several voters who sought to remove hundreds of allegedly ineligible voters from voter rolls in Marin County, California without evidence. The judge ruled the voters lacked standing.

A Kentucky judge granted the State Board of Election's request to dismiss a voter roll maintenance lawsuit based on lack of standing. The court gave Kentuckians for the Commonwealth 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a right-wing group, sued Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Reed (D), alleging the state is denying access to its voter roll maintenance records from the Electronic Registration Information Center because of a policy not to retain monthly reports. PILF argued this policy violates the National Voter Registration Act.

Senate Judiciary Committee advances Pam Bondi’s nomination

Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general nominee, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a 12-10 party-line vote. Her nomination will advance to the Senate floor for a full vote. Read here to learn more about Bondi’s anti-voting record.

THE OPPOSITION

Holding Trump Accountable

Judge poised to block Trump’s federal funding freeze amid chaos, confusion

Amid confusion over White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s statements on the status of a federal fund freeze, a federal judge in Rhode Island suggested he would temporarily block any freeze from Trump on federal grants and loans.

Litigation against Trump’s Schedule F order escalates with third lawsuit

Democracy Forward and two federal employees unions filed the third lawsuit against Trump's Schedule F executive order, which seeks to strip federal employees of civil service protections.

This is a daily newsletter that provides a quick and easy rundown of the voting and democracy news of the day. For questions about your subscription or general support, visit our FAQ page here.

[beardedmrbean]

September 12, 2024, Elk Grove, Ca.—California teacher Isaac Newman has won a judgment just three months after he alleged in a federal civil rights lawsuit that his teachers’ union discriminated against him on the basis of race. Newman, who is white, was unable to run for a union executive board position because the union required candidates to “self-identify” as a racial minority.

Following Newman’s lawsuit, the union quickly folded by ending the segregated board seat and committing to non-discriminatory practices in other union positions. A judge also entered an order requiring the union, the Elk Grove Education Association (EGEA), to pay Newman $12,000 and to pay his attorneys’ fees.

“I’m delighted that my lawsuit forced union officials to admit something every high school student knows: Racial segregation is wrong,” said Newman, who teaches history at Elk Grove Unified School District in suburban Sacramento. “I hope this victory returns union officials’ focus to representing all teachers, rather than dividing us based on race. I plan to donate every penny I receive from the union to a local scholarship fund for Elk Grove students.”

Newman’s lawsuit cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, both of which prohibit unions from racial discrimination.

“Based on union officials’ immediate capitulation to Isaac’s demands, it’s clear that they thought they didn’t have a legal leg to stand on to defend their segregated board seat,” said Nathan McGrath, president and general counsel for the Fairness Center. “Isaac’s win affirms that unions don’t get a pass on anti-discrimination law.”

The EGEA has created a new board seat open to all members to replace the one for which only non-whites were eligible.

“After this major victory, I will continue my fight to hold the union accountable to the letter and the spirit of the law by running for the union’s new board seat on a platform of true fairness and equal representation for all members, regardless of race,” responded Newman.

Background

In 2023, EGEA officials created a “BIPOC At-Large” seat on its executive board with the approval of its statewide affiliate union, the California Teachers Association. Newman, a decade-long union member, resolved to run for the board seat, but the union’s nomination form required him to check a box confirming that he identified as a member of one of several racial minority groups. Newman could not in good conscience check the box and was, therefore, unable to run for the board position.

[folkdances]

professional timelines for ace attorney characters that i cooked up last month:

edgeworth: starts off working under von karma at the german public prosecutor's office and then moves to the states and becomes a deputy district attorney. sometime during the 7yg he becomes the district attorney to los angeles county and then, post-canon, becomes attorney general for california. that's right guys my version of future miles edgeworth has had to deal with merrick garland.

phoenix: things stay largely the same until aa5 in which he acts more as a counsel for athena and apollo in big cases and distributes smaller ones amongst the trio. post-aa6 he hires a few more associates and promotes athena to junior partner.

apollo: declines phoenix's offer to become a junior partner after aa6 and instead informally leaves the waa to open his own practice in khura'in. will come back to l.a. to assist on bigger cases when phoenix isn't available or if he thinks the case is interesting. in khura'in he doesn't take murder trials, instead focusing almost exclusively on civil litigation.

athena: went to law school in greece and moved to l.a. at phoenix's request after the 7yg. the waa was her first experience working as a proper lawyer instead of interning or acting as a judicial assistant. she's the main lawyer on most of the cases in dd and beyond, excluding the khura'in trials. she gets promoted to junior partner post-aa6 and, given her background in psychology, starts taking on labour and family law cases.

franziska: starts off the same way as edgeworth by working beneath von karma before becoming an official public prosecutor in germany. her stint in california during jfa was some kind of protracted exchange or consultation program and she continued to work in germany after the game. after aai2 she pursues a job working alongside interpol and begins prosecuting largely moderate- to high-profile international cases.

generally i believe they were taking other trials between the trials shown in game (more of an issue for the waa than the prosecutors; obviously the prosecutors were taking cases).

[houseofbrat]

Democratic party civil war, you say?

Matt Stoller on Kamala Harris:

There's a fair critique here of Kamala Harris skeptics. What basis do we have for skepticism? I'll lay out my views, which are largely policy-centered. I realize no one cares about what kind of leader Harris will be as President, but if there's one lesson we should take away from this moment, it's that we as a party should try to think more than five minutes ahead instead of panicking ourselves into a rushed decision. I started paying attention to Harris when she became California AG in 2010, because some friends worked to get her elected. It was in the middle of the financial crisis, Bush's and Obama's handling of which eventually led to the emergence of Trump. While AG, she had her most important test as an executive presiding over a big political economy decision - what to do about foreclosure crisis in California. Her position was unusual, because California is a big state, so the AG office is, staffed with many lawyers who can do complex finance analysis. Most states don't. There are only a few places - Texas, NY, Illinois, California - who have the capacity to truly wage independent litigation against powerful institutions like big banks. Harris pledged to do so. [Harris] pledged take on the banks and get something genuinely meaningful for homeowners for a mass legal violation called foreclosure fraud that put them on the hook for trillions. The details aren't important but if you want to know them read Dave Dayen's Chain of Title. It's something I was involved in. After two years where it became obvious Obama was on the wrong side, it was exciting to see a Democrat finally stand up.

Only, she didn't. Harris signed a sham settlement with a big fake fine number, that mostly let the banks do whatever they want, and I believe even get a tax deduction for the fines they did pay. As a result, a lot of people lost their homes who shouldn't have. That was a tragedy. But then when she was running for President in 2020, she *bragged* about what she did. It was rancid, similar to the worst of Obama. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis… Later it came out that her staff had given her memos on how she should have prosecuted (later) Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, but just chose not to. It's not hard to see that, had Obama (and Harris) actually put the bad guys away, a whole slew of Trump officials would have been in jail rather than in the cabinet. https://politico.com/news/2019/10/22/kamala-harris-attorney-general-california-housing-053716…

I didn't pay as much attention to her big tech work or her time in the Senate, but she's quite close to a whole slew of people in the industry, top execs at Google and Facebook like Sheryl Sandberg. While AG, which was when these companies cemented their dominance in America, Harris's office saw Facebook as "a good actor." She took no actions against big firms as AG, opposed important legislation, and even started a privacy-related "monthly working group that included representatives from Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Kleiner Perkins. In internal documents, Harris' office referred to the companies as "partners."' Again, standard operating Obamacrat stuff. https://businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-silicon-valley-big-tech-facebook-attorney-general-2021-11…… Harris's circle of friends and family are biglaw Obamacrats. Her brother-in-law Tony West was a high-level Obama official, and now GC of Uber. Her niece worked at Uber, Slack, and FB, and her husband was a biglaw partner at Venable and DLA Piper. His clients included Walmart, Merck, and an arms dealer, and there were ethics questions since DLA Piper had a long list of foreign clients. https://nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/elections/doug-emhoff-kamala-harriss-husband-takes-a-leave-of-absence-from-his-law-firm.html…

How does this differ from Biden's track record? As a Senator, you could read him like Harris. Biden did whatever the credit card companies wanted, was in on bad trade deals, and was VP when Obama mishandled the financial crisis. But Biden always had a tinge of populism. In the 1990s, he went after Stephen Breyer in his hearing for the Supreme Court, calling him an elitist for instance. He was a foreign policy guy, and never liked the Silicon Valley and Wall Street execs, he always thought they looked down on him. As President, he delegated and ignored most domestic policy, and so some of it went to populists and union people while most of it went to neoliberals like Janet Yellen and Neera Tanden. The net result of Biden's choices is a mix - good policy in a few areas, and rank incompetence across a host of them, as well as fantastically incompetent messaging. What was Harris's role? As VP, she's largely been absent from most policy areas I follow, so I don't know how to think about her views on Biden's economic agenda. She's certainly never talked about or been involved in anything competition or regulatory minded that I can see. She does not seem to be a player in any of the big money areas. That said, Harris has proven incapable of managing important tasks like addressing or even explaining the obviously dysfunctional asylum process at the border, so it's hard to know how much she *can* actually do in terms of competence. There's also a lot of inertia here, it's not like she can change everything on a dime. She will inherit Biden's legacy and officeholders, and she hasn't done much as VP to thwart economic policy, for good or ill.

So how will she be as President? I don't want to overstate my read, it's just a guess. But since we're all just guessing, what I suspect is she'll lead to a total wipeout of Dems in 2026 and 2028 as the party turns wholly against working people, and a more complete Trump-y style realignment. And that's if she wins. So that's the optimistic scenario.

Dem Civil War commencing...

[petervintonjr]

"True emancipation lies in the acceptance of the whole past in deriving strength from all of my roots, in facing up to the degradation as well as the dignity of my ancestors."

As we come to the end of Pride Month 2023, I wanted to devote a little time to the remarkable life of Rev. Anna Pauline "Pauli" Murray --civil rights attorney, Episcopal priest, scholar, and advocate. Born in 1910 Baltimore, their mother tragically died when Murray was only four, and their father succumbed to depression and was later murdered in a mental hospital, and so Murray was raised by an aunt and grandparents, in a time when the threat of violence from the Ku Klux Klan was never too far away. Murray later moved to New York City and graduated from Hunter College in 1933 (as Columbia College did not at the time admit women). Throughout the 1930's Murray grappled with sexual and gender identity --this is in fact when they took on the preferred male-identifying name of "Pauli." A gifted photographer but an even more prolific author, Murray worked as a teacher with the New York City Remedial Reading Project, which offered a great deal of opportunity to write and publish. Among other publications, Pauli's essays and articles about civil rights would regularly appear in The Crisis and in Common Sense (both publications of the NAACP).

Pauli took the unusual (and risky!) step of petitioning to apply to graduate school at the University of North Carolina (current events alert!) --at the time an all-white institution. Such a prospect was considered sufficiently unobtainable that even the NAACP declined to actively support this effort. Pauli had in the meantime cultivated the acquaintance of then-First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as A. Philip Randolph (see Lesson #68 in this series); associations which would later carry consequences. Pauli is listed as one of the founders of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), along with Bayard Rustin (see Lesson #5 in this series), and James Farmer (Lesson #17). In 1943 they published a hugely important essay: "Negroes Are Fed Up;" and also a poem, Dark Testament, both of which spoke to the Harlem Race Riot of 1935.

In 1944 Murray graduated from Howard University Law School --while largely identifying as a man but still presenting as a woman, Murray famously coined the expression "Jane Crow" to describe the experience. They then applied to Harvard Law for an advanced degree on a Rosenwald Fellowship but was turned down --reportedly not due to racism (exact same current events alert!) but definitely due to sexism. They instead opted for the University of California Boalt School of Law; their graduate thesis was titled "The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment." In 1945 Murray was named deputy attorney general for the state of California; the first African American to hold that post. In 1951 Pauli published States' Laws On Race and Color, a book that would later be described by Thurgood Marshall as the "Bible" for civil rights litigation, and was conspicuously referenced during Brown v. Board of Education arguments.

In 1952 the scourge of McCarthyism caught up with Murray and cost them a number of prestigious posts due to affiliation with "radicals" like Marshall, Randolph, and particularly Ms. Roosevelt. Unbowed, Pauli went on to publish the gripping biographical account Proud Shoes, which led in turn to a job offer in the litigation dept. of Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton, and Garrison (as in, Lloyd), where she would meet lifelong partner Irene Barlow. In 1960 Pauli was appointed by President John F. Kennedy to the Committee on Civil And Political Rights, but the issue of intersectionality was never far from their priorities; notably in 1963 Murray took Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, and Martin Luther King to task for not including a single woman speaker at the March On Washington. Perhaps the most fascinating coda to this remarkable life comes in 1977, when in the wake of Irene Barlow's passing, Murray became the very first African-American woman Episcopal priest. Pauli died in 1985, having never come out publicly.

For a comprehensive listing of Pauli's writings, visit the Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice: https://www.paulimurraycenter.com/paulis-writing

[mariacallous]

When Robin Marty was writing her 2021 book The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America: The Complete Guide to Abortion Legality, Access, and Practical Support, people often asked her why she didn’t just make it an online resource. 

“I said, ‘Well, we can't guarantee that online is always going to be accessible for people,’” says Marty, who is director of operations at the West Alabama Women's Center in Tuscaloosa. Her concern that women might one day be restricted from reading about abortion online proved prescient.

State lawmakers in Texas are considering a bill introduced last month that would make it illegal to provide information on how to access abortion. The bill would also require internet service providers to block websites offering content like that in Marty’s book, allow prosecution of abortion pill “distribution networks,” and permit anyone to sue a person who shared anything about how to access a medical abortion. The proposal borrows from a Texas law passed in 2021 that offers a cash bounty to citizens who sue a person who helped facilitate access to abortion care.

The Texas proposal to restrict information about abortion follows a recent flurry of attempts to limit reproductive rights in the US, with a particular focus on medical abortions—that is, abortions induced by medication. Experts worry that if passed, the bill could incentivize platforms and internet service providers (ISPs) to censor abortion-related content more broadly for fear of costly court cases. 

“It’s scaring the platforms and the ISPs and the speakers into thinking that they can be liable for the speech,” says Jennifer Pinsof, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “So it’s having a chilling effect and advancing the goal of keeping this information from being accessible to people online.”

Access to good information about abortion could become even more important as new restrictions are placed on the procedure. Earlier this month, a Texas judge ruled to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, a pill that in combination with misoprostol is part of the standard process for a medical abortion. This week, a federal appeals court ruled that though mifepristone could still be used for abortions, it can no longer be prescribed by mail.

The proposal to block Texans from accessing information about abortion, introduced by three male Republican representatives, is the most far-reaching attempt to date to limit how easily people learn about abortion access in the US. But it is not without precedent. Arizona has had a ban on advertising abortion services on its books since 1873. Other states, including Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, and California, have restrictions on advertising the procedure.

Free speech is generally protected in the US under the First Amendment to the Constitution, while technology platforms have successfully argued that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act means they can’t be held liable for content posted by users. 

However, the bill being debated in Texas could essentially sidestep at least some of these protections by enlisting citizens to police information about abortions. Instead of the government cracking down on content, citizens would file civil court cases, with potential targets including social platforms and ISPs hosting websites or social posts offering information about abortion.

Pinsof says companies facing such legal threats would have little incentive to defend the free speech of their users if it helped them avoid litigation. “We’ve seen over and over in different contexts that platforms are vulnerable to censorship pressure because they're afraid of being sued,” says Pinsof. “So it's easier to take stuff down than it is to potentially open yourself up to liability.” 

Another part of the law would require ISPs to “make every reasonable and technologically feasible effort to block internet access to information or material intended to assist or facilitate efforts to obtain an elective abortion or an abortion-inducing drug.” It also shields them from legal liability resulting from such takedowns, which Pinsof thinks could further encourage companies to remove content related to abortion.

Platforms are currently watching a case in the Supreme Court which argues that tech companies can in fact be held liable for content promoted on their platforms. Any weakening of that protection could expose companies to additional legal hazards in Texas under the proposed bill if they allowed pro-choice content to be shared on their services. Pinsof says the law can be read as making the provision of information about abortion “illegal both for speakers themselves, and also for platforms.”

WIRED reached out to Twitter, Reddit, Meta, and TikTok to ask whether laws like the Texas bill would induce them to change their moderation policies on abortion-related content. None responded. However, experts say that the platforms might preemptively begin limiting content related to abortion. 

Last year, WIRED found that Meta was already restricting some abortion content on its platforms, regularly removing posts that referenced accessing abortion pills under rules barring the sale of “illegal or regulated goods." 

The Texas bill could also have major implications for search engines, making it more difficult for women to find accurate information about abortion services. So-called “crisis pregnancy centers”—operated by anti-choice organizations—often use promoted results to get themselves to the top of searches for abortion providers. 

“There’s effectively competition between pro- and anti-choice groups to win those slots at the top of Google search,” says Callum Hood, head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that tracks disinformation. “There will be no alternative in search results other than what anti-choice groups have to say about abortion,” he says. 

Neither Google nor Microsoft responded to requests for comment about how or whether search results or ads might be modified or restricted in response to the Texas bill.

Hood says he worries that censorship could lead ISPs to decide that hosting abortion-related websites carries too many risks. ISPs have previously blocked websites for illicit materials like child pornography.

“The easiest thing for them to say is just, ‘We're not going to host any website that’s to do with abortion. Full stop,’” says Hood. “It is going to create an incentive for them to just take simple steps, which is to avoid any ambiguity over whether or not they are facilitating access to information about abortion-inducing drugs.”

Marty says that, should the bill be enacted, activists will work out ways around it, as they have for previous restrictions. But she acknowledges that these strategies may still leave many women without critical information, because digital information has become so important.

Pro-choice activists and educators sometimes use QR codes, which can easily be printed as stickers or posters and left inconspicuously in public places to point people to abortion information. “Most of the activism has already and will continue to pivot to QR codes and other ways of providing informational links without the actual information being visible in a text form,” she says. “But even a QR code is a whisper network. You have to know that this is a thing to find the information on.”

[chamerionwrites]

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Northern California, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and National Immigrant Justice Center filed a legal challenge today to the Biden administration’s new asylum ban.

The challenge was filed swiftly after the new policy’s unveiling. The ban largely mimics two Trump-era policies — known as the “entry” and “transit” bans — which were blocked by the courts. It prohibits asylum for everyone at the border who transited through another country en route to the United States (i.e., people from countries other than Mexico) except for those who are able to obtain a scarce appointment to present themselves at a border port through a flawed mobile application; the rare person who first sought and was denied asylum in another country; or those who can prove that they qualify for one of a few other extremely narrow exceptions.

“The Biden administration’s new ban places vulnerable asylum seekers in grave danger and violates U.S. asylum laws. We’ve been down this road before with Trump,” said Katrina Eiland, managing attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The asylum bans were cruel and illegal then, and nothing has changed now.”

The filing argues that asylum laws do not allow the administration to restrict access to asylum based on an individual’s manner of entry or whether they applied for asylum elsewhere. It further explains that migrants cannot meaningfully seek asylum in transit countries because many lack a functioning asylum system, others have systems that are stretched to the breaking point, and most are not remotely safe for asylum seekers to find refuge. U.S. courts have recognized these principles in rejecting the previous asylum bans that the new rule tries to combine and re-impose.

“People fleeing persecution have a legal right to seek asylum, no matter how they reach the border,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “Our asylum system was designed to protect people fleeing imminent threats to their lives, who do not have the luxury of waiting for an elusive appointment or for an application to be adjudicated in a country where they are in danger. The Biden administration has had over two years to set up a fair and humane asylum process post-Title 42. That it has instead chosen to resurrect and repackage illegal Trump-era policies is reprehensible.”

The case also cites numerous issues with requiring people to use the flawed CBP One mobile app to secure an appointment to seek asylum, including lack of financial resources to acquire a smartphone, lack of adequate internet access to use the app, technical glitches, language and literacy barriers, and an insufficient number of available appointments. These multiple, compounding barriers to CBP One access will leave many asylum seekers stranded indefinitely in dangerous and life-threatening conditions in Mexico.

“This unlawful rule relies on a mobile app that functions poorly, is available in just three languages, and requires people to enter a lottery for a woefully insufficient number of appointments,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Even more egregious, the rule perpetuates false notions that people fleeing persecution are safe in Mexico and Central America, and it offers purported solutions that will be routinely unavailable, especially to migrants who are not from the Western Hemisphere. In doing so, the rule levies special harm on some of the most vulnerable migrants, including women, LGBTQ people, and Black and Indigenous people.”

The challenge to the ban was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, American Gateways. Central American Resource Center, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Tahirih Justice Center.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Nov 13, 2023

Few figures in the medical world generate more controversy than psychiatrist Jack Turban. An assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, Turban is one of the leading figures promoting “gender-affirming care” in the United States. He is also regularly criticized for producing deeply flawed research and denying the significant rollback of youth gender transition in Europe.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently retained Turban as an expert witness—paying him $400 per hour—in its legal challenge to Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which restricts access to “gender-affirming” drugs and surgeries to adults only. On October 16, Turban submitted to a seven-hour deposition at the hands of John Ramer, an attorney with the law firm Cooper & Kirk, who is assisting Idaho in the litigation. In the course of the deposition, Turban revealed that, aside from churning out subpar research and misleading the public about scientific findings, he also appears not to grasp basic principles of evidence-based medicine.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) refers to “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. . . . The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.” Because the expert opinion of doctors, even when guided by clinical experience, is vulnerable to bias, EBM “de-emphasizes intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale as sufficient grounds for clinical decision making and stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research.” EBM thus represents an effort to make the practice of medicine more scientific, with the expectation that this will lead to better patient outcomes.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses sit at the top of the hierarchy of evidence in EBM. A key difference between the U.S. and European approaches to pediatric gender medicine is that European countries have changed their clinical guidelines in response to findings from systematic reviews. In the U.S., medical groups have either claimed that a systematic review “is not possible” (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health), relied on systematic reviews but only for narrowly defined health risks and not for benefits (the Endocrine Society), or used less scientifically rigorous “narrative reviews” (the American Academy of Pediatrics). One of the world’s leading experts on EBM has called U.S. medical groups’ treatment recommendations “untrustworthy.”

In the deposition, Ramer asked Turban to explain what systematic reviews are. “[A]ll a systematic review means,” Turban responded, “is that the authors of the reports pre-defined the search terms they used when conducting literature reviews in various databases.” The “primary advantage” of a systematic review, he emphasized, is to function as a sort of reading list for experts in a clinician field. “Generally, if you are in a specific field where you know most of the research papers, the thing that’s most interesting about systematic review is if it identifies a paper that you didn’t already know about.” Ramer showed Turban the EBM pyramid of evidence, which appears in the Cass Review (page 62) of the U.K.’s Gender Identity Development Service. He asked Turban why systematic reviews sit at the top of the pyramid. Turban responded: “Because you’re looking at all of the studies instead of looking at just one.”

Turban’s characterization represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what EBM is and why systematic reviews are the bedrock of trustworthy medical guidelines.

First, even if the only thing that makes a review systematic is that it “pre-defines the search terms,” Turban failed to explain the relevance of this. A major reason systematic reviews rank higher than narrative reviews in EBM’s information hierarchy is that systematic reviews follow a transparent, reproducible methodology. Anyone who applies the same methodology and search criteria to the same body of research should arrive at the same set of conclusions. Narrative reviews don’t use transparent, reproducible methodologies. Their conclusions are consequently more likely to be shaped by the personal biases of their authors, who may, for instance, cherry-pick studies.

To achieve transparency and reproducibility, systematic reviews define in advance the populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes of interest (PICO). They search for and filter the available literature with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Authors register their methodology and search criteria in advance in databases such as PROSPERO. These steps are meant to minimize the risk that authors will change their methodology midway through the process in response to inconvenient findings.

Turban acknowledged that pre-defining the search terms “makes it a little bit easier for another researcher to repeat their search.” However, he did not seem to grasp that the additional steps introduced by systematic reviews are designed to reduce bias and improve accuracy. Turban, one should note, endorses the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2018 narrative review—a document that, with its severe flaws, perfectly illustrates why EBM prefers systematic to narrative reviews.

Second, Turban is incorrect that the “primary advantage” of the systematic review is to generate a comprehensive reading list for (in this case) gender clinicians. Systematic reviews also assess the quality of evidence from existing studies. In other words, they avoid taking the reported findings of individual studies at face value. This is especially important in gender medicine because so much of the research in this field comes from authors who are professionally, financially, and intellectually invested in the continuation of gender medicine—in other words, who have conflicts of interest. Financial conflicts of interest are typically reported, but professional and intellectual conflicts rarely so. Conflicted researchers frequently exaggerate positive findings, underreport negative findings, use causal language where the data don’t support it, and refrain altogether from studying harms. In short, assessing the quality of evidence is especially important in a field known for its lack of equipoise and scientific rigor.

In EBM, quality of evidence is a technical term that refers to the degree of certainty in the estimate of the effects of a given intervention. The higher the quality, the more confident we can be that a particular intervention is what causes an observed effect. It was only in response to Ramer’s prodding that Turban addressed “the risk of bias associated with primary studies”—namely, one of the key considerations for assessing quality of evidence.

During the deposition, Ramer read Turban excerpts from Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, a highly regarded textbook of EBM published by the American Medical Association. Ramer asked Turban to explain what the Users’ Guides means when it says that narrative reviews, unlike systematic reviews, “do not include systematic assessments of the risk of bias associated with primary studies and do not provide quantitative best estimates or rate the confidence in these estimates.” Turban responded that systematic reviews do sometimes assess the quality of evidence, but that this is not a necessary condition for a review to be called systematic.

I asked Gordon Guyatt, professor of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University, what he thought of Turban’s answer. Guyatt is widely regarded as a founder of the field of EBM and is the primary author of Users’ Guides. “The primary advantage of a systematic review,” Guyatt assured me, “is not only not missing studies, but also assessing quality of the evidence. Anybody who doesn’t recognize that a crucial part of a systematic review is judging the quality or certainty of the evidence does not understand what it’s all about.”

Ramer asked Turban to explain the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations), a standardized EBM framework for evaluating quality. “GRADE generally involves looking at the research literature,” Turban explained. “And then there’s some subjectivity to it, but they provide you with general guidelines about how you would—like, great level of confidence in the research itself. Then there’s a—and then each of those get GRADE scores. I think it’s something like low, very low, high, very high. I could be wrong about the exact names of the categories.” Turban is indeed wrong: the categories are high, moderate, low, and very low. It’s surprising that someone involved in the debate over gender-medicine research for several years, and who understands that questions of GRADE and of quality are central, doesn’t know this by heart.

Ramer asked Turban what method, if any, he uses to assess quality in gender-medicine research. Turban explained that he reads the studies individually and does his own assessment of bias. GRADE is “subjective,” and this subjectivity, Turban said, is one reason that the U.K. systematic reviews rated studies that he commonly cites as “very low” quality. Turban’s thinking seems to be that, because GRADE is “subjective,” it is no better than a gender clinician sitting down with individual studies and deciding whether they are reliable.

I asked Guyatt to comment on Turban’s understanding of systematic reviews and GRADE. “Assessment of quality of evidence,” he told me, “is fundamental to a systematic review. In fact, we have more than once published that it is fundamental to EBM, and is clearly crucial to deciding the treatment recommendation, which is going to differ based on quality of evidence.” Guyatt said that “GRADE’s assessment of quality of the evidence is crucial to anybody’s assessment of quality of evidence. It provides a structured framework. To say that the subjective assessment of a clinician using no formal system is equivalent to the assessment of an expert clinical epidemiologist using a standardized system endorsed by over 110 organizations worldwide shows no respect for, or understanding of, science.”

At one point, Ramer pressed Turban to explain his views on psychotherapy as an alternative to drugs and surgeries. Systematic reviews have rated the studies Turban relies on for his support of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones “very low” quality in part because these studies are confounded by psychotherapy. Because the kids who were given drugs and improved were also given psychotherapy and the studies lack a proper control group, it is not possible to know which of these interventions caused the improvement.

Turban seemed not to grasp the significance of this fact. If hormonal treatments can be said to cause improvement despite confounding psychotherapy, why can’t psychotherapy be said to cause improvement despite confounding drugs?

The exchange about confounding factors came up in the context of Ramer asking Turban about an article he wrote for Psychology Today. The article, aimed at a popular audience, purports to give an overview of the research that confirms the necessity of “gender-affirming care.” Last year, I published a detailed fact-check of the article, showing how Turban ignores confounding factors, among other problems. Four days later, Psychology Today made a series of corrections to Turban’s article. Some of these corrections were acknowledged in a note; others were done without any acknowledgement. In the deposition, Ramer asked Turban about my critique, to which Turban replied that he “left Psychology Today to do whatever edits they needed to do,” and that, when he later read the edits, he found them “generally reasonable.”

In sum, though Turban says that “there are no evidence-based psychotherapy protocols that effectively treat gender dysphoria itself,” the same studies he cites furnish just as much evidence for psychotherapy as they do for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones—which is to say “very low” quality evidence.

Other remarkable moments occur in the Turban deposition. For instance, when asked whether he had read the Florida umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) conducted by EBM experts at McMaster University and published over a year ago, Turban said that he hadn’t because he “didn’t have time.” When I mentioned this confession to Guyatt, he seemed taken aback. How could a clinician who claims expertise in a contested area of medicine not be curious about a systematic review of systematic reviews? “If all systematic reviews come to the same conclusion,” Guyatt told me, “it clearly increases our confidence in that conclusion.” (My conversation with Guyatt dealt exclusively with Turban’s claims and how they stack up against EBM. I did not ask Guyatt about, and he did not opine on, the wisdom of state laws restricting access to “gender-affirming care.”)

I believe that Turban is being honest when he says he didn’t read the Florida umbrella review. He doesn’t seem interested in literature that might call his beliefs into question. He has staked his personal and professional reputation on a risky and invasive protocol before the appearance of any credible evidence of its superiority to less risky alternatives. Turban regularly maligns as bigoted and unscientific anyone who disagrees with him. Some gender clinicians in Europe now admit that the evidence is weak, the risks serious, and the protocol still experimental. Turban, however, would seemingly rather go down with the sinking ship than admit that he was too hasty in promoting “gender-affirming care.”

Put another way, Turban has intellectual, professional, and financial conflicts of interest that prejudice his judgment on how best to treat youth experiencing issues with their bodies or sex. European health authorities are aware of this problem; that’s why they chose to commission their evidence reviews from clinicians and researchers not directly involved in gender medicine. For instance, England’s National Health Service appointed physician Hilary Cass to chair the Policy Working Group that would lead the investigation of its Gender Identity Development Service and its systematic reviews. The NHS explained that there was “evident polarization among clinical professionals,” and Cass was “asked to chair the group as a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area.”

Unfortunately, in the U.S., personal investment in gender medicine is often seen as a benefit rather than a liability. James Cantor, a psychologist who testifies in lawsuits over state age restrictions, emphasizes the difference between the expertise of clinicians and that of scientists. The clinician’s expertise “regards applying general principles to the care of an individual patient and the unique features of that case.” The scientist’s expertise “is the reverse, accumulating information about many individual cases and identifying the generalizable principles that may be applied to all cases.” Cantor writes:

In legal matters, the most familiar situation pertains to whether a given clinician correctly employed relevant clinical standards. Often, it is other clinicians who practice in that field who will be best equipped to speak to that question. When it is the clinical standards that are themselves in question, however, it is the experts in the assessment of scientific studies who are the relevant experts.

The point is not that clinicians are never able to exercise scientific judgment. It’s that conflicts of interest for involved clinicians need to be acknowledged and taken seriously when “the clinical standards . . . are themselves in question.” Unfortunately, the American propensity for setting policy through the courts makes that task difficult. Judges intuitively believe that gender clinicians are the experts in gender medicine research. The result is a No True Scotsman argument wherein the more personally invested a clinician is (and the more conflict of interest he has as a result), the more credible he appears.

Last year, a federal judge in Alabama dismissed Cantor’s expert analysis of the research, citing, among other things, the fact that Cantor “had never treated a child or adolescent for gender dysphoria” and “had no personal experience monitoring patients receiving transitioning medications.” Turban’s deposition illustrates why this thinking is misguided. It is precisely gender clinicians who often seem to be least familiar, or at any rate least concerned, with subjecting their “expert” views to rigorous scientific scrutiny. It is precisely these clinicians who are most likely to be swimming in confirmation bias, least interested in the scientific method, and, conveniently, least concerned with evidence-based medicine.

==

Jack Turban is frequently a star "expert" in so-called "gender affirming care" enquiries. Aside from being a pathological liar, we can now also conclude he's dangerously unqualified.

[andrewdosalaw]

Expert California Civil Litigation Attorney

Facing a lawsuit in California? A civil lawsuit can be stressful and expensive so it is important to find an experienced lawyer who will fight for your rights while being sensitive to your needs. If you need someone to help you understand California laws, guide you through negotiations, and handle everything in court so that there are no surprises, we got you covered!

Find more at https://dosalaw.com/alameda-civil-litigation/

[ausetkmt]

TALLAHASSEE, FL — Authorities in two states are threatening Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis with criminal charges after dozens of migrants were flown from Texas to California this week and to Massachusetts in September 2022.

In California, authorities were investigating whether DeSantis was behind a flight that picked up asylum-seekers on the Texas border and flew them — apparently without their knowledge — to California's capital of Sacramento.

The development coincided with confirmation from the Bexar County Sheriff's Office in Texas that criminal charges were recommended against DeSantis in connection to an incident where 49 asylum seekers were flown from Texas to Martha's Vineyard as part of DeSantis' migrant relocation program.

In California, about 20 people aged 21 to 30 were flown by private jet to Sacramento on Monday, state Attorney General Rob Bonta said. It was the second such flight in four days.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and faith-based groups who have been assisting the migrants scheduled a news conference for Tuesday morning.

Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom lashed out at DeSantis on Twitter, calling him a "small, pathetic man" and suggesting his state could pursue kidnapping charges.

"@RonDeSantis, you small, pathetic man," Newsom tweeted. "This isn't Martha's Vineyard. Kidnapping charges?"

With the tweet, Newsom included a section of the California penal code on kidnapping charges that reads, "(d) Every person who, being out of this state, abducts or takes by force or fraud any person contrary to the law of the place where that act is committed and brings, sends, or conveys that person within the limits of this state, and is afterwards found within the limits thereof, is guilty of kidnapping."

DeSantis, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run for president, has been a fierce critic of federal immigration policy under President Joe Biden and has heavily publicized Florida's role in past instances in which migrants were transported to Democratic-led states.

DeSantis and other Florida officials have remained mum, as they initially were last year when they flew 49 Venezuelan migrants to the upscale Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, luring them onto private jets from a shelter in San Antonio.

In a statement to the Miami Herald this week, the Bexar County Sheriff's Office in Texas confirmed that criminal charges were recommended in connection with the Martha's Vineyard case.

The case was then passed to the Bexar County District Attorney, the Herald reported.

"The case filed includes both felony and misdemeanor charges of Unlawful Restraint," according to the statement. "At this time, the case is being reviewed by the DA's office. Once an update is available, it will be provided to the public."

The case by Texas authorities isn't the first piece of litigation levied at DeSantis regarding the flights to Martha's Vineyard.

Lawyers for Civil Rights filed the suit on behalf of about 50 Venezuelans involved in the flights, and Alianza Americas, a network of migrant-led organizations supporting immigrants in the U.S. in September 2022.

The lawsuit names DeSantis and Secretary of Florida Department of Transportation Secretary Jared Perdue, and called the flights "inhumane and morally repugnant."

The suit says the Florida officials arranged a "fraudulent and discriminatory scheme to transport nearly 50 vulnerable immigrants, including women and children, from San Antonio, Texas to Martha's Vineyard without shelter or resources in place."

According to the lawsuit, DeSantis used about $615,000 in taxpayer dollars to charter the flights to Martha's Vineyard and told the migrants they would arrive in either Washington, D.C., or Boston. The suit also says the migrants were lured into planes with the promise of benefits, including $10 McDonald's gift cards.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Democracy Docket

Marc Elias

Thursday, January 30

New York court revives state’s Voting Rights Act

An appeals court restored the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) today, which expands voter protections, overturning a lower court's decision to strike it down. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said the decision "only reaffirms the protections intended in the NYVRA."

Hundreds of civil rights groups oppose Pam Bondi’s AG nomination

Over 300 civil rights groups sent a letter this week to U.S. senators urging them to vote against Pam Bondi’s confirmation to attorney general, citing her extensive anti-voting record and opposition to civil rights.

Bondi is not yet in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), but 10 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration is already remaking the nation's top law enforcement agency from top to bottom. In a new YouTube video, Marc breaks down the detrimental actions taken so far and the ones to come.

Kash Patel, Trump’s FBI director pick, refuses to say who won 2020 election

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI director, refused to say who won the 2020 election during his Senate confirmation hearing today. Bondi also refused to say Trump lost in 2020 during one of her hearings.

House Republicans introduce bill to repeal crucial voting rights law

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), a crucial law expanding access to voting.

The NVRA, often known as the Motor Voter Act, requires a driver’s license application to simultaneously serve as a voter registration application. It also requires programs offering public assistance to provide voter registration services, mandates that states use a federal mail-in voting registration form and more.

National Sheriffs Association reveals fealty to Trump, not the law

The National Sheriffs Association and its members want to curry favor with the Trump administration and are poised to assist in the most illegal and inhumane promises, including “mass deportation" and silencing dissent, Democracy Docket contributor Jessica Pishko argues in a new piece.

Hearings coming up tomorrow

A Virginia court will hold a hearing in a lawsuit challenging Gov. Glenn Youngkin's (R) voter purge program. Pro-voting groups assert the program wrongfully removed eligible voters shortly before the elections. The Justice Department — now under Trump — dropped its lawsuit challenging the program.

A Utah court will hear a challenge to the state's congressional map. Voters argue that the map is a partisan gerrymander that favors Republicans, violating the state constitution.

THE OPPOSITION

Holding Trump Accountable

The latest on Democratic officials’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s funding freeze

Democratic officials in 22 states and Washington, D.C. sued the Trump administration Tuesday challenging the federal funding freeze, asking the judge for a temporary restraining order, which would pause the freeze while litigation is ongoing.

Yesterday, the administration rescinded the memo that announced the freeze of federal programs and grants. Shortly after, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a contradictory statement on X, explaining that the funding freeze had not been rescinded, only the memo itself had been.

A federal judge in Rhode Island asked the Democratic officials to submit a proposed order for the specific relief they sought in the wake of the rescinded memo. He gave the DOJ 24 hours to respond to the proposed order, which was submitted at 6:15 p.m. last night. As of 5 p.m. today, the Justice Department hasn’t responded.

Eighth lawsuit filed against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order

Santa Clara County, California officials sued the Trump administration today challenging his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship. This marks the eighth lawsuit filed against this order.

This is a daily newsletter that provides a quick and easy rundown of the voting and democracy news of the day. For questions about your subscription or general support, visit our FAQ page here.

[cwprocess]

Riverside County Abstract of Judgment eFiling & eRecording

If you're a judgment creditor in Riverside County, California, and you’ve won a judgment in court, you may need to secure your lien on a debtor’s property. One of the most effective ways to do this is by filing and recording an Abstract of Judgment. In this blog, we’ll guide you through the process of eFiling and eRecording this essential document in Riverside County.

What is an Abstract of Judgment?

An Abstract of Judgment is a document that provides notice of a judgment that has been entered against the debtor. By recording the Abstract of Judgment with the county recorder’s office, the creditor can place a lien on the debtor’s property. This means that when the property is sold, the creditor’s judgment is paid before other claims, assuming there’s enough equity in the property.

Step 1: Preparing Your Abstract of Judgment

The first step is to properly prepare the Abstract of Judgment. This form is typically available through the court’s website and must be filled out with the following information:

Case number

Names of the parties involved

The amount of the judgment

The date the judgment was entered

After filling out the necessary details, make sure to sign the form before moving on to the next steps.

Step 2: eFiling Your Abstract of Judgment

Once your Abstract of Judgment is prepared, it’s time to eFile it with the Riverside County Superior Court. Riverside County has implemented an eFiling system for civil matters, which allows you to submit documents electronically from the comfort of your home or office.

To eFile your Abstract of Judgment:

Access the eFiling Portal: Riverside County uses a secure online portal for eFiling. Visit the Riverside Superior Court’s official website and locate the eFiling section.

Select the Correct Filing Type: When prompted, choose the appropriate case type (usually civil case).

Upload the Abstract of Judgment: Upload your completed Abstract of Judgment document into the system. Make sure the file is in an acceptable format (typically PDF).

Pay Filing Fees: Pay the necessary filing fees. The eFiling portal will calculate and provide the amount due.

Submit Your Filing: After uploading and paying, review your filing and click submit. You will receive a confirmation email once the eFiling is successful.

Remember, eFiling is mandatory for attorneys in civil cases, but self-represented litigants can also take advantage of this convenient option.

Step 3: eRecording Your Abstract of Judgment

Once the Abstract of Judgment has been eFiled with the court, the next step is to eRecord it with the Riverside County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. eRecording allows you to electronically submit documents to the county recorder without having to visit the office in person.

To eRecord your Abstract of Judgment:

Access the eRecording Portal: Riverside County offers an erecording portal for electronic submissions. The eRecording portal simplifies the process of recording legal documents, including Abstracts of Judgment.

Prepare Your Document for Recording: Make sure the Abstract of Judgment is signed and formatted according to Riverside County’s recording requirements. You may need to include a cover sheet with the appropriate legal language.

Submit Your Document: Once the document is ready, log into the eRecording portal and submit it. Upload the Abstract of Judgment and any necessary attachments.

Pay the Recording Fee: The eRecording portal will prompt you to pay any associated fees. Ensure that all payment information is accurate.

Confirmation: After submission, you will receive a confirmation and a copy of your recorded Abstract of Judgment once it’s officially processed.

Why Use the eRecording Portal?

Using the erecording portal offers numerous benefits to creditors looking to record their judgment liens in Riverside County:

Convenience: You don’t need to leave your office or home to file the document. The eRecording portal is accessible 24/7.

Speed: Electronic submissions are processed more quickly than traditional paper submissions, helping you establish your lien faster.

Security: The eRecording portal uses secure methods to protect sensitive information and ensure the authenticity of recorded documents.

Cost-Effective: Avoid travel and postage costs by using the eRecording portal to submit your Abstract of Judgment directly from your computer.

Important Considerations When eRecording

Fees: Be aware of the filing and recording fees. The Riverside County Clerk-Recorder’s Office provides a detailed fee schedule online.

Proper Document Formatting: Double-check the formatting and completeness of your Abstract of Judgment before submitting it for eRecording.

Conclusion

eFiling and eRecording an Abstract of Judgment in Riverside County is a straightforward process that can save you time and hassle. By using the erecording portal, judgment creditors can efficiently secure their interests in a debtor’s property. Whether you’re an attorney or a self-represented litigant, the Riverside County eFiling and eRecording system streamlines the process and ensures that your judgment lien is properly documented.

Visit https://county.countrywideprocess.com/how-to-efile-and-erecord-an-abstract-of-judgement-in-riverside-county/

[cvdlawfirm]

Wrongful Termination Law Firms Fighting for California Employees

Losing your job is always tough, but being wrongfully terminated adds insult to injury. If you believe you’ve been fired illegally, it’s crucial to know your rights and options. A trusted wrongful termination law firm in California, like Cielo & Dei Voluntas, can help you navigate this challenging situation and fight for the justice you deserve.

Understanding Wrongful Termination in California

What Constitutes Wrongful Termination?

In California, employment is generally "at-will," meaning employers can terminate employees for any reason—or no reason—as long as it doesn’t violate the law. Wrongful termination occurs when an employee is fired for reasons such as:

Discrimination: Based on race, gender, age, disability, or other protected categories.

Retaliation: For reporting harassment, discrimination, or illegal activities.

Violation of Employment Agreements: Breaching the terms of an employment contract.

Public Policy Violations: Termination for refusing to engage in illegal activities or for exercising legal rights.

Key Legal Protections for California Employees

California offers some of the most comprehensive employment protections in the nation, including:

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

Federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

Whistleblower protections under California Labor Code §1102.5

How a Wrongful Termination Law Firm Can Help

Expert Legal Guidance

A wrongful termination law firm in California has the expertise to evaluate your case and determine if your termination was unlawful. Experienced attorneys can:

Review employment contracts and workplace policies

Collect evidence, such as emails or witness statements

Navigate state and federal laws that apply to your case

Negotiation and Litigation

Your legal team can handle negotiations with your employer to reach a settlement. If necessary, they’ll represent you in court, fighting for compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and even punitive damages.

Tailored Support for Unique Cases

Every wrongful termination case is different. Cielo & Dei Voluntas takes the time to understand your specific circumstances, ensuring a personalized approach that maximizes your chances of success.

Why Choose Cielo & Dei Voluntas?

Proven Track Record

Cielo & Dei Voluntas has successfully represented numerous California employees in wrongful termination cases. Their extensive experience ensures clients receive the best possible legal support.

Compassionate Advocacy

Losing a job can be emotionally draining. The team at Cielo & Dei Voluntas provides not only legal expertise but also empathetic support to help clients navigate this difficult time.

Transparent Communication

With Cielo & Dei Voluntas, you’ll always know where your case stands. Their attorneys prioritize clear and consistent communication, ensuring you feel confident and informed throughout the process.

Steps to Take If You’ve Been Wrongfully Terminated

1. Gather Evidence

Collect documents such as termination letters, performance reviews, and any correspondence related to your dismissal. This evidence is critical for building a strong case.

2. Contact a Wrongful Termination Law Firm

Reach out to a reputable wrongful termination law firm in California, like Cielo & Dei Voluntas, for a consultation. Their attorneys can assess the merits of your case and guide you on the next steps.

3. File a Claim

Depending on the circumstances, you may need to file a claim with agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

Call to Action

Don’t let wrongful termination derail your life. Contact Cielo & Dei Voluntas, the leading wrongful termination law firm in California, to fight for your rights. Schedule a consultation today to explore your legal options and take the first step toward justice.

Contact Us

At Cielo & Dei Voluntas, we’re here to help you reclaim your rights and dignity. Call us at (714) 555-1234 or email info@cielovoluntas.com to discuss your case. Our compassionate and experienced team is ready to stand by your side.