#Judges reject appeals from federated universities

[qnewsau]

Trans woman excluded from female-only app wins court case

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/trans-woman-roxanne-tickle-excluded-from-female-only-app-wins-court-case/

Trans woman excluded from female-only app wins court case

New South Wales transgender woman Roxanne Tickle has won a discrimination case against female-only social media app Giggle for Girls after the app’s founder kicked her off the platform.

In September 2021, Giggle founder Sall Grover (above right) removed Tickle from the app based on her uploaded application photo. Tickle sued, alleging discrimination against her on the basis of her gender identity.

On Friday, Roxanne Tickle (left) prevailed in her case, Tickle vs Giggle, receiving $10,000 compensation in the Federal Court of Australia.

Justice Robert Bromwich rejected the claim Tickle had been directly discriminated against, due to a lack of evidence Grover knew Tickle was trans.

However, the judge ruled Tickle had suffered indirect discrimination when Grover removed her after seeing Roxanne Tickle’s photo and she “considered her to be male.”

“The indirect discrimination case succeeded because Ms Tickle was excluded from the Giggle app because she did not look sufficiently female according to the respondents,” Justice Robert Bromwich said.

Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

‘Distressing and hurtful public statements’

Giggle’s lawyer Bridie Nolan argued Roxanne Tickle was a man so excluding her from the app was lawful.

Tickle’s lawyer Georgina Costello KC said that “Ms Tickle is a woman” even as “the respondents flatly deny that fact”.

Roxanne Tickle sought damages and aggravated damages amounting to $200,000. She told the court this was because Sall Grover had persistently misgendered her in interviews and hundreds of online posts.

“Grover’s public statements about me and this case have been distressing, demoralising, embarrassing, draining and hurtful,” Tickle told the court.

“This has led to individuals posting hateful comments towards me online and indirectly inciting others to do the same.”

Sall Grover told the court that she would never address Tickle using female pronouns and under no circumstances would acknowledge her gender identity.

The Federal Court ordered Giggle to pay Roxanne Tickle $10,000 in compensation, as well as Tickle’s legal costs.

Sall Grover has previously said that she would appeal the court’s decision.

‘Unlawful to treat transgender women differently’

Paula Gerber, Human Rights Law Professor at Monash University, said the Tickle vs Giggle ruling was a huge victory for transgender women.

Gerber explained Roxanne Tickle was excluded from the app after Sall Grover “looked at the photo Tickle had uploaded with her application, and reached the visual conclusion that she was a man.”

“The Court found that there had been indirect discrimination, not direct discrimination because there was insufficient evidence to prove that Sall Grover knew that Roxanne Tickle was transgender,” she said.

Paula Gerber said this case is the first time a court has tested the gender identity discrimination provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act since they were added in 2013.

“This case sends a clear message to all Australians that it is unlawful to treat transgender women differently from cisgender women,” she said.

“It is not lawful to make decisions about whether a person is a woman based on how feminine they appear.”

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.

“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.

The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can't “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”

The companies themselves are not involved in the case.

Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

"The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech, but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.

A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.

A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October, when it agreed to take up the case.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have rejected the emergency appeal from the Biden administration.

Alito wrote in dissent in October: “At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."

A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

Idaho and West Virginia have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review rulings that blocked them from enforcing their laws barring transgender athletes from competing under their gender identity in school sports. If the high court takes the case, which isn't a given, it would be its first opportunity to weigh in on anti-trans sports laws. Federal appeals courts have upheld lower courts’ rulings that blocked the laws’ enforcement while suits against them proceeded. Idaho in 2020 became the first state to enact such a law; 25 states now have laws or regulations restricting trans athletes’ participation in public school sports, with some of the laws including private schools and/or state colleges and universities as well. Some of them affect trans boys and men as well as trans girls and women, but the latter are the laws’ primary target.

Supporters of the laws have claimed they’re meant to protect cisgender female athletes, although most of those supporters are not known as champions of women’s rights otherwise. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador struck this tone in announcing his petition to the Supreme Court. “Idaho is committed to ensuring that women and girls get a fair shot on and off the field,” Labrador, a Republican, said in a press release. “While we’ve been protecting fair and equal athletic competition and opportunities, activists have been pushing a radical social agenda that sidelines women and girls in their own sports. Athletic associations around the world have recognized the obvious truth that men and women are biologically different. Allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports creates a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent and access critical scholarships. We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Idaho’s law and ensure that women and girls get the athletic opportunities they deserve.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, also a Republican, told reporters at a Thursday press conference that his office and Labrador’s have been working together on the appeal. “We think the combination of these cases provides a tremendous vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to act,” he said, according to the Associated Press. The high court, however, last year rejected an emergency petition from West Virginia to lift the injunction against its law. The state passed the measure in 2021.

In Idaho, Lindsay Hecox, a trans woman track athlete at Boise State University, filed a suit challenging the law shortly after Republican Gov. Brad Little signed it, along with Kayden Hulquist, a then-senior at Boise High School who is cisgender and was concerned about being subjected to the law’s invasive “sex verification” testing. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and its Idaho affiliate, Legal Voice, and Cooley LLP. [...] In West Virginia, trans girl Becky Pepper-Jackson, then 11, filed suit challenging the law in 2021, represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and a private law firm. U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin that year issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of the law and said she could try out for girls’ sports, noting that the suit “seeks relief only insofar as this law applies to her.” Goodwin also wrote that Pepper-Jackson, who is on puberty-blocking drugs, “has shown that she will not have any inherent physical advantage over the girls she would compete against on the girls’ cross country and track teams. Further, permitting B.P.J. to participate on the girls’ teams would not take away athletic opportunities from other girls.”

Idaho and West Virginia are asking the MAGA Majority on SCOTUS to review their state’s anti-trans laws that bans trans people from participation in competitions that align with their gender identity so that SCOTUS could potentially decide the issue nationwide.

[ejesgistnews]

Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who was  barred from entering the United States due to allegations of judicial corruption, has been sworn in as the 23rd Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the State House. She succeeds Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, who retired after reaching the mandatory age of 70. The appointment of Ms Kekere-Ekun as the CJN has sparked controversy due to her involvement in a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that declared Hope Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) the governor of Imo State. This ruling, which overturned the victory of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Emeka Ihedioha, was widely criticized and deemed one of the most controversial in the court's history. According to reports from Daily Independent, Ms Kekere-Ekun was denied a U.S. visa following this judgment, a move that highlighted international concerns over the integrity of Nigeria's judiciary. The visa rejection was reportedly due to her role in the panel of justices that delivered the controversial ruling. Former Cross River Governor Donald Duke referenced the incident in his memoir, expressing concern over the impact of such decisions on Nigeria's global standing. He noted that while the justices were barred from entering the U.S., their aides were granted visas, underscoring the severity of the situation.   Despite these controversies, the National Judicial Council (NJC) recommended Ms Kekere-Ekun for the position of CJN, asserting the need to fill the crucial role promptly. Her nomination has been sent to the Nigerian Senate for confirmation, where she is expected to face little opposition. The case that led to Ms Kekere-Ekun's visa denial continues to cast a shadow over her career. Recently retired Supreme Court Justice Dattijo Muhammad openly criticized the court, labeling it as being rife with "judicial bandits and bribe-takers," further fueling the debate over the integrity of Nigeria's judiciary under her leadership.   12 Things to Know About New CJN Kekere-Ekun   1. Birth and Early Life: Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun was born on May 7, 1958. 2. Educational Background: She earned her law degree from the University of Lagos and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1981. 3. Advanced Studies: She furthered her education at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where she obtained an LL.M. in November 1983. 4. Legal Practice: Justice Kekere-Ekun began her legal career as a private lawyer in Lagos from 1985 to 1989. 5. Judicial Appointment: In December 1989, she was appointed Senior Magistrate Grade II in the Lagos State Judiciary. 6. High Court Appointment: She became a Judge of the High Court of Lagos State on July 19, 1996, and also served as Chairman of the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal, Zone II, Ikeja, Lagos, from November 1996 to May 1999. 7. Court of Appeal Service: On September 22, 2004, Kekere-Ekun was elevated to the Court of Appeal, where she served in various divisions and presided over two divisions (Makurdi & Akure). 8. Supreme Court Elevation: She was elevated to the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the 5th female Justice of the Court and was sworn in on July 8, 2013. 9. Professional Development: The new CJN has attended numerous courses and seminars both within and outside Nigeria and has received several merit awards. 10. Professional Affiliations: She is a Life Bencher and a member of the International Association of Women Judges, where she currently serves as President.   11. National Honors: In October 2022, she was conferred with the Nigerian national honor of Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic (CFR) by President Muhammadu Buhari. 12. Personal Life: Justice Kekere-Ekun is happily married with children. You may want to read Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun Biography: Religion, Husband, Children, State of Origin, and Son

[novumtimes]

Appeals judges rule against fund used to provide phone services for rural and low-income people

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Calling it a “misbegotten tax,” a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled Wednesday that a method the Federal Communications Commission uses to fund telephone service for rural and low-income people and broadband services for schools and libraries is unconstitutional. The immediate implications of the 9-7 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were unclear. Dissenting judges said it conflicts with three other circuit courts around the nation. The ruling by the full 5th Circuit reverses an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court and sends the matter back to the FCC for further consideration. The matter could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court. At issue in the case is the Universal Service Fund, which the FCC collects from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers. Programs funded through the USF provide phone service to low-income users and rural healthcare providers and broadband service to schools and libraries. “Each program has a laudable objective,” Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated to the 5th Circuit by former President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority. Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.” Judge Carl Stewart, nominated to the court by former President Bill Clinton, was among 5th Circuit judges writing strong dissents, saying the opinion conflicts with three other circuit courts, rejects precedents, “blurs the distinction between taxes and fees,” and creates new doctrine. The Universal Service Administrative Company referred a request for comment to the FCC, which did not immediately respond to phone and emailed queries. Kevin Mcgill, The Associated Press Source link via The Novum Times

[xtruss]

More Than 10 Years Later, The Senate Torture Report Is Still Secret

I Filed A Lawsuit To Obtain The 6,700-Page Report with “Excruciating Detail” About The CIA’s Abuses.

— Shawn Musgrave | June 27 2024

The Control Tower is seen through the razor wire inside the Camp VI Detention Facility in Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, in 2019. AP

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence submitted its 6,700-page “torture report” about the CIA to the White House in April 2014. More than 10 years later, the full report remains secret after a federal appellate court dismissed a lawsuit I filed in the hopes of forcing its release.

The document “includes comprehensive and excruciating detail” about the CIA’s “program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques,” the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chaired the Senate intelligence committee at the time, wrote in a 2014 summary.

For years, there have been calls to release the full report, including from human rights watchdogs, one of its authors, and even Feinstein and some high-ranking Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee.

“The full report details how the CIA lied to the public, the Congress, the president, and to itself about the information produced by the torture program,” said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has fought to obtain CIA records. “We need to know our real history so we don’t repeat its crimes.”

So far, efforts to obtain the torture report using the federal Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful. In late 2016, despite the CIA director’s objections, former President Barack Obama placed a copy in his presidential papers. But that copy is not subject to FOIA until 2029 — 12 years after Obama left office.

The CIA and a handful of federal agencies also have copies of the torture report, although the Trump administration returned several of these to the Senate intelligence committee vaults in 2017.

The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all fought strenuously against FOIA requests for these agencies’ copies. In 2017, the Supreme Court declined to consider a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union. A law professor’s attempt to obtain the report under FOIA is currently pending before the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, following oral argument last fall.

In 2021, my lawyer, Kel McClanahan of National Security Counselors, tried a different tack. We sued the Senate intelligence committee itself and its current chair, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., for a copy of the full torture report.

FOIA explicitly does not apply to Congress. Instead, McClanahan argued that the public is entitled to the committee’s copy of the torture report under the common law right of access, a doctrine that is well developed when it comes to court records but less so regarding the records of Congress.

“It is high time that this critical piece of American history is made public,” McClanahan said.

The district court rejected this argument in 2022, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to order the committee to disclose the report because of the U.S. Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which protects members of Congress from being sued for legislative activities. Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

“In sum, we conclude that the report is a legislative document, and that the Speech or Debate Clause therefore protects it from compelled disclosure,” wrote Judge Cornelia Pillard for the unanimous panel.

If courts continue declining to wade into the matter, Congress could also take steps to make the torture report available before 2029. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who still sits on the intelligence committee, has previously called for it to be declassified.

“I’m not holding my breath,” Blanton said.

[dankusner]

Aileen Cannon destroyed her good reputation for Donald Trump

Aileen Cannon testifies remotely in 2020 before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on her nomination to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.

Cannon built a good reputation for herself as a prosecutor, but as a judge she has destroyed it for Donald Trump.

If Aileen Cannon’s 2020 confirmation process was notable for anything, it was how smooth and drama-free the whole thing played out.

Cannon, who was then-President Donald Trump’s choice to be federal judge for the Southern District of Florida, sailed through her Senate confirmation with a 56-21 vote.

Twelve Senate Democrats voted for her.

This was a remarkable display of bipartisan accord, given the acrimony at the time between congressional Republicans and Democrats.

At the very moment when the Senate confirmed Cannon, Trump was in the early stages of disputing his election defeat to Joe Biden.

A month earlier, Senate Democrats complained in vain when Republicans fast-tracked Trump’s selection of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.

That rancor, however, didn’t sully Cannon’s confirmation process.

While Cannon barely met the American Bar Association’s threshold of 12 years of legal experience to earn a “qualified” rating, her résumé was impressive and her life story was compelling.

Cannon was born in Colombia and grew up in Miami.

Her mother fled Cuba during that country’s 1959 revolution.

In high school, Cannon was named as a scholar finalist in the National Hispanic Recognition Program.

As a student at Duke University, she elected to spend a semester in Spain.

Prior to her nomination by Trump, she worked for seven years as a federal prosecutor.

“I think she’s a well-qualified, mainstream nominee,” University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who tracks judicial nominees, said in 2020. “Assistant U.S. attorneys know their way around the courtroom. Generally, the U.S. Senate looks favorably on those kinds of nominees.”

Seventeen of Cannon’s fellow graduates of Ransom Everglades High School in Florida, including Alejandro Miyar, a lawyer who worked in President Barack Obama’s administration, signed a letter in support of Cannon’s confirmation.

“Aileen was always an incredibly dedicated and diligent student,” Miyar told the New York Times.

Cannon's friends and associates consistently described her as someone who liked to keep a low profile.

That went out the window in 2022 when she was assigned to handle the federal criminal case against Trump for illegally retaining classified documents after he left office.

Her reputation as a fair and scrupulous arbiter of the law soon followed.

In a series of indefensible rulings, Cannon has made it clear that she intends to delay Trump’s trial for as long as possible, clearing the way for him to pardon himself next year if he wins this year’s presidential election.

Early on, Cannon issued an order calling for the appointment of a special master to review the evidence that the FBI seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

On Dec. 1, 2022, a three-judge, all-Republican panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed Cannon’s special-master order, saying the judge “improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction.”

Trump’s trial was set to begin on May 20 of this year.

On May 7, however, Cannon canceled that trial date and postponed the trial indefinitely.

She also rejected a motion by special counsel Jack Smith to prevent Trump from making inflammatory statements about law enforcement after the former president falsely accused the FBI of planning to assassinate him when they collected evidence from his home.

Justice and the rule of law have been obvious casualties of Cannon’s transparent efforts to protect Trump.

But Cannon’s reputation has also suffered irreparable harm.

She was capable of more.

She worked hard and built an impressive career for herself.

She had the respect of her peers.

And she threw it all away for Trump.

In doing so, she joins a long roster of Republicans who subjugated their moral compass, abdicated their self-respect and made sycophantic clowns of themselves at Trump’s behest.

Of the four criminal indictments that Trump has faced since leaving office, the classified documents case is by far the strongest and most clear-cut.

Trump resisted repeated requests to return those documents, which included sensitive nuclear secrets, and lied to federal authorities about them.

The Aileen Cannon who served as a federal prosecutor would understand what an abhorrent abuse of power that represents.

That Aileen Cannon wouldn’t make a mockery of a serious criminal case that could determine the legal limits of presidential authority.

[phonextras]

Texas students seek court intervention for drag show

WASHINGTON – Students at a university in the Texas Panhandle have asked the Supreme Court to rule that they have a First Amendment right to hold a charity drag show, an emergency request they hope will let them host the show this month.

It’s another side of the roiling debate over campus speech that has included challenges from the right about whether efforts to confront bias on campus intimidate students who want to speak their mind.

In this challenge from the left, students have been fighting with officials at West Texas A& M University since the president canceled last year’s planned on-campus drag show.

Spectrum WT, a student organization, wants to hold the drag show to raise money for The Trevor Project, which focuses on preventing suicide among LGBTQ+ young people.

University President Walter Wendler has said drag shows 'stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood.'

The students argue that the 'judicial safety net broke down' because the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is moving too slowly on their challenge to the university’s decision and on a request to put that decision on hold while it’s being litigated.

'This would be bad enough if the problem were confined to having the president of one small public university in the Texas Panhandle defy what he knows to be the First Amendment’s command.

But it isn’t,' the students’ lawyers told the Supreme Court.

'Public university and college officials nationwide from across the political spectrum are appointing themselves censors-in-chief, separating what they consider ‘good’ from ‘bad’ expression on their campuses.'

Wendler said it is not possible to put on a drag show without denigrating and demeaning women.

'I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it,' he wrote.

'Supporting The Trevor Project is a good idea. My recommendation is to skip the show and send the dough.'

The Supreme Court asked the university to respond to the students’ request by Wednesday.

Drag shows have joined the front line of America’s culture wars in recent years, with Republican lawmakers in multiple states trying to restrict them.

They have not always won in court.

A federal judge last year said a Texas law seeking to limit drag performances in the state is unconstitutional.

In November, the Supreme Court denied a request by Florida officials to let the state enforce a law restricting drag shows.

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement partly joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stressed that the court was not dealing with First Amendment questions but rather procedural problems with how the lower courts handled the case.

From the other side, conservatives have complained about what they call 'speech police' policies aimed at confronting bias on campus, including sexist jokes or racist name-calling.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal challenging a 'bias-response team' at Virginia Tech because the school had disbanded the team.

[epuiseeparmedia]

Stovall filed his brief in the lvmpd appeal. I’ve overread quickly and it’s the same arguments the federal court rejected, the court of appeals rejected and didn’t bother with a petition of rehearing. With a few lies and misrepresentation of facts and court statements, but at this point, we know our guy.

Unfortunately for him, the local judge already said it’s not the place of the local district to change a federal court order. The police said it’s not the place to relitigate. And even the press didn’t want to go relitigate. Everyone can see what he is doing and I am hopeful the Nevada Supreme Court will too.

The only new fact is that he disclosed the interrogation Mayorga gave in June 2021 when the federal judge were concerned with her mental capacity. So here we have a woman with a university degree in journalism, working, paying taxes under her own name, trying to paint herself mentally impaired since childhood and dependent of her parents. For reminders and for the newcomers to the saga, the whole incapacity act became the main line of attack after all the other attempts to have the settlement invalidated failed in court.

I first wrote a long spiel about how this new version is as unbelievable as the others but I think the whole point of this disclosure is to attract the media to generate bad press. So I will not be spreading that more than necessary.

I will leave you with one tidbit of her interrogation : the mediator didn’t believe her story because she added « extra details » from her initial reporting. Huh imagine that. And he also made a butt joke to her face while she was crying.

And from her retelling, the making of the SCA was seemingly done in half a day with her not interacting. Now in real life, the SCA took months to be finalised and from the alleged assault to the final signature there’s a whole year she didn’t want get into details because she was not and is not mentally impaired: she was working, paying taxes, etc. « She does not remember ».

But she was “reserving the right to supplement depending on discovery” her testimony, ie depending of the evidence provided by the defence she will remember accordingly to fit them to her story, as mentally challenged people are capable to do. But do believe her.

Anyway, once again we have to wait.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Exploring the World of Ghost Guns

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

October 21, 2023

A ghost gun is an untraceable and unserialized firearm that is usually bought online and constructed at home [1]. They are sold through ghost gun kits, which include all the specific parts and the necessary tools to build these weapons are at home [1]. The reasons most used ghost guns are because they do not require a background check and can be purchased by anyone, this includes gun traffickers, citizens, domestic abusers, and so forth to use to their discretion [1]. Once the gun is assembled into the correct format it can look, feel, and function like a regular gun whether it is a handgun or an assault weapon, which makes it just as deadly [1]. The main idea of users buying ghost guns is the lack of federal regulation, especially to those who are legally prohibited from buying guns [1]. On October 16, 2023, the Supreme Court decided to allow the Biden office to continue the regulation of ghost guns as firearms under federal law [2]. This continued regulation allows reinforcement of the federal guidance of untraceable ghost-guns being sold within the United States.

The reinforcement came as a result of a Texas district court ruling being frozen that blocked the Biden administration from the regulating of ghost guns [3]. This case was brought in August 2023, when a group of manufacturers wanted to stop the federal regulation of ghost guns but the U.S. district Judge Reed O’Connor stepped in to block the regulations as applied by the manufacturers and was upheld by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals [3]. The case was usual due to the Court already having applied a relevant legal standard to cases like this before, but the lower court in this case was openly relying on the arguments that the Court had oftentimes rejected [3]. The reason for this case being usual was the Court answering the same as they did with cases like this before, but Solicitor General Prelogar basically told the justices that the Court should hold off on making a decision to ensure the public safety of the American people [3].

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives in 2022 modified their rules and regulations to identify the kits as firearms under the law, so the government could enforce and carefully track them [3]. The specific rule doesn’t ban the sale or possession of any ghost gun kit; it instead requires adherence with the federal laws that impose certain conditions on the commercial sale of firearms [3]. The case eventually led to a 5-4 ruling that sided with the President’s administration, having the regulation enforce of the ghost guns. Which leads to today's ruling being resumed and the federal court having rules and regulations over the sale of ghost guns.

The major difference between ghost guns and traditional guns is the legal action that is taken to purchase the guns. A majority of individuals who purchase ghost guns are prohibited from legally buying guns which can involve age requirement, criminal offenses, health concerns and so on. While those who purchase guns regularly have a better or likely chance to obtain the gun the “normal” way and not have to assemble the parts themselves. It is important for lawmakers, politicians, judges, lawyers, and other criminal justice professionals to understand the concept of ghost guns and how to increase awareness of laws and regulations that enforce the safety and compliance of purchasing firearms materials.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Brady. (2023). What are ghost guns. Retrieved from https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-ghost-guns

[2] Vogue, De Ariane. (2023). Supreme Court allows the Biden administration to continue fully enforcing ghost gun regulations. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/ghost-gun-regulations-enforcement-supreme-court/index.html

[3] Vogue, De Ariane. (2023). Alito pauses another ruling from Texas judge limiting Biden regulations of ghost guns. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics/ghost-guns-supreme-court/index.html

Photo Credit: Guy Sie

[recentlyheardcom]

By Andrew ChungWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer indicted in August over his role in efforts to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, in a case involving 10 emails that he had sought to shield from congressional investigators.The justices declined to hear Eastman's appeal of a lower court's refusal to wipe out a federal judge's determination that the emails could be turned over to a House of Representatives committee due to an exception to attorney-client privilege involving communications likely used in furtherance of a crime.Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas did not participate in considering the case, the court's brief order showed.The Democratic-led panel issued a subpoena seeking the emails in its investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump's supporters and other matters involving efforts to undo Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory over Trump.Eastman, a former law professor at Chapman University in California, filed suit in federal court to prevent the school from complying with the panel's subpoena.In decisions in 2022, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter in Santa Ana ordered certain emails to be turned over, including those related to Trump and Eastman's court efforts to delay congressional certification of Biden's victory. Trump has made false claims that the election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.Attorney-client communications are normally safeguarded from disclosure. The so-called "crime-fraud" exception involves when a judge determines that they are likely used in furtherance of a crime.Carter ruled that Trump and Eastman had "more likely than not" committed a crime in trying to obstruct Congress. Eastman has sought to erase the judge's determination that the "crime-fraud" exception applied to some of the emails. His lawyers argued that given the fact that the emails eventually were publicly disclosed and left the legal case "moot," Carter's ruling "imposes a stigma" on both him and Trump and should be voided.Eastman appealed after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last November rejected his request to wipe out Carter's "crime-fraud" decision.Eastman represented Trump in a long-shot lawsuit seeking to overturn voting results in four states that Trump lost in 2020 and spoke at a rally at which Trump addressed his supporters before the Capitol riot. Eastman also wrote a memo outlining how, in his view, then-Vice President Mike Pence could thwart the formal congressional certification of Biden's victory, though Pence ultimately declined to follow his advice.Eastman pleaded not guilty after being indicted in August in Georgia's Fulton County alongside Trump and a raft of others on state charges involving efforts to reverse Trump's election loss. The indictment accused Eastman of being part of a plot to appoint fake electors for the election certification process.Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to face Biden in the 2024 election.The justices announced their action on the first day of their new nine-month term.(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

[sarnews]

Pedophile Gymnastics Doctor Larry Nasser Left in Pool of Blood Following Dose of Prison Justice

Pedophile sports doctor Larry Nassar, who was convicted of sexually abusing underage female gymnasts, has been stabbed multiple times at a federal prison in Florida, according to reports.

Two people familiar with the matter told Associated Press the attack happened Sunday at United States Penitentiary Coleman in Florida.

One of the people said Nasser, who was described as a “monster” by a judge, had been stabbed in the back and in the chest.

Nassar was sentenced to decades in prison for raping many young girls, including Olympic medalists.

Nassar is serving decades in prison for convictions in state and federal courts. He admitted sexually assaulting athletes when he worked at Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics, which trains Olympians. Separately, Nassar pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

During victim impact statements in 2018, several athletes testified that over the course of Nassar’s more than two decades of sexual abuse, they had told adults what was happening, including coaches and athletic trainers, but that it went unreported.

More than 100 women, including Olympic gold medalist Simone Biles, collectively sought more than $1 billion from the federal government for the FBI’s failure to stop Nassar when agents became aware of allegations against him in 2015. He was arrested by Michigan State University police in 2016, more than a year later.

Michigan State, which was accused of missing chances over many years to stop Nassar, agreed to pay $500 million to more than 300 women and girls who were assaulted by him. USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee made a $380 million settlement. Simone Biles returning to gymnastics competition for 1st time since 2020 Olympics

In June 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a final appeal from Nassar. Attorneys for Nassar said he was treated unfairly in 2018 and deserved a new hearing, based on vengeful remarks by a judge who called him a “monster” who would “wither” in prison like the wicked witch in The Wizard of Oz.

“I just signed your death warrant,” Ingham County Judge Rosemarie Aquilina said of Nassar’s 40-year sentence.

The state Supreme Court said that Nassar’s appeal was a “close question” and that it had “concerns” over the judge’s conduct. But the court also noted that Aquilina, despite her provocative comments, stuck to the sentencing agreement worked out by lawyers in the case.

“We decline to expend additional judicial resources and further subject the victims in this case to additional trauma where the questions at hand present nothing more than an academic exercise,” the court said in a two-page order.

More than 150 victims spoke or submitted statements during an extraordinary seven-day hearing in Aquilina’s court more than four years ago.

“It’s over. … Almost six years after I filed the police report, it’s finally over,” said Rachael Denhollander, the first woman to publicly accuse Nassar.

[beardedmrbean]

SAN JOSE, California — Disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes has been rebuffed in her attempt to stay out of federal prison while she appeals her conviction for the fraud she committed while overseeing a blood-testing scam that exposed Silicon Valley’s dark side.

In an 11-page ruling issued late Monday, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila concluded there wasn't compelling enough evidence to allow Holmes to remain free on bail while her lawyers try to persuade an appeals court that alleged misconduct during her four-month trial led to an unjust verdict.

The judge’s decision means Holmes, 39, will have to surrender to authorities April 27 to start the more than 11-year prison sentence that Davila imposed in November. The punishment came 10 months after a jury found her guilty on four counts of fraud and conspiracy against the Thearanos investors who believed in her promises to revolutionize the health care industry.

Holmes had accompanied her lawyers to a San Jose, California, courtroom on March 17 to try to convince Davila that various missteps by federal prosecutors, and the omission of key evidence, will culminate in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals exonerating her.

Holmes' prison sentence is scheduled to start roughly 20 years after she dropped out of Stanford University when she was 19 years old to start Theranos in Palo Alto, California — the same city where William Hewlett and David Packard founded a company bearing their surnames in a small garage and planted the seeds of what grew into Silicon Valley.

Holmes could still file another appeal of Davila's latest ruling, a maneuver her co-conspirator at Theranos — Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani — successfully used to delay his scheduled March 16 date to begin a nearly 13-year prison sentence. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week rejected that appeal, and Balwani is now scheduled to report to a Southern California prison on April 20.

Davila has recommended Holmes serve her sentence in a Bryan, Texas, prison. It hasn’t yet been publicly confirmed if that will be the facility where she reports.

Unless she can find a way to stay free, Holmes will be separated from the two children she had leading up to the trial and after her conviction.

Her first child, a boy, was born shortly before her trial began in September 2021. The youngest child, whose gender hasn’t been disclosed in court documents, was born at some point after her November sentencing. She conceived both with her current partner, William “Billy” Evans, whom she met after breaking up with Balwani in the midst of Theranos’ downfall.

The denial of Holmes’ request to remain free is the latest twist in a long-running saga that has already been the subject of an acclaimed HBO documentary and an award-winning Hulu TV series.

Although they had separate trials, Holmes and Balwani were accused of essentially the same crimes centered on a ruse touting Theranos’ blood-testing system as a breakthrough in health care. The claims helped the company become a Silicon Valley sensation that raised nearly $1 billion from investors and at one point anointed Holmes with a $4.5 billion fortune, based on her 50% stake in Theranos.

Holmes also parlayed the buzz surrounding Theranos to speaking engagements on the same stage as former President Bill Clinton and glowing cover stories in business publications that likened her to tech visionaries such as Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

But Theranos’ technology never came close to working like Holmes and Balwani boasted, resulting in the company’s scandalous collapse and a criminal case that shined a bright light on Silicon Valley greed and hubris.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

Black women make up about 8% of the population in the United States. But, according to a report by Project Diane, firms founded by Black women received 0.0006% of total funding from venture capitalists between 2009 and 2017. In recent years, the amount of venture capital funding awarded to firms founded by Black women has remained far less than 1%. Further, a study by Palladium Impact Capital found that "Black women entrepreneurs in the United States suffer the largest gap between their total capital demand and the amount of investment capital they receive when compared to other demographic groups."   Nevertheless, some people believe that in the status quo, Black women are receiving too much venture capital. They argue that Black women are benefiting from illegal racial preferences. And they are suing to put an end to it. The focus of the litigation is the Fearless Fund, which runs the Strivers Grant Contest, a program that awards $20,000 to four small businesses that are majority-owned by Black women. A group called The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) sued the Fearless Fund, arguing the grant contest constituted illegal racial discrimination. 

AAER bills itself as "a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to challenging distinctions made on the basis of race and ethnicity in federal and state courts." In practice, it files lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved white people who believe they are being harmed by programs designed to benefit racial minorities that face widespread discrimination. Edward Blum, the president of AAER, told the New York Times in 2023 that "systemic racism" does not exist. Blum also rejected the idea that "racism" was part of the country at its founding. AAER's most famous legal victory was a successful lawsuit arguing that "race-conscious student admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina" were unlawful. In the Fearless Fund lawsuit, AAER argued that the Fearless Fund's grant "violates section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race when enforcing contracts." That law was originally "intended to protect formerly enslaved people from economic exclusion," but is now being turned on its head by AAER. 

This week, a federal appeals court handed a victory to AAER. In a 2-1 decision, a panel found AAER was likely to succeed on the merits and issued an injunction suspending the Fearless Fund's grant program. The decision was written by two judges appointed by former President Trump.  Blum celebrated the decision while waiving away concerns about the systemic exclusion of Black women from venture capital funding. "Our nation’s civil rights laws do not permit racial distinctions because some groups are overrepresented in various endeavors, while others are under-represented," Blum said. 

The real meaning of civil rights law

Do civil rights laws really prohibit initiatives like the Fearless Fund's grants to businesses owned by Black women? Other courts have rejected challenges to similar programs. In November 2023, America First Legal (AFL) — an organization run by Trump advisor Stephen Miller — sued Progressive Insurance on behalf of a white business owner to stop a program that awarded $25,000 grants to black-owned small businesses. The money could be used toward the purchase of a commercial vehicle. The white business owner represented by AFL claimed he began filling out the application before realizing it was limited to Black-owned businesses.

The 3-judge panel on the 11th Circuit ruling against Fearless Fund is a victory for the right-wing White grievance industry and a loss for Black women.

See Also:

CNN: Federal appeals court blocks Fearless Fund from issuing grants to only Black women

[arpov-blog-blog]

..."This “war on woke” serves as the central justification and argument for DeSantis’ bid for the GOP nomination. By challenging the supposed liberal tilt in American culture as expressed in schools, the media and the corporate workplace culture, this “war,” and the legislation behind it, shows DeSantis as a culture fighter who gets things done.

But there’s one big problem for DeSantis’ war: the U.S. Constitution.

Broad swathes of DeSantis’ anti-woke agenda — from restrictions on the teaching of social science about race in colleges and universities, to bans on corporate diversity training to limits on public protests — have been temporarily suspended by judges who found them very likely to be in violation of the first and 14th amendments.

In suspending these laws, federal judges called them “positively dystopian” and the defenses presented in court “wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles.” The suspended provisions of the laws may yet be upheld as they move through appeals courts and, possibly, U.S. Supreme Court review, but, at the moment, DeSantis’ offensive against the “woke mind virus” has been partially reversed.

These multiple losses in court put a constitutional blemish on DeSantis’ claims of success as a culture warrior who can deftly enact the social conservative agenda.

One of the laws partially suspended is the pillar of DeSantis’ war: The Individual Freedom Act, popularly known as the Stop WOKE Act, prohibits the promotion or advancement of eight concepts related to race in public schools, colleges and universities and in private-sector corporate trainings. The definitions of the prohibited concepts are based on a Trump administration executive order banning government contractors from engaging employees in certain diversity training programs.

In response, a group of university professors, students and corporations filed three lawsuits challenging the law’s prohibitions on teaching race-based concepts or using them in diversity trainings for private-sector employees. The two lawsuits challenging the law’s application to colleges and universities were heard as a single case. In each case, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in northern Florida, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, suspended the law’s application with strong language.

“The State of Florida lays the cornerstone of its own Ministry of Truth under the guise of the Individual Freedom Act, declaring which viewpoints shall be orthodox and which shall be verboten in its university classrooms,” Walker wrote in his November 2022 decision on the law’s provisions governing colleges and universities.

“Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down,” Walker wrote in suspending the provisions governing private corporations. “Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely.”

[hardynwa]

Lagos LP readies suit against APC, Sanwo-Olu

The Labour Party, LP, is set to challenge the victory of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu in the March 18 Lagos gubernatorial election. The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on March 20, declared Sanwo-Olu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, winner and Governor-elect. The incumbent polled 762,134 votes, defeating Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the LP who scored 312,329. Olajide Adediran of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, got 62,449 votes. The results announced by the Returning Officer, Prof Adenike Temifayo-Oladiji, VC, Federal University of Technology Akure, show 1,182,620 accredited voters, 1,173,631 votes cast, and 17,953 rejected. The tension ahead of the poll culminated when, on election day, supporters of the APC, disenfranchised Igbos, as well as Yorubas who “look like” Igbos. Thousands of residents could not vote in many units across the state after harassment, intimidation, and violent acts that involved the use of dangerous weapons. Before the declaration, LP Chairman in Lagos, Dayo Ekong decried how people were blocked from voting in Alimosho, Eti-Osa, Ibeju-Lekki, among other Local Governments. “There are no results from over 1,000 units. People died…people were disenfranchised. This election is a sham…an election marred by violence! “I want to tell you, Mr. Gbaje, the REC, that you have failed the youths. You have failed the masses, and you have not done the right thing,” she stressed. In his remarks, Rhodes-Vivour, alias GRV alleged “collusion” between the APC and electoral officials in efforts to return Governor Sanwo-Olu. “The results being released by INEC do not represent the wishes of the majority of peaceful Lagosians…results from our agents and situation room indicated that we won,” he said. The candidate and his party are now proceeding to the court, seeking to upturn INEC’s pronouncement. One of Rhodes-Vivour’s close aides confirmed that plans are being finalised to file a petition at the Governorship Election Tribunal. “We are heading to the tribunal, we are currently filing the brief,” the source told DAILY POST Sunday night. The LP and GRV are expected to prove how supporters were stopped from voting for GRV and whether the loss of those votes caused their defeat. However, after polling less than 10 percent of Sanwo-Olu’s tally, neither the PDP nor its candidate a.k.a. Jandor has said much on the next move. PDP Chairman in Lagos, Philip Aivoji maintained sealed lips when asked to speak on the possibility of a legal action. “Please ask the candidate, I don’t want to comment on it”, replied the ex-Commissioner for Commerce, Industry and Tourism. PDP Publicity Secretary/Jandor Campaign spokesperson Hakeem Amode did not take calls or reply to a text message on Sunday. The tribunal in Lagos was constituted before the start of the general elections by Court of Appeal President, Justice M. B. Dongban-Mensem. The Lagos State Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem O. Alogba has approved the use of Rosaline Omotoso Courthouse in Ikeja as the venue. Read the full article