#district judge charles breyer

[alwaysbewoke]

A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X that had targeted a watchdog group for its critical reports about hate speech on the social media platform. In a blistering 52-page order, the judge blasted X’s case as plainly punitive rather than about protecting the platform’s security and legal rights. “Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation,” wrote District Judge Charles Breyer, of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, in the order’s opening lines. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose.” “This case represents the latter circumstance,” Breyer continued. “This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.” X’s lawsuit had accused the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) of violating the company’s terms of service when it studied, and then wrote about, hate speech on the platform following Musk’s takeover of Twitter in October 2022. X has blamed CCDH’s reports, which showcase the prevalence of hate speech on the platform, for amplifying brand safety concerns and driving advertisers away from the site. In the suit, X claimed that it had suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages from CCDH’s publications. CCDH is an international non-profit with offices in the UK and US. Because of its potential to destroy the watchdog group, the case has been widely viewed as a bellwether for research and accountability on X as Musk has welcomed back prominent white supremacists and others to the platform who had previously been suspended when the platform was still a publicly-traded company called Twitter.

[mariacallous]

Soon after Elon Musk took control of Twitter, now called X, the platform faced a massive problem: Advertisers were fleeing. But that, the company alleges, was someone else’s fault. On Thursday that argument went before a federal judge, who seemed skeptical of the company's allegations that a nonprofit’s research tracking hate speech on X had compromised user security, and that the group was responsible for the platform’s loss of advertisers.

The dispute began in July when X filed suit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that tracks hate speech on social platforms and had warned that the platform was seeing an increase in hateful content. Musk’s company alleged that CCDH’s reports cost it millions in advertising dollars by driving away business. It also claimed that the nonprofit’s research had violated the platform’s terms of service and endangered users’ security by scraping posts using the login of another nonprofit, the European Climate Foundation.

In response, CCDH filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging that it was an attempt to silence a critic of X with burdensome litigation using what’s known as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP.

On Thursday, lawyers for CCDH and X went before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern California District Court for a hearing to decide whether X’s case against the nonprofit will be allowed to proceed. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for exactly how far billionaires and tech companies can go to silence their critics. “This is really a SLAPP suit disguised as a contractual suit,” says Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic.

Unforeseen Harms

X alleges that the CCDH used the European Climate Foundation’s login to a social network listening tool called Brandwatch, which has a license to access X data through the company’s API. In the hearing Thursday, X’s attorneys argued that CCDH’s use of the tool had caused the company to spend time and money investigating the scraping, for which it also needed to be compensated on top of payback for how the nonprofit’s report spooked advertisers.

Judge Breyer pressed X’s attorney, Jonathan Hawk, on that claim, questioning how scraping posts that were publicly available could violate users’ safety or the security of their data. “If [CCDH] had scraped and discarded the information, or scraped that number and never issued a report, or scraped and never told anybody about it. What would be your damages?” Breyer asked X’s legal team.

Breyer also pointed out that it would have been impossible for anyone agreeing to Twitter's terms of service in 2019, as the European Climate Foundation did when it signed up for Brandwatch, years before Musk’s purchase of the platform, to anticipate how its policies would drastically change later. He suggested it would be difficult to hold CCDH responsible for harms it could not have foreseen.

“Twitter had a policy of removing tweets and individuals who engaged in neo-Nazi, white supremacists, misogynists, and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories. That was the policy of Twitter when the defendant entered into its terms of service,” Breyer said. “You're telling me at the time they were excluded from the website, it was foreseeable that Twitter would change its policies and allow these people on? And I am trying to figure out in my mind how that's possibly true, because I don't think it is."

Speaking after the hearing, Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH, was optimistic about the direction of the judge’s inquiry. “We were particularly surprised by the implication in X Corp.’s argument today that it thinks that CCDH should somehow be on the hook for paying for X Corp. to help neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and misogynists escape scrutiny of their reprehensible posts,” he says. “We can't help but note that X Corp. really had no response to our assertion that Musk changed X's policies to reinstate white supremacists, neo-Nazis, misogynists, and other propagators of hateful and toxic content.”

Breyer did not indicate Thursday when he would rule on whether the case could move forward.

Broken Trust

After taking over Twitter in late 2022, Musk fired much of the company's trust and safety team, which kept hateful and dangerous content as well as disinformation off the platform. He then also offered amnesty to users who had been banned for violating the platform’s policies. CCDH is among a number of organizations and academics who have published evidence showing that X has become a haven for harmful and misleading content under Musk’s watch.

The suit against CCDH was just one of many ways in which platforms have sought to limit transparency in recent years. X now charges $42,000 for access to its API, making analyzing data from the platform financially inaccessible to many researchers and members of civil society. For its part, Meta has wound down CrowdTangle, a tool that allowed researchers and journalists to track the spread of posts, and cut off researchers at New York University who were studying political ads and Covid-19 disinformation.

Both Meta and X filed suit against Bright Data, a third-party data collection service, for scraping their platforms. In January, Meta’s case against Bright Data was dismissed. “The Facebook and Instagram Terms do not bar logged-off scraping of public data; perforce it does not prohibit the sale of such public data,” wrote US federal judge Edward Chen in his verdict. “The Terms cannot bar Bright Data’s logged-off scraping activities.”

Bright Data spokesperson Jennifer Burns calls the platforms’ suits against the company “an effort to build a wall around publicly available data.”

Caraballo, of Harvard Law School, says Elon Musk appears to have decided lawsuits are a good strategy for silencing critics of his social platform. In November, X filed a lawsuit against the watchdog group Media Matters for America, accusing the group of trying to drive advertisers away from the platform by reporting how ads appeared next to neo-Nazi content.

The suit was filed in Texas, where anti-SLAPP laws that can be used to quash frivolous lawsuits do not apply in federal courts, which will make it more difficult for the case to be dismissed, says Caraballo. “I think it's incredibly concerning that this is part of that broader pattern, because these are the mechanisms that hold powerful companies accountable,” she says.

She guesses that while X might be able to move forward with a narrow version of its claim that CCDH breached its terms of service, “most of the claims will get tossed out.”

X did not respond to request for comment by the time of publication.

[influencermagazineuk]

Lawyers for UK Tech Founder Mike Lynch Seek Acquittal in US Fraud Trial

The Royal Society, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons Mike Lynch's defense team on Monday portrayed the British tech pioneer as a savvy entrepreneur while prosecutors in a San Francisco court painted him as a greedy fraudster. The jury will soon deliberate on allegations that Lynch defrauded Hewlett-Packard (HP) in its $11 billion acquisition of his software company, Autonomy. The 2011 deal was one of the most significant in British tech history but quickly turned sour. HP wrote down Autonomy's value by $8.8 billion within a year of the acquisition. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Leach, in his closing arguments, urged jurors to find no reasonable doubt of fraud at Autonomy, asserting that Lynch orchestrated the scheme. Leach highlighted the financial gains Lynch made from the deal, stating, "Dr. Lynch had 500 million reasons to defraud HP. It tells you volumes about who was in charge and who benefited from this." Lynch, along with former Autonomy finance executive Stephen Chamberlain, faces charges of fraud and conspiracy, accused of inflating the company's revenue starting in 2009 to make it more attractive to buyers. Lynch, a Cambridge University-educated entrepreneur, took the stand in his defense, denying any wrongdoing and blaming HP for mishandling the integration of the two companies. Lynch's attorney, Brian Heberlig, argued that Lynch's testimony undermined the prosecution's case, stating, "It was more than reasonable doubt. It was truth," while displaying a large photo of Lynch with descriptors such as "smart" and "focused on the future." The defense team secured a minor victory last week when U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed one count of securities fraud due to insufficient evidence. However, Lynch still faces one count of conspiracy and 14 counts of wire fraud. Prosecutors allege that Lynch and Chamberlain manipulated Autonomy's finances through back-dated agreements and "round-trip" deals that involved fake contracts to inflate revenue. The trial, which began in mid-March, has included testimony from over 30 government witnesses, including former HP CEO Leo Apotheker, who was fired shortly after the Autonomy deal was announced. Lynch's lawyers contend that HP was so eager to acquire Autonomy to outpace competitors that it rushed the due diligence process. On the stand, Lynch claimed his focus was on technological issues and that he entrusted financial matters to Sushovan Hussain, Autonomy's then-chief financial officer. Hussain was separately convicted in 2018 of conspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud related to the HP deal and was released from U.S. prison in January after serving a five-year sentence. Lynch, once one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs, has been compared to Apple's Steve Jobs and Microsoft's Bill Gates. The acquisition of Autonomy was intended to bolster HP's software business but instead led to prolonged and costly legal disputes. HP largely won a civil lawsuit against Lynch and Hussain in London in 2022, although damages are yet to be determined, with the company seeking $4 billion. Closing arguments in the trial are expected to conclude on Tuesday, after which the jury will begin deliberations. The Royal Society, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons Read the full article

[californiaprelawland]

Meta Sued For Multiple Claims Of Trademark Infringement

By Eileen Chen, University of California Davis Class of 2023    

November 11, 2022

Meta Platforms Inc., previously known as Facebook, has faced three trademark infringement lawsuits over the past couple of months due to their rebranding. In October 2021, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg changes the name of his company to Meta, to work on creating a metaverse [1]. He wants to eventually create a virtual world where consumers can spend increasing amounts of time based on AI and VR technology [1].

In July, a start-up company called META, or METAx LLC., sued Meta Platformss Inc., for trademark infringement since both companies offer similar services—social immersion in virtual spaces [1]. META, which has been operating for over a decade, claims that with Facebook’s new rebranding, META would be confused with Facebook in future advertising or marketing campaigns. In addition to changing its name to Meta, Facebook also set up VR installations in the same places that META used to before the name change. Some of these include Coachella, the Smithsonian, and the Cannes Lions Festival. The founder of META, Justin Bolognino, explains that since Facebook rebranded as Meta, event planners have been hiring Facebook for these VR installations instead of META, which was the company that was previously hired [2]. Facebook’s rename and rebranding essentially “obliterated” the smaller start-up since Bolognino can no longer offer his services without being mistaken for Facebook.

In September, Meta Inc. was sued by Metacapital Management LP, claiming that the use of Meta to provide financial services would cause confusion among consumers [3]. Metacapital is an investment advisor company located in New York. Metacapital claims that they have already established their reputation and brand under the shortened “Meta,” and that while Facebook has mainly been a social networking company, they have recently been expanding into other sectors, including finance [4]. Metacapital is seeking $60 million of damages, which is based on how much Meta paid Meta Financial Group for trademark name rights [5]. The lawsuit claims that if Facebook was aware of Meta Financial Group prior to the rebranding, they must have known about Metcapital as well. In addition to rebranding the entire company, Facebook has also changed the name of its financial-services unit to Meta Financial Technologies, which Metacapital claims will cause even more confusion for the consumers [4].

In addition to being sued for the name, Meta Platforms Inc. was also sued for infringement regarding their infinity sign logo. In May, the DFINITY foundation, a blockchain developer nonprofit based in Switzerland, sued Meta Platforms Inc., for infringing on their infinity sign logo since they currently hold two trademarks on the logo [6]. Dfinity, founded in 2016, has a trademark for the rainbow infinity symbol and for an infinity symbol with the company name. The U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer claims that the two symbols are not similar enough to cause confusion, and that the two companies offer different services that would not cause any confusion among consumers, especially if their consumer base is tech-savvy [6]. Additionally, the infinity symbol is not extremely creative; in fact, it is considered an everyday symbol [7]. Dfinity and Meta only stylized the familiar symbol, making a weak case for trademark infringement [7]. The case was dismissed by a San Francisco federal court.

______________________________________________________________

Eileen Chen is currently a fourth-year undergraduate at University of California, Davis pursuing a degree in Biomedical Engineering with a specialization in medical devices. She is currently working on creating a device that continuously monitors endotracheal tube placement in neonates. She hopes to attend law school upon graduation to become a patent attorney.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://knowledge.insead.edu/marketing/why-facebook-rebranding-itself-meta#:~:text=Mark%20Zuckerberg%2C%20founder%20of%20Facebook,phase%20in%20the%20digital%20world.

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/exclusive-facebook-owner-is-behind-60-mln-deal-meta-name-rights-2021-12-13/

[3] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/meta-sued-by-investment-firm-metacapital-trademark-infringement-2022-09-07/

[4] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvomokxxvd/IP%20META%20TRADEMARKS%20metacapital.pdf

[5] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/exclusive-facebook-owner-is-behind-60-mln-deal-meta-name-rights-2021-12-13/

[6] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/meta-defeats-trademark-lawsuit-over-infinity-symbol-logo-2022-11-10/

[7] https://www.fastcompany.com/90749484/meta-faces-lawsuit-over-logo

[im-the-punk-who]

Contact your Senators!

Trump appears to have picked his SCOTUS Nominee - Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Some reports are saying that Republicans will try to rush her hearing and confirmation through as soon as October 29th.

If you live in the U.S. please contact your senators to urge them to 1) refuse to confirm a Supreme Court Justice five days before the presidential election, but also to demand that if she is confirmed, that she recuse herself from any cases on the outcome of the election.  

I know we’re all tired - I know we’re all strung out and feeling burnt out. But please, let your senators know what you think. Write your thoughts in your own words. 

Mass emails and letters often get lumped together - using your own words, even if it’s just changing the order of sentences and replacing words will make it more likely your individual voice will be counted. If you need help crafting a script, you can look at https://twitter.com/openletterbot, which publishes letters sent through it’s account. Here are a few examples of letters to send, including the one I sent to my senators:

“After the precedent set by Senate Republicans during President Obama’s term, I am strongly opposed to any nominee to the Supreme Court being confirmed before the swearing in of the president in 2021.”

--

“We demand that Amy Coney Barrett recuse herself.

In order to have a free and fair election that will hold up under the tightest of scrutiny, any nominee put forth by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate must recuse themselves from any case contesting the results. 

There is no shortage of precedent for the recusal of justices. Justice Kagan recused herself because she had worked on the cases while serving as the Solicitor General for President Obama’s Justice Department. In 2015 she recused herself when the Supreme Court looked at the constitutionality of an affirmative action program in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas.

justice Breyer and Chief justice Roberts have recused themselves ten times apiece. Justice Breyer’s recusals have been for financial and familial reasons. His brother, Charles Breyer, is a US District Court Judge in Northern California, and has occasionally ruled on matters that found their way to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice’s stock ownership has led to his recusal in all but one of the cases he recused from, where an attorney for one of the parties was a former colleague at the firm of Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells). Most recently, The Chief Justice recused himself in a case, after granting cert and hearing oral arguments, because a stock conflict became apparent.

President Trump has publicly suggested doing away with confirmation hearings. He told reporters that he wants the new justice confirmed before the election. “It’s better,” he said about the timing.

The attempt to cast doubt and ultimately steal the election is undeniable. We the people call upon our elected officials to stand against tyranny and fascism.”

--

“Please stand firm against the appointment of any Justice to the Supreme Court made by the President before November 4th. Trump’s attempt to rush through a nominee in preparation to challenge the results of the election is a clear violation of the Democracy our nation values so highly. The fitness of Justice Amy coney Barrett or any other appointee is not part of the equation - no matter who Trump’s appointee might be, there is still no way to ignore the flagrant attempt to interfere with the judiciary branch’s impartiality when it comes to a potential case regarding the election results.

Following this, if a nominee is confirmed before the election they should be pressured to recuse themselves from weighing in on any cases involving the election of the President because of the aforementioned clear conflict of interest. It is ridiculous to think that any person given a job and sworn into that position five days prior would be impartial in deciding the fate of the person who nominated them, regardless of political leanings or anything else.

I urge you as a fellow American and your constituent to fight for as fair and impartial an election as possible so that whatever the result we as Americans may move forward with pride. Thank you for your time and your continued service.”

--

“Hold off on the Supreme Court hearings. Please hear your constituents.”

As you can see, letters and scripts can be as long and detailed or short and sweet as you want! The important thing is that you voice your opinions!

[gingerteaonthetardis]

In 2013, Kayla Moore, a black trans woman living with schizophrenia, was murdered by the Berkeley Police Department. The police were responding to a 911 call from Kayla’s roommate calling for help because Kayla was experiencing a mental health crisis. The officers immediately placed Kayla under arrest, wrestled her to the ground face down, and 6 officers restrained her using their full weight until she stopped breathing.

Police had found a warrant for someone with the same birth name as her. But despite police dispatch stating that it was for a man 20 years older than Kayla Moore, police still grabbed her and restrained her.

In 2014, Kayla’s father, Arthur Moore, filed a wrongful death suit against the city, which alleges that the responding officers violated Moore’s rights & failed to adequately accommodate her after she was placed in police custody. It was dismissed in 2018, when U.S. District Judge, Charles Breyer, ruled that Moore’s father, Arthur Moore, did not provide enough evidence to show that his daughter was discriminated against related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The judge had previously dismissed the excessive force & discrimination claims alleged by Moore’s family back in 2016.

The family had alleged in their lawsuit that officers did not administer CPR because she was transgender, & that officers made discriminatory comments about her, calling her “it.”

Now, the family is pressing to have their case heard in front of a jury after the initial suit was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge in 2018.

“The goal of the appeal is to allow a jury to fully examine the evidence related to the multiple claims in the family’s original lawsuit,” said Charlotte Halloran-Couch, an organizer with Justice 4 Kayla Moore. “We believe all of the family’s original claims deserve to be heard before a jury.”

The family’s claims include allegations of excessive force by BPD, unlawfully arresting Moore based on a warrant that was for another individual of the same legal name, & police discrimination against Moore for being transgender, according to Halloran-Couch.

Please sign this petition to support Kayla Moore’s family in appealing the wrongful death suit. Please sign to fight for the case to be reopened & properly examined & for her family to be heard.

Being mentally ill while black should not be a death sentence. BLACK TRANS LIVES MATTER. Sign the petition. Help Kayla’s family seek justice.

[douglasacogan]

Examining "life-or-death lottery for thousands of federal inmates" from compassionate release

This lengthy new CNN article, Headlined "Compassionate release became a life-or-death lottery for thousands of federal inmates during the pandemic," takes a deep dive into the realities of compassionate release processes and outcomes. Here are excerpts:

Judge Danny Reeves ... has denied compassionate release motions from at least 90 inmates since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, a CNN review of court records found. In Reeves' district, the Eastern District of Kentucky, judges granted about 6% of compassionate release motions in 2020 and the first half of 2021, according to data released by the US Sentencing Commission this week. In some judicial districts, the approval rate was even lower.

But elsewhere in the country, compassionate release is a different story: Nearly 50% of compassionate release motions decided by the federal court in Massachusetts and more than 60% decided by the court in Oregon were approved during the same time period -- including some for inmates with far less serious medical conditions.... [The image shows darker colors based on percentage of motions for compassionate release that were granted, by judicial district.]

Federal judges in all of these districts are applying the same laws, which allow compassionate release in "extraordinary and compelling" cases. But those wide disparities show that whether defendants get released early during the pandemic has had almost as much to do with which courts are hearing their motion as it does with the facts of their cases, legal advocates and researchers say.

The compassionate release process, expanded by Congress in a landmark 2018 criminal justice reform bill, has acted as a safety valve for the federal prison system during the pandemic, with more than 3,600 inmates being released in 2020 and the first half of 2021. But it has given judges broad discretion to interpret which sentences should be reduced, leading to a national patchwork of jarringly different approval rates between federal courts.

The reasons behind the disparities have to do with variations in sentence length and legal representation for inmates, as well as differing approaches between more liberal and conservative judges, according to interviews with more than a dozen lawyers, advocates and experts studying compassionate release.

More broadly, the percentage of motions granted nationwide has fallen this year, as judges and Department of Justice lawyers have been pointing to inmates' vaccination status as a reason to oppose their release. "Judges are looking at the same law and policy but interpreting it differently," said Hope Johnson, a researcher with the UCLA School of Law who's studied compassionate release cases. "There's an arbitrariness in the way these decisions are being made."...

Overall, 17.5% of compassionate release motions were granted in 2020 and the first six months of 2021, newly released sentencing commission statistics show. But that rate ranged from a low of 1.7% in the Southern District of Georgia, where all but four of 230 motions were denied, to a high of 77.3% in the District of Puerto Rico, where 17 of 22 motions were granted.

Judge Charles Breyer, the only current member of the sentencing commission, said in an interview that he thought the lack of updated compassionate release guidelines was exacerbating the wide disparities between districts. He said he would like the commission to pass a new standard urging judges to take "the pernicious effect of Covid" into account in deciding compassionate release cases. "You need a national standard," Breyer told CNN, adding that without one, "it creates a vacuum and it creates uncertainty, and most importantly it creates disparity."

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247011 https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2021/09/examining-life-or-death-lottery-for-thousands-of-federal-inmates-from-compassionate-release.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[patriotsnet]

How Many Republicans Voted For Aca

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-voted-for-aca/

How Many Republicans Voted For Aca

Why Is The Aca Misunderstood

House Republicans Pass Bill To Repeal And Replace ACA

Oftentimes, how Obamacare is discussed and framed has led to misunderstanding of the ACA.

The legislation is a series of provisions, opening up a marketplace of different tiered plans from which citizens can choose. Its not a health insurance plan in and of itself, the way some anti-ACA-leaning media outlets tend to depict it.

When asked why there tends to be so much confusion over what exactly Obamacare is, John McDonough, DrPH, MPA, a professor of public health practice in the Department of Health Policy & Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and director of executive and continuing professional education, said its because American healthcare is confusing to begin with.

Ask Americans to explain Medicare and or Medicaid, and you will observe at least as much befuddlement as with the ACA. Our U.S. healthcare system is the most complicated and impenetrable to understand and make sense of on the planet, McDonough told Healthline.

He should know. McDonough was there at the beginning.

He worked on the development and passage of the ACA in the role of a senior advisor on national health reform to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

In the early days around 2010, when people would complain to me that they didnt understand the ACA, I would ask them politely how well they understand the U.S. health system in general, he said.

Affordable Health Care For America Act

This article is part of a serieson

e

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives of the 111th United States Congress on October 29, 2009. The bill was sponsored by Representative Charles Rangel. At the encouragement of the Obama administration, the 111th Congress devoted much of its time to enacting reform of the United States’ health care system. Known as the “House bill, HR 3962 was the House of Representatives’ chief legislative proposal during the health reform debate.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed an alternative health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act . In 2010, the House abandoned its reform bill in favor of amending the Senate bill ” rel=”nofollow”>reconciliation process) in the form of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Obamacare Survives After Supreme Court Rejects Latest Republican Challenge

The Supreme Court ruled against Texas and other Republican-led states seeking to strike down the Affordable Care Act in its latest test before the nation’s highest court.

The top court voted 7-2 to reverse an appeals court ruling that had struck down the law’s individual mandate provision.

Two of former President Donald Trump’s court picks, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority in rejecting the Republican effort.

President Joe Biden praised the ruling as a major victory and vowed to expand Obamacare.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Thursday against Texas and other Republican-led states seeking to strike down Obamacare in the law’s latest test before the nation’s highest court.

The court reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down the law’s individual mandate provision. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion, as did Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Breyer said Texas and the other states that challenged the law failed to show they were harmed by it.

“Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have shown that the injury they will suffer or have suffered is ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ of which they complain,” Breyer wrote.

Biden also vowed to expand Obamacare, a central promise of his presidential campaign.

The Supreme Court agreed in March 2020 to hear the case.

“What a day,” he added.

Don’t Miss: Congress Denies Funding For Benghazi

Rep Christopher H Smith Of New Jersey

Smith is the only remaining Republican representing New Jersey, after Democrats flipped four seats in the Garden State in the midterms. Smith voted against the GOP health care plan in 2017. He also broke with his party on the tax overhaul, along with other lawmakers from high-tax states. Smith is not a DCCC target and is running for re-election in a district Trump carried by 15 points in 2016. Inside Elections rates his race Solid Republican.

Fact Check: How Many Gop Senators Voted To Repeal Obamacare

By Sara Reynolds

The United States Senate voted three times in July to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act]. All of the measures failed. Commenting on the apparent change of position among Republicans who voted against repeal on July 26, Senator Ben Sasse claimed, With just one exception, every member of the Republican majority already either voted for repeal or explicitly campaigned on repeal.

Is Sasse correct? Did every current Republican senator, except one, previously vote for or campaign on repeal of the Affordable Care Act?

Yes. With the exception of Sen. Susan Collins , all 49 current Republican senators who were in office in 2015 voted that year to repeal elements of the ACA . Seven Republican senators who were in office in 2015, including Collins, voted against a similar bill on July 26, 2017.

Senators John Neely Kennedy and Todd Young , both elected in 2016, campaigned to repeal the ACA. Sen. Luther Strange , appointed in 2017 and currently running in a special election, has also campaigned on repeal. All three senators voted to repeal the ACA on July 26.

Recommended Reading: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

Rep Denver Riggleman Of Virginia

The Virginia freshman, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, explained his vote partly as one to protect pre-existing conditions, which he said hit close to home for me and I campaigned on continuing healthcare coverage for those affected.

The healthcare system is broken and Obamacare is a major part of the problem, but we should proceed with caution as we try and fix it. This resolution certainly doesnt help solve the problem, but hopefully will allow us to have a productive discussion on healthcare, he said in an emailed statement.

Trump carried Rigglemans 5th District seat;by 11 points in 2016. Riggleman defeated Democrat Leslie Cockburn by 7 points last fall in a race that got some national attention. Democrats are not targeting him in 2020. Inside Elections rates his race Solid Republican.

Russia Sanctions Headed To Trump’s Desk Will He Sign

Some GOP senators worried the measure would go back to the House, where leaders would put it on the floor, pass it and send it to Trump who has said he would sign whatever lands on his desk when it comes to Republican-passed health care legislation.

Before the vote, at 10:43 p.m. ET, Trump was rooting them on in a tweet: “Go Republican Senators. Go!”

Afterward, it was a different story, with the president tweeting at 2:25 a.m. ET that those who voted no had “let the American people down.”

It’s somewhat ironic that McCain was the one to derail what seemed like a sure Trump victory . After all, Trump’s comments about the former prisoner of war were among the earliest to land the then-candidate in controversy.

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 of McCain. “He was a war hero, because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured. He’s been losing so long he doesn’t know how to win anymore.”

That was likely never lost on McCain.

Read Also: When Did The Parties Switch Platforms

Democrats Sought To Put Gop Colleagues On Record With Symbolic Vote

Democratic congressional campaigns have already made health care an early focus of their 2020 messaging, and House Democrats bolstered that effort Wednesday with a symbolic vote that sought to once again put Republicans on record on the issue.

Eight Republicans sided with Democrats on the nonbinding resolution, which the House adopted, 240-186.;The measure condemned;the Trump administrations support for invalidating the 2010 health care law in its entirety.;The Department of Justice, in a new filing last week, backed a Texas judges decision to strike down the law.;

Three Republicans; New Yorks;Tom Reed and John Katko and Pennsylvanias Brian Fitzpatrick had voted in January to authorize the House general counsel to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the health care law. All three also voted for the resolution Wednesday.

One Democrat 15-term Minnesota Rep. Collin C. Peterson bucked his party and voted against the resolution. Hes one of the last Democrats remaining in the House who opposed the 2010 health care law and is likely the last Democrat who can hold his heavily agricultural 7th District seat.

Democrats were otherwise united in supporting the resolution, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched positive Facebook ads touting their vulnerable members votes to protect families with pre-existing conditions.

Also watch:;What if we switch to a single-payer health care system?

What The Aca Means For You

The 139 Republicans Who Voted Against Certifying The Election Have Faced No Consequences

The Affordable Care Act is perhaps the greatest overhaul ofthe US health-care system, and it will provide coverage for over 94% ofAmericans. In addition, one of its key reforms includes health coverage for adultswith pre-existing conditions, which generally had not been available up untilnow.

These great changes in health-care insurance can benefit you and your loved ones. However, it is still essential to find the best plans at the best price to ensure your family is properly covered.

To learn about the specific Obamacare-compliant health insurance plan options available to youplus see if you are eligible for a government subsidy to help pay for a plancompare ACA-compliant health insurance plans with eHealth today.

Also Check: Senate Dem Vs Rep

Schumer: ‘we Can Work Together Our Country Demands It’

Until the end, passage on the Health Care Freedom Act, also dubbed the skinny repeal, was never certain. Even Republicans who voted for it disliked the bill.

The skinny bill as policy is a disaster. The skinny bill as a replacement for Obamacare is a fraud. The skinny bill is a vehicle to getting conference to find a replacement, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a Thursday evening news conference hours before the vote alongside fellow Republicans McCain, Ron Johnson and Bill Cassidy, before the details were released.

The skinny repeal was far from Republicans campaign promise of also rolling back Medicaid expansion, insurance subsidies, Obamacare taxes, and insurance regulations.

Many Republicans who did vote for it said they were holding their nose to vote for it just to advance the process into negotiations with the House of Representatives.

The legislation included a repeal of the individual mandate to purchase insurance, a repeal of the employer mandate to provide insurance, a one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood, a provision giving states more flexibility to opt out of insurance regulations, and a three-year repeal of the medical device tax. It also would have increased the amount that people can contribute to Health Savings Accounts.

Leigh Ann Caldwell is an NBC News correspondent.

Watch Sen John Mccain Cast ‘no’ Vote On ‘skinny’ Repeal

It isn’t clear what comes next, but the collapse of some insurance markets around the country serve as an incentive for Republicans and Democrats to hold hearings and fix the problems with health care.

Most Republicans never embraced the different iterations of legislation they crafted, nor the process by which it was constructed. Even on the last-ditch effort at a bare-bones bill, Republicans couldnt reach agreement. Over the past two days, many rejected a plan that would have partially repealed and replaced Obamacare and a measure that would have just repealed it. The repeal vote was the same bill that passed the Senate and the House in 2015 when former President Barack Obama vetoed it.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, stood against every version of the legislation even in the face of immense pressure. The Trump administration threatened to withhold federal resources from Alaska because of her opposition, according to the Alaska Daily News. Murkowski herself said the next day in response to the report that she would not characterize it as a “threat.”

“I sat there with Senator McCain. I think both of us recognize that its very hard to disappoint your colleagues,” Murkowski told NBC News after the vote. “And I know that there is disappointment because it was the three votes that Senator McCain, Senator Collins, and I cast that did not allow this bill to move forward. And that is difficult.”

“John McCain is a hero and has courage and does the right thing,” Schumer said.

You May Like: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

When Did Obamacare Start

The timeline of key events leading up to the passage of the Obamacare law began in 2009. Here is a list of those events, along with key provisions that went into place after the law was enacted.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats from the House of Representatives reveal their plan for overhauling the health-care system. Its called H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

;Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, a leading supporter of health-care reform, dies and puts the Senate Democrats 60-seat supermajority required to pass a piece of legislation at risk.

;Democrat Paul Kirk is appointed interim senator from Massachusetts, which temporarily restores the Democrats filibuster-proof 60th vote.

;In the House of Representatives, 219 Democrats and one Republican vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans vote against it.

In the Senate, 60 Democrats vote for the Senates version of the bill, called Americas Healthy Future Act, whose lead author is senator Max Baucus of California. Thirty-nine Republicans vote against the bill, and one Republican senator, Jim Bunning, does not vote.

Actions To Hinder Implementation

Under both ACA and the AHCA, CBO reported that the health exchange marketplaces would remain stable. However, Republican politicians took a variety of steps to undermine it, creating uncertainty that adversely impacted enrollment and insurer participation while increasing premiums. Concern of the exchanges became another argument for reforms. Past and ongoing Republican attempts to weaken the law have included:

Don’t Miss: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Rep Pete Stauber Of Minnesota

The freshman flipped a longtime Democratic seat;in northeast Minnesota that Trump had carried by 16 points in 2016. Its a largely white, working-class district, where Trumps populist appeal resonated. The former Duluth police officer ran a campaign ad last year about his son Issac, who has Down syndrome, and he talked about the importance of insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions. Democrats are not targeting this seat in 2020. Inside Elections rates the race Likely Republican.

Why Supporters Pushed For The Bill

The PPACA addresses the needs of the 46 million uninsured Americans;

strengthens the Medicare system by closing the donut hole in prescription coverage, and cutting waste and fraud while guaranteeing preventive care without co-pays;

provides health insurance to low-income children;

funds cutting-edge research into cures for diseases;

gives patients the clout to challenge the decisions of health insurers and;

increases access to care by making it impossible for insurers to shun the sick.

In the past, insurers either refused to cover patients suffering from pre-existing conditions, or charged them unaffordable premiums. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted shortly before the legislation passed: “If you’re a woman that’s a pre-existing condition; if you’re a woman of child-bearing age and you’ve had children that’s a pre-existing condition. If you can’t have children, it’s a pre-existing condition. If you have a C-section, it’s a pre-existing condition. A victim of domestic abuse, it’s a preexisting condition.”

Under the PPACA, Americans would no longer have to worry about being denied insurance. Pelosi urged her audience to “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer, a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. Or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risks, but not be job-locked because a child has a child has asthma or diabetes or someone in the family is bipolar “

Read Also: Is Trump A Republican Or Democratic

The House Votes To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans overcame an embarrassing early failure to pass their replacement for the Affordable Care Act with few votes to spare. Now, they await the political fallout.

For House Republicans, the burden of an unfulfilled campaign promise had simply become too much to bear alone.

And so on Thursday, after an embarrassing early failure and weeks of fits and starts, a narrow GOP majority passed legislation to partially repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that even many of its supporters conceded was deeply flawed. The party-line vote was 217-213, with 20 Republicans voting against. The bill now goes to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain at best.

The American Health Care Act scraps the Obamacare mandates that people buy health insurance and that employers provide it, eliminates most of its tax increases, cuts nearly $900 billion from Medicaid while curtailing the programs expansion, and allows states to seek a waiver exempting them from the current laws crucial prohibition against insurers charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives complained that the bill did not fully repeal the 2010 law, while moderates blanched at its cuts to Medicaid and its weakening of its most popular consumer protections.

Attempts To Change Or Repeal

Schumer slams GOP senators in vote to protect ACA

Read Ballotpedia’s fact check »

The Affordable Care Act was subject to a number of lawsuits challenging some of its provisions, such as the individual mandate and the requirement to cover contraception. Four of these lawsuits were heard by the United States Supreme Court, resulting in changes to the law and how it was enforced. In addition, since the law’s enactment, lawmakers in Congress have introduced and considered legislation to modify or repeal parts or all of the Affordable Care Act. Finally, between 2010 and 2012, voters in eight states considered ballot measures related to the law. This section summarizes the lawsuits, legislation, and state ballot measures that attempted to change, repeal, or impact enforcement of parts of the law.

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

[masterofd1saster]

CJ current events 2sep21

Mr. David’s Flooring International LLC (Mr. David’s), a Chicago-based commercial flooring contractor, pleaded guilty after being charged for its role in a long-running conspiracy to rig bids and fix prices for commercial flooring products and services, and for its role in a money laundering conspiracy involving kickbacks.***

According to a two-count felony charge filed in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. David’s conspired with other companies to rig bids for commercial flooring by agreeing which company would win the bid, and which would submit a complementary, intentionally-losing bid. Mr. David’s participated in the conspiracy from at least as early as 2009 until at least June 22, 2017.

The second count charges Mr. David’s with conspiring to launder money to conceal kickback payments the company made to Carter Brett, an account executive for a large flooring manufacturer, in exchange for unauthorized discounts. According to the charge, Mr. David’s issued checks to a shell corporation established by Brett for the sole purpose of receiving the illegal kickback payments, and Mr. David’s and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy from at least as early as 2013 until as late as June 13, 2018.***  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/commercial-flooring-company-pleads-guilty-antitrust-and-money-laundering-charges 

***

SAN FRANCISCO — A 22-year-old man was sentenced to three years in federal prison Wednesday, in a gun case that stemmed from store robbery investigations that, on the state side, resulted in his enrollment in mental health diversion.

John Gough, of San Francisco, was arrested on federal charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm last December, and has been in Santa Rita Jail ever since then. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sentenced Gough to three years in federal prison with credit for 14 months spent in pretrial incarceration.***

In the weeks before Gough was arrested on the federal warrant, he was scheduled to be released from San Francisco jail to a halfway house, after qualifying for mental health diversion program there. The San Francisco District Attorney’s office charged Gough in connection with December 2019 store robberies, including a Christmas Eve McDonalds robbery where Gough was found to be in possession of the revolver federal prosecutors later charged him with possessing.***

Before he could be transferred to the halfway house, he was charged by the Northern District of California U.S. Attorney’s office. Instead of turning Gough over to the U.S. Marshals, the San Francisco jail released him outright, and he remained free for three months until he was arrested and taken into federal custody after showing up to a meeting with his parole agent.

The federal gun charge stems from the Christmas Even incident when Gough allegedly walked into a McDonalds, and pulled back the hammer of his revolver when the clerk denied him cash. When police questioned him about the incident, he claimed no memory, explaining he suffered from a mental illness, but also adding, “Cocaine is a hell of a drug,” according to prosecutors.

Federal authorities linked him to two other robberies, including a 7-Eleven store robbery earlier that day, where he asked a clerk, “You going to die over this money?”***  https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/28/faced-with-same-case-feds-pursued-prison-while-sf-district-attorney-sought-diversion/

***

Failing cities

Homelessness is not a crime, and addressing with policing doesn’t solve the problem of people living on the streets.  Hollywood and LA and California as a whole have a problem with homelessness and its omnipresent effects. Joseph Gharib is a local businessman who had a problem with homeless people camping out in his doorways and driveways.  He engaged with Hollywood police and government with no success.

*** it was a private entity that ultimately solved the problem. One of the people in the neighborhood was annoyed with the homeless encampment and figured out that the only way to move the homeless was to pay for a tree service to cut the nearby trees, thus clearing the area. This citizen paid for the service with his own money.

To this day, encampments are still everywhere and growing by the number. This has affected Gharib’s business, as customers are reticent to park in his lot because, while he can keep the lot safe and hygienic, the optics of the outside quickly turn off potential customers.

Naturally, crime has increased , and there’s a new problem of street races on Hollywood Boulevard, where there is hardly any police presence anymore, especially on weekends. Meanwhile, everyone is tiptoeing around the problem, and no one is taking any tangible measures.*** https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hollywood-businesses-feel-the-disastrous-effects-of-unchecked-homelessness

If the city had acted responsibly and made the city more liveable, people wouldn’t cut down trees and the city less liveable.

***

An Illinois man was sentenced [1sep21] in the Southern District of Illinois to 151 months, or 12 and a half years, in prison for knowingly receiving child sexual abuse material over the internet.

According to court documents and statements made in connection with the sentencing, Kory R. Schulein, 37, of Sparta, pleaded guilty to knowingly receiving child pornography over the internet. According to court documents, Schulein first came to the attention to law enforcement in 2018 during an FBI investigation of child pornography on the dark web. Agents were able to track his internet protocol address and executed a federal search warrant at his home. Schulein served as a moderator of a dark web site dedicated to child exploitation and had been an active participant on other sites. Schulein had posted 13,733 messages, many of which included links to child exploitation images and videos. Schulein also collected and stored over 9,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse material on an encrypted hard driveThe FBI’s Springfield Field Office investigated the case, with valuable assistance provided by the U.S. Marshals Service.*** https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-sentenced-151-months-prison-knowingly-receiving-child-sexual-abuse-material-through-dark 

[influencermagazineuk]

Lawsuit Alleging Elon Musk Cheated Twitter Shareholders Dismissed by Judge

A class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk, accusing him of wrongdoing in relation to the purchase of Twitter, has been dismissed by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. The lawsuit claimed that Musk cheated Twitter shareholders multiple times during the acquisition process, which amounted to $44 billion. Judge Breyer ruled that the plaintiff, William Heresniak, lacked standing to sue as he challenged actions associated with Musk's buyout rather than the fairness of the buyout itself. Heresniak failed to demonstrate any harm resulting from Musk's delayed disclosure of a 9.2% Twitter stake, which allegedly allowed him to acquire additional shares at lower prices prior to the announcement of the buyout. The judge also found no evidence indicating that Musk assisted two friends who were serving on Twitter's board, co-founder Jack Dorsey and Egon Durban of Silver Lake private equity firm, in breaching their fiduciary duties. Breyer explained that Dorsey rolling over his approximately $1 billion worth of Twitter shares into an equity stake in the new company simply reduced Musk's payment at closing and did not involve the improper diversion of money from other shareholders. Lawyers representing Heresniak did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Elon Musk, who is also the CEO of Tesla Inc. and the world's second-richest person according to Forbes magazine, has yet to issue a statement regarding the dismissal. Similarly, attorneys for Musk, his holding companies, and Twitter have not provided any immediate comments. In a court filing on March 3, Musk's legal team dismissed Heresniak's claims as a collection of disjointed and often irrelevant grievances against Elon Musk. Heresniak filed the lawsuit on May 25, 2022, one month after Twitter accepted Musk's buyout offer of $54.20 per share. The transaction was completed on October 27. Following the acquisition, Twitter has faced challenges in maintaining ad revenue, with concerns raised by some advertisers about their ads being associated with hate speech or inappropriate content due to relaxed content rules. On May 12, Musk appointed former NBCUniversal advertising chief Linda Yaccarino as Twitter's new CEO. The case, titled Heresniak v Musk et al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 22-03074. Read the full article

[fumpkins]

Appeals court backs $10B Volkswagen emissions cheating deal

ThisSept. 21, 2015, file image, reveals the Volkswagen logo design on a vehicle for sale at New Century Volkswagen car dealership in Glendale,Calif A U.S. appeals court on Monday, July 9, 2018, authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal. (AP Photo/DamianDovarganes, File).

A U.S. appeals court on Monday authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal.

Thedeal provided “tangible, substantial benefits” and the federal judge who authorized it did sufficient to guarantee it was reasonable, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled all.

.

TheGerman car manufacturer accepted invest approximately $10 billion compensating owners of approximately 475,000Volkswagens and Audi automobiles with 2-liter diesel motor– the bulk of the automobiles captured up in the scandal.

.

Volkswagen acknowledged that the automobiles were configured to cheat on emissions tests. Under the regards to the deal, the car manufacturer accepted either redeem the automobiles or repair them and to pay each owner countless dollars in extra settlement.

.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco authorized that deal in 2016 as part of a $15 billion settlement that likewise consisted of $2.7 billion for undefined ecological mitigation and an extra $2 billion to promote absolutely no-emissions automobiles.

.

The 9th Circuit judgment Monday thought about a number of objections, consisting of going back to Volkswagen any of the $10 billion that is not paid.

.

In thisSept 30, 2015, file image, John Swanton, spokesperson with the California Air Resources Board, discusses how a 2013 Volkswagen Passat with a diesel motor is examined at the emissions test laboratory in El Monte,Calif A U.S. appeals court on Monday, July 9, 2018, authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal. (AP Photo/NickUt, File).

About90 percent of afflicted automobiles have actually currently been gotten rid of from the roadway or customized, Elizabeth Cabraser, lead lawyer for Volkswagen owners and leaseholders, stated in a declaration Monday.

.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which acknowledges the widespread support this historic settlement has received from affected Volkswagen owners and lessees and the substantial benefits available to class members,” she stated.

.

Volkswagen has actually acknowledged that more than 550,000 automobiles in the United States were configured to switch on emissions controls throughout federal government laboratory tests and turn them off while on the roadway. Investigators discovered that the automobiles produced more than 40 times the legal limitation of nitrogen oxide, which can trigger breathing issues.

.

In this July 12, 2013, file image, staff members at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., deal with the assembly of Passat sedans. A U.S. appeals court on Monday, July 9, 2018, authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal. (AP Photo/ErikSchelzig, File).

In thisJan 24, 2017, file image, Volkswagen automobiles are kept at the uninhabited Silverdome in Pontiac,Mich A U.S. appeals court on Monday, July 9, 2018, authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal. (AP Photo/CarlosOsorio, File).

In thisSept 21, 2015, file image, Volkswagen 2015 automobile designs are revealed for sale at New Century Volkswagen car dealership in Glendale,Calif A U.S. appeals court on Monday, July 9, 2018, authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal. (AP Photo/DamianDovarganes, File).

In this July 19, 2016, file image, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman reveals a claim versus Volkswagen in NewYork A U.S. appeals court on Monday, July 9, 2018, authorized a $10 billion settlement in between Volkswagen and automobile owners captured up in the business’s emissions cheating scandal. (AP Photo/MarkLennihan, File).

Explore even more: United States authorizes repair for some Volkswagen diesels.

© 2018 The AssociatedPress All rights scheduled.

New post published on: https://livescience.tech/2018/07/09/appeals-court-backs-10b-volkswagen-emissions-cheating-deal/

[thecryptoreport]

Telegram To Pay $625K in Fees After Dropping a GRAM Trademark Lawsuit

Telegram To Pay $625K in Fees After Dropping a GRAM Trademark Lawsuit

The encrypted messaging platform Telegram has to pay legal fees worth $625,000 to a cryptocurrency company as an aftermath of a lawsuit dating back to 2018.

All Because Of The “GRAM” Trademark

Telegram Messenger Inc. has been ordered to pay legal fees to crypto firm Lantah LLC after it dropped the lawsuit in August this year. As per the official court documents, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer…