Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Regulator Sues Anti-Police Activist Who Spent Charity Funds on Himself

      by

      Brandon Anderson, who used his nonprofit’s accounts to rent mansions and buy luxury clothes, was featured in a New York Times story in August.The District of Columbia’s attorney general on Monday sued an activist known for his calls to abolish the police, saying that he diverted $75,000 from a charity to pay for mansion rentals, a trip to Cancún and designer clothes.Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb, an elected Democrat who oversees nonprofits in the city, said Brandon Anderson had turned an anti-police-brutality charity called Raheem AI into a piggy bank for himself.Mr. Schwalb also sued Raheem AI. He asked a judge to shutter the organization, bar Mr. Anderson from leading any other Washington nonprofit and order Mr. Anderson or Raheem AI to repay the $75,000. The money would then be given to a charity chosen by the judge.“Brandon Anderson misused charitable donations to fund lavish vacations and shopping sprees, and the Raheem AI board of directors let him get away with it,” Mr. Schwalb said in a written statement. He continued, “My office will not allow people to masquerade behind noble causes while violating the law.”Mr. Schwalb has jurisdiction in the case because Raheem AI was incorporated in Washington. A spokesman for him declined to say what prompted the investigation. A former staff member at the nonprofit named Jasmine Banks told The New York Times this year that she had reached out to Mr. Schwalb’s office, seeking help after the nonprofit stopped paying her salary.Mr. Anderson did not respond to a request for comment sent on Monday morning. He has previously told The Times that he takes responsibility for the group’s failures: “The bottom line is simply that it didn’t work, and as the leader of that effort I share most of the blame.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      West Bank Settlement Supporters Have Big Hopes for Trump’s Presidency

      by

      As Donald J. Trump nominates staunch supporters of Israel to key positions, advocacy groups are taking aim at the departing administration’s policies.The Biden administration this week imposed sanctions on more groups and individuals it accuses of having ties to Israeli settlers inciting violence in the occupied West Bank, a last-ditch show of disapproval of Israelis’ annexation of land there before U.S. policy on the issue most likely swings the other way under the next administration.When President-elect Donald J. Trump returns to the White House next year, he could easily revoke the February executive order authorizing the sanctions or, even, some pro-settlement activists hope, use the order to go after Palestinian organizations instead.Texans for Israel, a Christian Zionist group, and several other settler supporters and organizations this month renewed a challenge to President Biden’s order in federal court, arguing that it was being applied unconstitutionally, targeting Jewish settlers and violating the rights of Americans exercising freedom of religion and speech in support of them.The case highlights the growing international controversy over West Bank settlement amid the war in the Gaza Strip and the great expectations of the settler movement and its supporters of another Trump presidency.Israel seized control of the West Bank from Jordan in a war in 1967, and Israeli civilians have since settled there with both the tacit and the explicit approval of the Israeli government, living under Israeli civil law while their Palestinian neighbors are subject to Israeli military law. Expanding Israel’s hold over the West Bank is a stated goal of many ministers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government.The international community largely views the Israeli settlements as illegal, and Palestinians have long argued that they are a creeping annexation that turns land needed for any independent Palestinian state into an unmanageable patchwork.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Why Botham Jean’s Family Won’t Get $100 Million Awarded by Jury

      by

      Cities have paid out billions of dollars in police misconduct cases, but depending on the case, families may not receive any money at all. A recent $100 million penalty for a police shooting case in Dallas may never lead to a payout.The family of George Floyd received $27 million after he was killed by police officers in Minneapolis. The family of Breonna Taylor got $12 million. Richard Cox, who was paralyzed after a ride in a police van in New Haven, Conn., got $46 million.But the family of Botham Shem Jean, who was killed by an off-duty officer, Amber R. Guyger, as he watched television in his apartment in Dallas in 2018, may never see a penny.That is not because the courts did not value his life. On Tuesday, a jury awarded his family almost $100 million. The difference lies, rather, in who was held responsible for his death.How do police violence cases usually work?In many high-profile cases of police violence, the city or county where the misconduct occurred is responsible for any payout connected to wrongful death or injury. Those taxpayer-funded payouts have amounted to billions of dollars: In 2023, New York City paid nearly $115 million in police misconduct settlements, according to an analysis by the Legal Aid Society.Awards to victims or their families can vary greatly, depending on factors such as the projected earnings over a victim’s lifetime, the sympathies of juries in a given jurisdiction and the amount of publicity generated by the case. Some families win money in civil rights claims even when the officers involved are not criminally charged or disciplined.But in order to have a successful case, plaintiffs must surmount at least two significant legal obstacles. First, officers are granted qualified immunity from lawsuits if victims cannot show that the officers have violated their “clearly established” rights. Second, municipalities can be held responsible only if the plaintiff’s rights were violated because of a negligent policy or practice — for example, if the police department had ignored previous bad behavior on the part of an officer or had failed to properly train its officers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Urologist Who Sexually Abused Patients Is Sentenced to Life in Prison

      by

      Darius A. Paduch, a fertility specialist, assaulted men and boys for years at prominent New York hospitals, prosecutors said.A urologist convicted of sexually abusing seven patients, including five who were minors, was sentenced to life in prison on Wednesday, prosecutors said.The doctor, Darius A. Paduch, a fertility specialist, molested boys and young men for years at two prominent New York hospitals, prosecutors said. Hundreds of other young men and boys have also accused Dr. Paduch, 57, of abuse spanning more than 15 years in scores of civil suits.Dr. Paduch “was a sexual predator who preyed on patients seeking treatment for sensitive medical issues,” Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement on Wednesday. “He used his position as a renowned urologist at prestigious hospitals to sexually assault vulnerable patients, including children, to gratify his own sexual desires.”In May, a jury found him guilty of five counts of inducing a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity and six counts of enticing people to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The trial lasted just two weeks.On Wednesday, his sentence was handed down by Judge Ronnie Abrams in federal court in Manhattan.Dr. Paduch, of North Bergen, N.J., was arrested last April. He has been barred from practicing in New York. Through the trial, he maintained his innocence. A lawyer who represented him, Michael Baldassare, said on Wednesday that “we are confident that one day he will be vindicated.”Once a urologist who specialized in treating patients with a genetic condition, Dr. Paduch worked at hospitals including NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital and Weill-Cornell Medical Center in Manhattan and Northwell Health on Long Island. According to prosecutors, he used his position at prominent hospitals “to make the victims believe that the sexual abuse he inflicted on them was medically necessary and appropriate, when, in fact, it was not.”The abuse continued over several years in some cases, as Dr. Paduch instructed the patients to return for follow-up appointments, where he continued to assault them. During appointments, the indictment said, Dr. Paduch told patients to masturbate in front of him, sometimes groping them or showing them pornography.During the course of the trial, 11 victims testified about abuse they had suffered under Dr. Paduch’s care, and dozens more wrote impact statements before he was sentenced Wednesday.Mallory Allen, a lawyer for a firm that represents 140 former patients who have filed civil suits against him, said in a statement that the sentence affirms that “heinous sexual abuse will not be overlooked.”Survivors of the abuse have also sued the hospitals where he worked under the Adult Survivors Act, which opened a yearlong window between 2022 and 2023 during which adult victims of abuse could file claims even after the statute of limitations had passed.“While no sentence can ever undo the pain and suffering endured by each and every survivor who experienced abuse at the hands of Dr. Darius Paduch, the sentencing closes an important chapter for these survivors,” Ms. Allen said in the statement. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Wyoming’s Abortion Bans Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

      by

      The ruling found that two state laws — one barring use of abortion pills, and one banning all forms of abortion — violated the state Constitution’s “fundamental right to make health care decisions.” A Wyoming judge ruled on Monday that two state abortion bans — including the first state law specifically banning the use of pills for abortion — violated the Wyoming Constitution and could not be enforced.Judge Melissa Owens of Teton County District Court wrote in her ruling that both the ban on medication abortion and a broader ban against all methods of abortion “impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women.” She added, “The abortion statutes suspend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”Enforcement of the two abortion bans, passed last year, had been temporarily halted by Judge Owens while the court case proceeded. Her decision on Monday blocks the laws permanently, although the state is expected to appeal. Efforts to reach the state attorney general’s office and the governor’s office were unsuccessful on Monday night.The suit to block the bans was filed by a group of plaintiffs that included two abortion providers in Wyoming; an obstetrician-gynecologist who often treats high-risk pregnancies; an emergency-room nurse; a fund that gives financing to abortion patients; and a woman who said her Jewish faith required access to abortion if a pregnant woman’s physical or mental health or life was in danger.An amendment to the Wyoming Constitution, approved by an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters in 2012, guarantees adults the right to make their own health care decisions.In court last year, the state, represented by Jay Jerde, a special assistant attorney general for Wyoming, argued that even though doctors and other health providers must be involved in abortions, there were many instances in which abortion was not “health care” because “it’s not restoring the woman’s body from pain, physical disease or sickness.”Mr. Jerde also argued that the constitutional amendment allowing people to make decisions about their own health care did not apply to abortion because terminating a pregnancy affected not just the woman making the decision, but the fetus as well.Judge Owens rejected both of those arguments. She wrote: “The uncontested facts establish that the abortion statutes fail to accomplish any of the asserted interests by the state. The state did not present any evidence refuting or challenging the extensive medical testimony presented by the plaintiffs.”Dr. Giovannina Anthony, an obstetrician-gynecologist and abortion provider who was one of the plaintiffs in the case, said on Monday night that she was “grateful and relieved that the judge agreed that abortion is health care and that abortion bans violate the rights of pregnant women.”Dr. Anthony said she expected the state to appeal. “This is not the end of the fight in Wyoming, but for now we can continue to provide evidence-based care without fear of a prison sentence.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Pick for Pentagon Paid an Accuser but Denies It Was Sexual Assault

      by

      The Trump transition team was only recently alerted to the payment by Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for secretary of defense.President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth, paid a woman who had accused him of sexual assault as part of a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause, but Mr. Hegseth insists it was a consensual encounter, his lawyer said on Saturday.The Trump transition team was only recently alerted to the payment by Mr. Hegseth, a Fox News commentator and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The payment was reported earlier by The Washington Post.Mr. Hegseth’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, said that his client had done nothing wrong.“Mr. Hegseth is completely innocent,” he said. “Not only did she take advantage of him, but we believe she then extorted him knowing that at the height of the #MeToo movement the mere public allegation would likely result in his immediate termination from Fox News.”Mr. Parlatore said the woman began making statements about Mr. Hegseth that he said were false about two years after the alleged incident and that she had suggested to people that she might file a lawsuit against Mr. Hegseth. He sent the woman a cease-and-desist letter in early 2020. The settlement came months after that letter, although the amount was unclear.Mr. Trump shocked much of Washington with the pick of Mr. Hegseth earlier this week. The president-elect had leaned toward the selection a few days before it was announced, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.The Trump team was rocked earlier this week when a woman sent a memo to the transition claiming her friend had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Hegseth.Late on Thursday the Monterey Police Department in California said it had investigated an allegation of sexual assault involving Mr. Hegseth in 2017 at the address of the Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel and Spa. No charges were filed.Mr. Hegseth was a speaker at a conference of the California Federation of Republican Women at the Monterey hotel in early October 2017 when the encounter that led to the investigation occurred. The woman had been with the Republican women’s group.According to the police statement, the complaint was filed four days after the encounter, and the complainant had bruises to her thigh. The police report itself was not released.Mr. Trump has not moved off supporting Mr. Hegseth, despite claims that his team was reassessing the pick, according to several people close to the incoming president. Mr. Hegseth has been a favorite of Mr. Trump going back to his first term, when the president wanted to name him as secretary for Veteran Affairs.But when he received pushback, Mr. Trump looked elsewhere. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Meta Fined $840 Million in Europe for Boosting Marketplace Unfairly

      by

      Meta said it would appeal the decision by the European Union, which said the company had abused its dominance in social networking to strengthen its shopping and classified ads service.​The European Union on Thursday fined Meta roughly $840 million for breaking competition laws with Facebook Marketplace, its shopping and classified ads platform, the latest action by regulators trying to limit the ability of tech giants to expand into new product areas.In issuing the 800 million euro fine, European regulators said Meta had given itself an unfair advantage over rival services by bundling Marketplace into Facebook’s wider social network, providing it with immediate access to millions of potential users. They added that Meta had abused its dominance in online advertising to impose unfair business terms on rival shopping services, allowing it to collect data that could be used to strengthen Marketplace.European regulators, led by Margrethe Vestager, the E.U. competition chief, have for years sought to limit the ability of tech companies to use their power in one area, like social networking, to gain a foothold in new markets such as shopping. Authorities in Europe have also accused Apple of using its dominance in smartphones to bolster music and payment services.In linking Marketplace to Facebook’s social network, the company gave itself “advantages that other online classified ads service providers could not match,” Ms. Vestager said in a statement. “This is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules. Meta must now stop this behavior.”The company said it would appeal the decision, setting up a legal battle that could drag out for years. Meta said Marketplace, introduced in 2016, was created in response to consumer demand and had not hindered competition from companies such as eBay and Vinted.On Marketplace, people buy, sell and trade items with others, including furniture, clothing, sports equipment, cars and home goods.“Facebook users can choose whether or not to engage with Marketplace, and many don’t,” the company said in a statement. “The reality is that people use Facebook Marketplace because they want to, not because they have to.”Meta has been a target of efforts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean to crimp the power of the largest technology companies. Last year, the company was fined 1.2 billion euros, or about $1.26 billion, for violating regional data protection rules. In the United States, the company is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission for antitrust violations.Whether the United States and Europe will stay aligned on tech regulation with President-elect Donald J. Trump returning to office is an open question. Some of his supporters, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have raised concerns about the power of Silicon Valley firms like Meta and Google, while others have pushed for less regulation.The European Union started the Marketplace investigation in 2019. In 2023, the company reached a settlement with British regulators on a similar case, but was unable to find an agreement with E.U. authorities. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Unilever of Seeking to Muzzle Its Gaza Stance

      by

      The ice cream maker claimed in a lawsuit that its parent company tried to stop it from expressing support for Palestinian refugees.Ben & Jerry’s on Wednesday sued its parent company, Unilever, accusing the consumer goods giant of censorship and threats over the ice cream maker’s attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees. The move ratchets up a longstanding conflict between the two that has flared since the start of the war in Gaza.The lawsuit claims that Unilever recently tried to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s independent board and sought to muzzle it to prevent the company from calling for a cease-fire and safe passage for refugees, from supporting U.S. students protesting civilian deaths in Gaza, and from urging an end to U.S. military aid to Israel.“Unilever has silenced each of these efforts,” Ben & Jerry’s said in the lawsuit. The company, which is based in South Burlington, Vt., did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Unilever said that it would strongly defend itself against the accusations. “We reject the claims made by B&J’s social mission board,” it said in a statement.Hamas carried out a devastating attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year, and Israel responded by besieging Gaza, the territory that Hamas once controlled, with an offensive that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and created a humanitarian crisis.Unilever is one of a number of global multinationals like Starbucks that has been grappling with how to navigate business amid one of the most fraught issues in the world. The British conglomerate bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 and holds two of 11 seats on what is supposed to be an independent board.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More