Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts

April 20, 2018

Cohen Drops Lawsuit Against Buzz-feed, Fusion in Connection to "The Dossier"


Cohen dropped the lawsuit about the publication of the "Dossier". Why drop it and why now? This was a publicity case to discredit the dossier's information. Why Now? As time goes by the "Dossier" gains importance and credibility since investigators are being able to put the pieaces together and confirm the information they already got from interviews in Mueller's case and the NY investigation and even senate investigators with what is in the dossier.  The timing also tells you we will soon find out what's in the dossier.  Adam🦊



 Embattled attorney Michael Cohen has dropped a pair of much-touted libel suits against BuzzFeed and the private investigation firm Fusion GPS over publication of the so-called dossier detailing alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia.

Cohen abandoned the suits late Wednesday as he continues to fight to recover documents and electronic files seized from his home, office and hotel room last week by federal authorities as part of what appears to be a broad criminal investigation into his conduct.


"The decision to voluntarily discontinue these cases was a difficult one," Cohen's attorney David Schwartz said. "We believe the defendants defamed my client, and vindicating Mr. Cohen’s rights was — and still remains — important. But given the events that have unfolded, and the time, attention, and resources needed to prosecute these matters, we have dismissed the matters, despite their merits."

The dossier claims that Cohen met with Russian operatives somewhere in Europe, including Prague, to attend a meeting to “clean up the mess” created by public disclosures of other Trump associates’ reported ties to Russia. 

Cohen denied the Prague meeting occurred.

In statements, both BuzzFeed and Fusion GPS said the suit was without merit.

"If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on today, it's that the dossier was an important part of the government's investigation into potential collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia," BuzzFeed News said in a statement. 

In a separate statement, Fusion GPS said: "With his decision, it appears that Mr. Cohen can now focus on his many other legal travails.”

Dropping the suits could help Cohen avoid being questioned by lawyers from Fusion GPS or having to turn over evidence related to the case — both steps that could undercut his defense in the criminal probe.

The move could also bolster Cohen's effort to delay a suit brought in Los Angeles by porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump about a decade ago. It could have been difficult for Cohen to convince that judge to put Daniels' case on hold while Cohen continued to press civil suits in other federal courts.



April 4, 2018

Trump Rushes to Push for Arbitration (Secret) Instead of Trial Between Him and His Ex-GF Stormy









President Trump and Stormy Daniels




President Trump and Stormy Daniels. Photos: Saul Loeb / AF  



via Getty Images

President Trump and his personal attorney Michael Cohen filed papers in a federal court in Los Angeles Monday asking a federal judge to order that Stormy Daniels' lawsuit, which claims a non-disclosure agreement is invalid, be heard by a private arbitrator instead of in front of a jury. 
What they're saying: In the court filing, Cohen argues that Daniels had never brought up any issues with the NDA or settlement agreement before filing her suit last month. But her lawyer, Michael Avenatti wrote on Twitter that they will "vigorously oppose" the motion, which he suggested is an effort to keep the case "hidden from the American public."
By Axios   

It is adamfoxie's 10th🦊Anniversay. 10 years witnessing the world and bringing you a pieace whcih is ussually not getting its due coverage. 4.9 Million Reads

September 2, 2017

Trump Military Ban Challenged on Lawsuit Asking for a Halting of the Military Ban



 "I will be the best Friend of LGBTQ"




Human rights groups asked a federal judge Thursday to block President Trump’s proposed ban on transgender people serving in the military, producing statements by three former Obama administration U.S. service branch chiefs and a senior Pentagon official that a ban would harm readiness, staffing, recruitment, and morale.
The move to stop the Trump administration edict came two days after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis formally responded to Trump’s official directive ordering the Pentagon chief to determine how to implement the policy.
In a statement, Shannon Minter, legal director for one of two gay rights organizations representing eight transgender U.S. service members, said their opposition to the “reckless” ban was joined by military experts “who know that ripping trained, experienced service members out of our armed forces — for no reason other than who they are — will leave gaping holes in our defense, compromise national security, and inhibit recruitment during a critical time.”
The groups said they sought an injunction now because even though Mattis has not taken action against current service members as the Pentagon reviews its options, he committed to carrying out the Trump policy by March 23. As a result, service members face the imminent prospect of being denied re-enlistment, promotions, deployments and even medical care, the groups said.
Mattis also suspended prior plans to permit new transgender enlistees, threatening the careers of transgender students enrolled at the U.S. Naval Academy or in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, Minter said.
After completing Plebe Summer training, Regan Kibby, right, hugs his younger sister Elena Kibby during Plebe Parents Weekend, August 2015. () (Photo by Tawnia Kibby)
Transgender service members’ “lives have been thrown into utter chaos, and they need an order protecting them from further discrimination and harms right now,” Minter said.
The filing in the lawsuit, by Minter’s group, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), came in federal court in the nation’s capital, and was the first of several similar moves expected in lawsuits filed across the country by civil rights groups and transgender people in the armed services.
Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole Navas Oxman said, “We are examining the claims in the motion and conferring within the Government.”
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly could issue a ruling or set a hearing next week. 
Also Thursday, the groups added two named individuals and one unnamed “John Doe” to five original plaintiffs identified by pseudonyms as “Jane Does.” They include Regan Kibby, a Naval Academy midshipman, and Dylan Kohere, a ROTC student.
Their participation at the academy and in ROTC is contingent on their eligibility to enlist in the military, now in doubt, they alleged. Each said their initial decision to declare their transgender status was based on the Obama administration’s decision to allow their service in 2016.
“A big part of the reason I was comfortable coming out as transgender in the ROTC was the announcement in the summer of 2016 that transgender people would be able to serve openly in the military,” Kohere said in an affidavit. “I was so excited that I would be able to achieve my goal of serving while remaining true to who I am.” 
Kibby said he came out as transgender during his first year when the Obama announcement was made. Kibby competed successfully for a congressional nomination and admission to the Academy inspired by his Navy veteran father and upbringing in San Diego, home to the Pacific fleet. Kibby’s enrollment was threatened in July when Trump caught many by surprise with tweets to countermand his predecessor’s action.
“After a lifetime of feeling a sense of duty and preparing to serve, reading Trump’s tweets was painful, and I saw my future crumbling,” Kibby said.
Trump on July 26 tweeted, “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”
He elaborated, “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
The ban would reverse an Obama decision to allow transgender people to serve openly. The armed forces were set to begin enlisting transgender people July 1, but Mattis suspended that move while announcing Tuesday that current enlistees will continue to be allowed to serve pending the results of a study and recommendations by a panel of experts.
“Our focus must always be on what is best for the military’s combat effectiveness leading to victory on the battlefield,” Mattis said. “To that end, I will establish a panel of experts serving within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the president’s direction.”
Before the Obama policy change, the Pentagon had concluded that there was no basis for the military to exclude transgender people, as long as they could meet the same fitness requirements as other service members. The review examined medical care, military readiness, and other factors.  
There is no official tally of transgender military members, and estimates vary widely. One recent study by the Rand Corp. put the number on active duty at about 2,500, while another from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimated that there were 15,500 on active duty, in the National Guard, and in the reserves.
In affidavits filed Thursday, Obama Pentagon appointees Ray Mabus Jr., Navy secretary from 2009 to 2017; Eric Fanning, who held a series of posts from 2013 to 2017 ending as Army secretary; and Deborah Lee James, Air Force secretary from 2013 to 2017; and Brad Carson, acting undersecretary for personnel and readiness, criticized the Trump proposal.
The officials said the change would cause “unexpected losses” of skilled personnel in operational units that will be difficult to fill while reducing the size of the military’s recruiting pool.
“President Trump’s stated rationales for reversing the policy and banning military service by transgender people make no sense,” said Mabus, who oversaw the Navy and Marines through the surge in Afghanistan. “They have no basis in fact and are refuted by the comprehensive analysis of relevant data and information.”
James said the move “would harm both the military and the broader public interest,” lower morale, erode trust in military commanders, and create a damaging distraction.
Spencer S. Hsu is an investigative reporter, two-time Pulitzer finalist and national Emmy award nominee.

August 3, 2017

Trump Sides with Anti LGBT Employers to Fire Gays, Case in Court







 Donald Zelda, now passed was fired by employer after he said he was gay



Donald Zarda died years before Donald Trump was elected president, but the two Donalds found themselves intertwined last week thanks to a brief filed by the Department of Justice.
Back in 2010, Zarda, a trained skydiving instructor, was getting ready to make a tandem jump. It should’ve been a typical day at work for him. As he and a female client prepared, Zarda shared with her that he was gay so as to avoid any potential awkwardness while she was strapped to his chest for the duration of the jump. The disclosure backfired. The woman’s husband complained and Zarda’s employer, Altitude Express, fired him. Zarda sued, claiming that the company had violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
As the case made its way through the system, Zarda passed away in 2014 in a base-jumping accident but the federal lawsuit remained. And then last week, amid the news of potential health care repeal, attempts to stem leaks from the White House and a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, the Department of Justice filed a brief siding with Altitude Express. The Civil Rights Act does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Department of Justice argued in the brief. There is currently no nation-wide law protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees from workplace discrimination.
The Justice Department brief comes six months into Trump’s presidency which some expected would expand protections for the LGBT community rather than roll them back. Early on, Trump appointed Jeff Sessions, who opposed same-sex marriage while serving in the Senate, to the post of attorney general of the United States. And more recently, the Trump administration declared a ban on transgender members of the military.
Unlike other Republican presidential candidates, Trump openly courted the LGBT vote while out on the campaign trail — holding a rainbow pride flag at a campaign rally, stating that the matter of same-sex marriage was “settled” and promising that he will “fight” for the LGBT community. 
Members of the LGBT conservative community still see potential for the Trump administration to protect LGBT rights, even if they are not a priority.
“I do not believe that LGBT issues are something that Trump spends all of his time in the day and throughout the night obsessing on,” said Gregory T. Angelo, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national organization representing gay conservatives. “We know that there are other things that the president obsesses about. And I don't think that it is LGBT issues. However, it is a president's job to represent the entirety of the American populous and that includes LGBT individuals and if legislation moves and ends up on his desk that recognizes LGBT nondiscrimination, he would need to address that.” 
The LGBT community is not an insignificant pool of voters. In 2016, about 10.1 million American adults identified as LGBT, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s up from 8.3 million in 2012.
After Trump’s November victory, there was hope among LGBT conservatives that he would push to expand protections for the community, especially in the workplace. Some even traveled to the capitol in January to see him sworn in and attended events such as the Gay Deploraball.
The ban on transgender members of the military and the brief were “a one-two punch from the administration that really shows the forces that are at work in this administration,” said Sharon McGowan, who is a director of strategy and head of the Washington D.C. office for Lambda Legal, a nonprofit organization focused on LGBT issues. She also previously served as principal deputy chief of the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice.
“You have the Justice Department filing a brief saying that the federal nondiscrimination law that prohibits sex discrimination and employment should be construed in the most narrow way possible to make sure that it does not actually provide protections for LGBT people,” she explained. McGowan added that this brief comes after a number of courts have ruled that discrimination based on sex as covered under Title VII extends beyond gender to sexual orientation. Firing someone for having same-sex partners or for transitioning from gender to another while on the job is sex discrimination, she said. 
Earlier this year, in a case brought by Lambda Legal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sexual discrimination.
"Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant — woman or man — dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex," Judge Diane Wood wrote in the majority decision. "That means that it falls within Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination, if it affects employment in one of the specified ways."
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which enforces federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee on the basis of religion, nationality, race, sex, or age — has also interpreted Title VII as providing protection from discrimination against LGBT employees. The commission previously filed a brief in support of Zarda.
However, in its brief, the Department of Justice insisted that "the EEOC is not speaking for the United States.”
“The brief that was filed by the Department of Justice — aside from being unnecessary — does highlight the fact that we do have an absence of Federal LGBT non-discrimination legislation,” said Angelo. According to him, expectations regarding what the White House might do as far as expanding protections for the LGBT community have not changed. He hopes that if Congress could get together to pass a Federal LGBT non-discrimination legislation, Trump would sign it.
“It is a legislation that the president has indicated he would support in the past and going back to the 2016 election cycle, he had stated that he did not feel gay people should be discriminated against in the workplace,” said Angelo. He added that such legislation needs to come from “a center right ideology” and be crafted by Republicans. “Then, and only then, would you have a viable chance that such legislation would move and end up on the president's desk and if it does, it's my hope that he would sign such a measure."
Unlike Angelo, McGowan is skeptical that such legislation could make its way through the current Congress.
“In this moment in time right now, where you have this Senate willing to stay up until 3 o'clock in the morning to figure out which version of health care devastation they want to inflict on the American people as a whole, I am not optimistic that in this current environment that you will see legislation actually make it over the finish line,” she said.
Although, she points out, a majority of Americans support such legislation.
A 2016 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 72 percent of Americans support a law that would protect LGBT people from discrimination. Breaking this down along political lines shows that 78 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans are in favor of such anti-discrimination laws. And, actually, 80 percent of people incorrectly believe that there is currently a law that protects LGBT Americans from being fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
“Every time that we win the case in court you know we have people coming back with a response of: ‘Well, I can't believe you actually even had to sue over that. I actually thought that was the law,’” said McGowan. “We need to continue to bring our cases to court because we are winning.”
It is why, later this summer, Lambda Legal will ask the Supreme Court to hear the case of Kimberly Hively, who claims that she was fired by Ivy Tech Community College because she is a lesbian.
If it were left up to the Department of Justice, this matter would be settled in Congress rather than the Supreme Court.
“Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts,” the Department of Justice wrote in last week’s brief.

  
Public Radio from UA Little Rock 
News & Culture for Arkansas


April 2, 2017

Fed.Judge Law Suit to Proceed Vs.Trump for Inciting Violence





The courts keep taking Donald Trump both seriously and literally. And the president's word choices are proving to be a real headache.

A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to take Trump at his word when he says something controversial. Judge David J. Hale ruled against efforts by Trump's attorneys to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville.

At the rally, Trump repeatedly said “get 'em out of here” before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Trump's attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn't intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence that the protesters' injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump's words.

“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get 'em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Hale wrote. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.” 

It's merely the latest example of Trump's team arguing that his controversial words shouldn't be taken literally. But though that argument may have held water politically during the 2016 campaign, it has since repeatedly hurt Trump's cause when his words have been at issue in legal proceedings.

Just last week, a federal judge in Hawaii rejected an argument from Trump's attorneys asking that his travel ban executive order be evaluated without considering Trump's and his team's past comments about the motive behind the ban and whether it targets Muslims.

Trump's campaign in 2015 proposed a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration to the United States — the news release remains on his campaign website — and the courts ruled that this rhetoric was relevant when it halted his first travel ban, despite Trump's team arguing that it wasn't a Muslim ban. In striking down the first travel ban, the courts cited Rudolph W. Giuliani's comments that suggested Trump sought to make his Muslim ban idea legally practical.
“So when first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said. “He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'”

When Trump and his team issued a revised travel ban a few weeks ago, the courts again halted it and again cited that past rhetoric.

And in extending that order last week, the federal judge in Hawaii yet again cited the words of Trump's team — specifically, top adviser Stephen Miller, who had suggested the second ban would be, practically speaking, the same as the first.

“Fundamentally, you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court, and those will be addressed,” Miller said. “But, in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.”

Trump and his team will undoubtedly dismiss this latest example as yet another activist judge who is out to get him. But yet again, they are forced into the position of saying that Trump's words shouldn't be taken at face value — that he didn't mean what he actually, literally said.

I've argued before that this is a completely unworkable standard when it comes to the media's coverage of Trump. It allows Trump team members to retroactively downgrade whatever they want to, while leaving the good stuff intact — essentially a Get Out of Jail Free card they can redeem anytime they want.

But while Trump’s supporters have certainly bought into that arrangement, the courts have yet again proved unwilling to grant the president that Get Out of Jail Free card.

November 19, 2016

Trump Settles on Suit for Trump University Rip-Off $25 Million



 Trump with Secretary of State Bundi who refuse at the time to bring charges on the University scam


Donald J. Trump has reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign.

The settlement was announced by the New York attorney general just 10 days before one of the cases, a federal class-action lawsuit in San Diego, was set to be heard by a jury. The deal averts a potentially embarrassing and highly unusual predicament: a president-elect on trial, and possibly even taking the stand in his own defense, while scrambling to build his incoming administration.

It was a remarkable concession from a real estate mogul who derides legal settlements and has mocked fellow businessmen who agree to them.

But the allegations in the case were highly unpleasant for Mr. Trump: Students paid up to $35,000 in tuition for a programs that, according to the testimony of former Trump University employees, used high-pressure sales tactics and employed unqualified instructors.

The agreement wraps together the outstanding Trump University litigation, including two federal class-action cases in San Diego, and a separate lawsuit by Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general. The complaints alleged that students were cheated out of thousands of dollars in tuition through deceptive claims about what they would learn and high-pressure sales tactics.

“I am pleased that under the terms of this settlement, every victim will receive restitution and that Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement. “The victims of Trump University have waited years for today’s result, and I am pleased that their patience — and persistence — will be rewarded by this $25 million settlement.”

The settlement is a significant reversal from Mr. Trump, who had steadfastly rejected the allegations and vowed to fight the lawsuits, asserting that students filled out evaluations showing they were mostly happy with what they had learned in seminars. When political opponents pressed him on the claims during the campaign, Mr. Trump doubled down, saying he would eventually reopen Trump University.

“It’s something I could have settled many times,” Mr. Trump said during a debate in February. “I could settle it right now for very little money, but I don’t want to do it out of principle.”

He added, “The people that took the course all signed — most — many — many signed report cards saying it was fantastic, it was wonderful, it was beautiful.”

But the position of Mr. Trump and his legal team appeared to soften soon after his election victory on Nov. 8. At a hearing last week, Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, expressed interest in moving toward a settlement. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s lawyers were seeking to delay the trial in one of the California cases until after his inauguration on Jan. 20, while also requesting that he be allowed to testify on video.

At a hearing on the case in San Diego on Friday, Mr. Petrocelli said Mr. Trump had settled the case “without an acknowledgment of fault or liability.”

The judge overseeing the two California cases, Gonzalo Curiel, was thrust into the limelight of the campaign in May when Mr. Trump spent several minutes at a rally denouncing the judge’s decisions in the case, calling him a “hater” and questioning his impartiality because of his Mexican heritage.
 
After he faced days of criticism for his remarks on the judge, Mr. Trump released a statement saying his words had been “misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage.” He also asserted that he was justified in questioning the fairness of his trial, given various rulings in the case that went against him. Still, he concluded, “we will win this case!”

Judge Curiel said in court Friday that he hoped that the settlement agreement — and the end of the presidential campaign — would begin “a healing process that this country very sorely needs.”

Under the agreement, Mr. Trump will pay $21 million to settle the two California class-action suits and $4 million to settle with the New York attorney general. The lawyers for the plaintiffs waived their attorneys’ fees. The deal still has to be approved in court, which could take months.

About 7,000 students will share in the settlement, according to their lawyers. The customers will be eligible to recoup at least half of what they spent at Trump University, and some could receive a full refund, the lawyers said.

Even before he was in the throes of his presidential bid, Mr. Trump began mounting a vigorous public defense of himself and Trump University. A website, 98percentapproval.com, touted high marks it received from students. A New York Times report in March, though, showed how some students recalled being pressured to give positive reviews.

Trump University, which operated from 2004 to 2010, included free introductory seminars across the country, focusing largely on real estate investing and learning Mr. Trump’s secrets. Students could then purchase more expensive packages costing up to $35,000.

Documents made public through the litigation revealed that some former Trump University managers had given testimony about its unscrupulous and exploitative business practices. One sales executive testified that the operation was “a facade, a total lie.” Another manager called it a “fraudulent scheme.”

Other records showed how Mr. Trump had overstated the depth of his involvement in the programs. Despite claims that Mr. Trump had handpicked instructors, he acknowledged in testimony that he had not.

In addition to the financial rewards, the conclusion of the Trump University cases brings vindication to former students, mostly ordinary people across the country who felt they had been robbed of their savings by Mr. Trump, a successful businessman they respected and admired.

One student, Jeffrey Tufenkian, who enrolled with his wife to pursue a real estate career, told The New York Times in 2011 that the experience “was almost completely worthless.”

“Trump University has no interest in taking care of its customers,” said Mr. Tufenkian, who paid $35,000 for a “Gold Elite” class, which he said at the time wiped out much of his savings.
  
“While we have no doubt that Trump University would have prevailed at trial based on the merits of this case, resolution of these matters allows President-elect Trump to devote his full attention to the important issues facing our great nation,” he said in a statement.

Ciaran McEvoy contributed reporting.

August 3, 2016

Fed Judge Rules Vs.Trump’s Motion for Dismissal of Trump U. Case



   
                                                                     


Late Tuesday afternoon, Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied Donald Trump’s motion for summary judgment in the Trump University case, finding instead that there is enough evidence to move forward with the case.  The class action lawsuit alleges that Trump University defrauded students out of thousands of dollars.

“The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the evidence in the record raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant (Trump) participated in the operation or management of the enterprise,” Judge Curiel wrote in his order in response to Trump’s motion for summary judgement.

Judge Curiel also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Trump “knowingly participated” in the “scheme to defraud” and whether Trump made representations that were “false and misleading.” Trump’s attorney filed a motion to essentially get the case dismissed, stating that Trump was not integrally involved in the running of the organization, and that evidence from depositions showed that there was not enough to proceed with the case. Judge Curiel didn’t agree, finding the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to survive the summary judgment motion. Curiel is the same judge who was the subject of Trump’s public comments about his “Mexican” heritage earlier this spring.

In a separate order, Judge Curiel ruled against media organizations seeking to get Trump’s videotaped deposition released.  Trump sat for two depositions under oath in December and January. Trump’s attorneys argued that releasing the videotapes could taint the jury pool, whereas the media organizations argued it was in the public interest to release the videotapes.

“The Court finds that Defendants’ argument has some merit. Courts have expressed caution about the release of litigation documents in audio or video form, which are which are ‘subject to a higher degree of potential abuse’ than written transcripts,” the order states.

Judge Curiel also ran through a lengthy list of items both in favor and against disclosure before ultimately concluding Trump has “established good cause to bar the further dissemination of the deposition videos.”

“Ultimately, [v]ideotaped depositions are permitted to facilitate the presentation of evidence to juries; they are not intended to provide ‘a vehicle for generating content for broadcast and other media,” Judge Curiel concluded.

 

July 14, 2016

Trump Suing Again, This time is ($10 Mil) Fmer Top Aide


Image result for trump sues Sam Nunberg










With the revelation on Wednesday of a legal dispute between Donald Trump and a former political aide, the unconventional campaign’s dirty laundry is once again spilling into public view, providing a new glimpse into an operation riven by conflicts unrelated to the task of beating Hillary Clinton.

This time, Trump’s decision to privately seek $10 million in damages from former campaign aide Sam Nunberg in May for an alleged breach of a nondisclosure agreement has triggered a public allegation that his former campaign manager and current press secretary engaged in a “sordid and illicit affair.” Trump’s arbitration claim and the allegation of an affair between Corey Lewandowski and Hope Hicks became public in a filing made by Sam Nunberg this week in New York state court, where he is suing to block private arbitration of Trump’s claim.
Story Continued Below

Hicks, Lewandowski and Nunberg did not respond to requests for comment, but Trump counsel Alan Garten said in a statement that Nunberg was “simply looking for free publicity using categorically false claims."

"As is standard practice for all major businesses, organizations and other entities dealing with proprietary information, Mr. Trump requires employees to sign and adhere to strict confidentiality agreements" Garten said. "When the agreements are not adhered to he will enforce them to the full extent of the law, and Mr. Trump’s litigation track record on such matters is outstanding."
The nasty dispute between Trump and his former aide – first reported on Wednesday by The Associated Press -- is just the latest in a long line of legal battles and internecine struggles that have distracted the campaign, this time on the eve of the Republican National Convention. Trump and his lawyers on Wednesday were also fighting in a courtroom in San Diego to prevent the public release of testy deposition videos Trump gave as part of a class-action suit against his Trump University real estate seminar.

Trump’s lawyer in that case argued on Wednesday that such videos, if released, would be used as a weapon in political ads and for reasons unrelated to the court case. "We have this convention in Cleveland next week. There's all kinds of potential for mischief," Daniel Petrocelli said.
Unsubstantiated rumors of an affair between Hicks and Lewandowski, who is married, have swirled in political circles since last summer, and were hinted at in May in a suggestive New York Post gossip item about a public shouting match between the two staffers on a sidewalk in Manhattan. But as a result of Trump’s decision to pursue arbitration, the allegation is now being aired explicitly.
“This is a typical Trump intimidation tactic that backfired on him,” said a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the parties involved. The person said they believe Nunberg, who is also a lawyer, possesses additional information about Trump world that he has so far avoided disclosing in order “to leave room for negotiation to dispose of this matter in amicable fashion.”

Trump’s May complaint against Nunberg claims that the former aide made disparaging comments about his old boss and disclosed confidential information, in violation of the confidentiality agreement.

The complaint cites the New York Post item, as well as a subsequent POLITICO article that reports on Nurnberg’s role in placing the item. The complaint alleges that the campaign learned of Nunberg’s intention to provide information for an unspecified article that was then forthcoming from POLITICO about Trump’s aides.

Trump’s complaint also claims that Nunberg admitted to a Trump representative that he provided confidential information to the New York Times and the Daily Caller.
In his filing, Nunberg cites several reason for blocking private arbitration in favor of court proceedings.

Trump is seeking private arbitration based on a clause in a strict January 2015 confidentiality agreement, but Nunberg argues that that clause was superseded by an April 2015 consulting agreement he signed with Trump that calls for disputes to be settled in state or federal court.
Nunberg, while denying that he provided information to the New York Post, also argues that he could not have provided confidential information about an incident that took place in public months after he left the campaign.

The former aide’s court filing also contends that Bloomberg reporter Michael Bender witnessed the incident. Two people with knowledge of the incident also told POLITICO that Bender witnessed it, though he did not subsequently report on it. Bender referred questions to a Bloomberg spokesman who declined to comment.

Nunberg argues that his comments about Trump in endorsing Ted Cruz were not disparaging and were constitutionally protected speech. His filing cites a March POLITICO article in which Nunberg comes out in support of Cruz and says that Trump lacks a “coherent political ideology.”
And the person with knowledge of the situation said, “Trump is annoyed that Sam didn’t come back begging for his job, because as soon as he was gone, [Cruz campaign manager] Jeff Roe picked him up and took him to the Cruz campaign, and Sam loved it there.”
Nunberg also argues that Trump brought his complaint through an entity called “Trump 2012 PCA,” which the former aide argues no longer exists.

Alan Garten, general counsel of the Trump Organization, did not respond to an email seeking responses to Nunberg’s arguments.
Nunberg is being represented by Andrew Miltenberg of the New York City law firm Nesenoff Miltenberg Goddard Laskowitz, LLP.
In a sign of the acrimony that characterizes Trump’s orbit, news that Trump was seeking $10 million in damages from a former adviser rattled another ex-aide to the New York billionaire. “When I saw the headline, I thought it might be,” the former adviser remarked to POLITICO


January 18, 2015

High Profile Egyptian Lawyer Sues Army for claiming they had Cure for AIDS, Hep C


















(MENAFN - Daily News Egypt) High-profile lawyer Khaled Abou Bakr filed a lawsuit against army officials who promoted the controversial AIDS and Hepatitis C curing device in 2014, he announced on his Twitter account on Sunday.

The lawsuit was submitted on the grounds that they manipulated and failed to deliver their promise to the Egyptian people.

Abou Bakr demanded investigations against the first administrator of the so-called cure, Maj. Ibrahim Abdel Atty El-Sayed.

In his published complaint addressed to Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat, Abou Bakr said that in March, the army opened up the formal application route from patients. They promised to deliver the cure by 30 June followed by a six-month postponement notice on that date, but applicants have yet to see any results.

In February 2014, Abdel Atty announced he reached a cure for AIDS and Hepatitis C with 100% guaranteed results, saying: "I promise you that after today there will be no more Virus C patients."

The announcement was made in the presence of then-defence minister Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and former interim president Adly Mansour. Maj. Taher Abdullah, former head of the Armed Forces Engineering Authority (AFEA), spoke of medical and scientific achievement at the institution.

Shortly after, controversy erupted among scientists who expressed scepticism about the alleged cure. Egyptian scientist and former presidential advisor Essam Heggy told the press here were no scientific grounds for that cure, adding that "it would reflect badly on Egyptian scientists' reputation across the globe".

Army officials, journalists, activists and scientists exchanged back-and-forth accusations in the media following information that the army was launching investigations on the curing device. This would be done through an assigned scientific committee, although Abdullah denied this to the press.

Abou Bakr included Abdullah in his lawsuit, in addition to Dr Ahmed Moanes, a digestive and liver specialist at Ain Shams University's Faculty of Medicine. The lawsuit said Moanes spoke on behalf of the committee expressing their scepticism, yet kept defending the cure in the media.

Some media reports said that Abdel Atty was neither scientifically certified nor given the military rank as an honorary title. Despite this, Abdel Atty appeared alongside a group of men on a televised programme to speak about his 'invention' in military uniforms. Activists said "he had embarrassed the army".

Abou Bakr demanded compensation for the poor, helpless patients, who gave up their original treatment plans following high hopes in light of the army's announced breakthrough.


Surgeon-turned-satirist Bassem Youssef repeatedly mocked the "invention" on his television show, often adding a digital time ticker on the screen to remind the audience of the army's deadline promises.

A year before the army's device invention was made public, it was reported that an army official had developed a detection device for Hepatitis C, known as C-fast. Scientists' opinions from all over the world had were divided between confirmation that the device actually worked, has been tested and was a breakthrough, while others remained sceptical, according to interviews published by The Guardian in February 2013.

There are approximately 40,000 deaths from Hepatitis C and approximately 165,000 new cases in Egypt every year, according to remarks made in July 2014 by Dr Henk Bekedam, World Health Organization (WHO) representative in Egypt.

Featured Posts

A Mob of 10 Men Attacks a Gay Man in Arizona

Police are investigating, though they aren't calling the attack as a hate crime. BY  MATHEW RODRIGUEZ Ou...