Tag Archives: lawsuit

Tulsi Gabbard to Take Legal Action Against Mitt Romney and Keith Olbermann

Jim Hoft
April 20, 2022

In March Mitt Romney lashed out at former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for speaking out against the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

Gabbard was right. There were US-funded biolabs operating in Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion.

Now Tulsi Gabbard is fighting back.

(You gotta love the dog on the roof reminder!)

Gabbard told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night that she is sending Mitt Romney a cease and desist letter for his attacks on her character.

Trump Calls For Clinton-Appointed Judge to Be Recused From His Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton and the DNC

Cassandra Fairbanks
March 26th, 2022

Former President Donald Trump is calling for the Clinton-appointed judge to be recused from his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and nearly 50 others for sabotaging his presidency.

Trump discussed the lawsuit during an interview with BlazeTV host Glenn Beck.

The accusations in the 108 page complaint include, but are not limited to, RICO conspiracy, injurious falsehood, conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood, malicious prosecution, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations, and theft of trade secrets.

“It was totally corrupt what they did,” Trump said.

TRENDING: Scientists Currently Developing Controversial “Contagious Vaccines” That Can Spread From Vaccinated to Unvaccinated

The Blaze reports that “the lawsuit will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. In 2015, Middlebrooks threw out a civil racketeering suit filed against Hillary Clinton that claimed she had used her private email server and position as secretary of state to promise changes in U.S. foreign policy in exchange for speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

Trump told Beck that this is a conflict of interest and that Middlebrooks must recuse himself immediately.

“We have a judge that was appointed by Bill Clinton. And who knows Hillary Clinton very well. And we’re suing Hillary Clinton,” Trump said.

“Now, the problem we have, though, is if you have a judge that’s going to throw out the case, and you have to go through appeals. Yep, I think you have a great appeals section. But we’ll see. So we’ll probably ask for a recusal. Maybe a change of venue. But not a change as much as a recusal,” he added.

Trump is seeking $72 million in damages in the lawsuit.

‘Rife with Conflicts of Interest:’ Google Faces European Antitrust Complaint over Digital Advertising

LUCAS NOLAN
11 Feb 2022

Tech giant Google is facing another antitrust complaint filed in the EU related to the company’s digital advertising business. The European Publishers Council compares Google’s stranglehold on the digital advertising business and its built-in conflicts of interest as both ads buyer and seller to “Goldman or Citibank owning the New York Stock Exchange.”

The Daily Mail reports that the European Publishers Council (EPC) has filed an antitrust complaint against Google in the EU accusing the company of engaging in “unlawful tactics” to monopolize online advertising.

The EPC, a group of chairmen and CEOs of Europe’s largest media groups, has revealed plans to file a complaint with the European Commission about Google’s digital advertising practices. The group alleges that Google’s advertising platform is “rife with conflicts of interests” as the company is acting as both buyer and seller in the same transaction while operating the actual auction platform.

The EPC alleges that this constitutes a monopoly that is harming publishers and consumers in Europe. The EPC compared Google’s advertising platform to “Goldman or Citibank owning the New York Stock Exchange.”

The group claims that figures show that one of Google’s advertising auction programs reduced publisher revenue by 40 percent and that are worries that further changes to cookie technology could result in revenues being reduced by as much as 70 percent.

The EPC’s complaint is just the latest in a long line of antitrust lawsuits filed against Google. The French competition authority fined Googled €220 million in June for favoring its own services. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority also launched an investigation into Google over the introduction of its new Privacy Sandbox advertising plan.

The CMA recently announced that Google agreed to a set of commitments that will give the CMA oversight of the introduction of the Privacy Sandbox.

Read more at the Daily Mail here.

Typical: California Court System Lifts Eviction Moratorium After Lawsuit

MATTHEW VADUM 
August 20, 2020

Under legal pressure, the rule-making arm of California’s court system, the largest in the United States, has rescinded its pandemic-related emergency order that blocked the state’s courts from hearing eviction proceedings.

Landlords in California and across the country have reportedly been hard hit by emergency eviction moratoriums and by the inability of some of their tenants to pay rent in the troubled economy.

The Judicial Council of California voted 19–1 to scuttle emergency rules governing evictions and judicial foreclosures imposed by the body on April 6.

California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, who was appointed to her post in 2010 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, acknowledged in a statement that the council had overreached.

“The judicial branch cannot usurp the responsibility of the other two branches on a long-term basis to deal with the myriad impacts of the pandemic,” she said. “The duty of the judicial branch is to resolve disputes under the law and not to legislate. I urge our sister branches to act expeditiously to resolve this looming crisis.”

The Judicial Council of California acted after it was sued June 15 by two small landlords in the Kern County branch of the Superior Court of California.

The landlords argued that by initiating a ban on evictions, the Judicial Council undermined the state’s separation of powers and seized policymaking power from the legislature and governor to block landlords’ access to courts.

“Constitutional limitations on government are never more important than during an emergency,” said landlord lawyer Damien M. Schiff, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm headquartered in Sacramento, California.

“In this case, we challenged an eviction moratorium enacted not by the politically responsible branches of California’s government, but rather by the judiciary. Because it attempted to codify policy rather than merely regulate the practice of state courts, the rule exceeded the Judicial Council’s authority under the California Constitution. We are pleased not only that the Judicial Council has voted to rescind the rule, but also that the Council recognized” that its usurpation of legislative and executive powers to deal with the effects of the pandemic was improper.

The council took its lead from Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who “ostensibly using his emergency powers, issued an executive order in March that essentially invited the Judicial Council to come up with some eviction moratorium plan, and the council responded by promulgating about a dozen what it called emergency rules of court.”

Newsom has urged the Trump administration to do more to prevent a potential wave of evictions and foreclosures after a four-month congressional moratorium protecting renters and homeowners during the current pandemic lapsed on July 24. The administration has responded that the president has done everything he’s legally allowed to do to halt evictions.

But even if you think an eviction moratorium is “a good idea, it’s not something that the judiciary is capable of doing constitutionally,” Schiff said in an interview.

“And the first of the rules, Emergency Rule 1, essentially imposed a blanket ban on the court-processing of eviction lawsuits,” he said.

The legal complaint stated that the rule “violates the fundamental rights of property owners by indefinitely suspending their right to initiate unlawful detainer actions [i.e., evictions] … [and] creates the perverse incentive for all tenants, whether they face financial hardship or not, to refuse to pay their rent during the crisis. And it immunizes from eviction even tenants who create nuisances, damage property, conduct illegal activity, or violate lease terms.”

The rule “effectively closes the courthouse doors to Petitioners and obstructs their right to re-enter their own property. It does so because the Judicial Council determined as a matter of policy that tenants should be immunized from eviction in virtually all cases. The rule therefore constitutes a legislative decision forbidden to the Judicial Council under the principle of separation of powers embodied in Article III, Section 3, of the California Constitution.”

“Eviction moratoriums don’t make sense,” Schiff said.

“There’s the more fundamental problem that, the government, sure, has the power to take reasonable action to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, but if it takes their rights or it takes their property it has to pay for it. And here you have essentially landlords’ property being commandeered into a larger governmental effort to slow the spread of the virus.”

Because the goal of the lawsuit has been accomplished, the legal action has been withdrawn, Schiff added.

14 Strange Facts Exposed As General Flynn’s Endgame Approaches

Authored by Brian Cates 
September 7th, 2019

Having followed Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s perjury case from the beginning, it’s been apparent to me for some time that there are a lot of things in this case that just don’t add up. Strange occurrences abound.

Here are just some of the twists and turns in the case, which has gone on for more than three years.

  1. Flynn’s trip to Russia in 2015, where it was claimed Flynn went without the knowledge or approval of the DIA or anyone in Washington, was proven not to be true.
  2. Flynn was suspected of being compromised by a supposed Russian agent, Cambridge academic Svetlana Lokhova, based on allegations from Western intelligence asset Stefan Halper. This was also proven to be not true.
  3. Flynn’s phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were framed as being incredibly shady and a potential violation of the Logan ActThis allegation was always preposterous.
  4. Unnamed intelligence officials leaked the details of the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls to The Washington Post.
  5. FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joseph Pientka were dispatched by Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to interview Flynn at the White House, even though the FBI had already reviewed the transcripts of the calls and cleared Flynn of any crimes.
  6. Both FBI Director James Comey and McCabe testified to Congress that Flynn didn’t lie.
  7. Despite what McCabe and Comey both testified to under oath before Congress, the Mueller special counsel’s office decided to prosecute Flynn for perjury in November of 2017.
  8. The very strange post-dated FD-302 form on the FBI’s January 2017 interview of Flynn that wasn’t filled out until August 2017, almost seven months afterward, is revealed in a court filing by Flynn’s defense team.
  9. FBI agent Pientka became the  “DOJ’s Invisible Man,” despite the fact that Congress has repeatedly called for him to testify. Pientka has remained out of sight and out of mind more than a year and a half since his name first surfaced in connection with the Flynn case.
  10. Judge Rudolph Contreras was removed from the Flynn case immediately after accepting Flynn’s guilty plea and was replaced by Judge Emmit Sullivan.
  11. Sullivan issued what’s known as a Brady order to prosecutors–which ordered them to immediately turn over any exculpatory evidence to Flynn’s defense team. Flynn’s team then made a filing alleging the withholding of exculpatory evidence.
  12. Flynn was given a chance to withdraw his guilty plea by Judge Sullivan but refused, and insisted to go forward with sentencing.
  13. Flynn suddenly fired his lawyers for the past two years and hired Sidney Powell to lead his new legal team following special counsel Robert Mueller’s disastrous testimony to Congress. And now, the latest startling development:
  14. Flynn filed to have the Mueller prosecution team replaced for having withheld exculpatory evidence, despite Sullivan having directly ordered them to hand any such evidence over months ago.

Now, it’s not that far-fetched of an idea that the Mueller special counsel prosecutors would hide exculpatory evidence from the Flynn defense team, since they’ve just admitted to having done exactly that in another case their office has been prosecuting.

The defense team for Internet Research Agency/Concord, more popularly known as “the Russian troll farm case,” hasn’t been smooth going for the Mueller prosecutors.

First, the prosecution team got a real tongue-lashing from Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in early July, when it turned out they had no evidence whatsoever to prove their assertion that the Russian troll farms were being run by the Putin government.

Then, in a filing submitted to the court on Aug. 30, the IRA/Concord defense team alerted Judge Friedrich that the prosecutors just got around to handing them key evidence the prosecutors had for the past 18 months. The prosecution gave no explanation whatsoever as to why they hid this key evidence for more than a year.

It’s hard to see at this point how the entire IRA/Concord case isn’t tossed out.

What would it mean for Flynn’s prosecutors to have been caught hiding exculpatory evidence from him and his lawyers, even after the presiding judge explicitly ordered them in February to hand over everything they had?

It would mean that the Flynn case is tossed out, since the prosecution team was caught engaging in gross misconduct.

Now you can see why Flynn refused to withdraw his guilty plea when Judge Sullivan gave him the opportunity to do so in late December 2018.

A withdrawal of the guilty plea or a pardon would let the Mueller prosecution team off the hook.

And they’re not getting off the hook.

Flynn hired the best lawyer he possibly could have when it comes to exposing prosecutorial misconduct. Nobody knows the crafty, corrupt, and dishonest tricks federal prosecutors use better than Powell, who actually wrote a compelling book about such matters, entitled “License to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.”

Everything this Mueller prosecution team did in withholding exculpatory evidence from Flynn’s defense team—and continued to withhold even after Judge Sullivan specifically issued an order about it—is going to be fully exposed.

Defying a federal judge’s Brady order is a one-way ticket to not only getting fired, it’s a serious enough offense to warrant disbarment and prosecution.

If it turns out Mueller special counsel prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence— not only in the IRA/Concord case, but also in the cases against Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and others—that will have a huge impact.

If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn’t they do the same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven’t they have already demonstrated they are willing to break the rules?

Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $300 Million in Talc Cancer Case

by: Ethan Huff, July 12th, 2019

In a landmark decision, a New York state jury has decided that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) must compensate a woman who claims she was harmed by the company’s talc baby powder products, which we earlier reported have been identified as being contaminated with cancer-causing asbestos.

J&J has reportedly been ordered to pay out $300 million in punitive damages to the woman, who developed a rare asbestos-related cancer that she insists was caused by J&J baby powder. The ruling follows another similar one from earlier in the month, also decided by a New York state jury, that awarded $25 million in damages to Donna Olson, a 66-year-old woman who also developed cancer.

Meanwhile, another case that was heard in South Carolina the very same day as Olson’s was reportedly dismissed, as that jury cleared the company of all liability.

“With this verdict, yet another jury has rejected J&J’s misleading claims that its talc was free of asbestos,” stated Jerome Block, the lead trial attorney in the latest New York case.

“The internal J&J documents that the jury saw, once more laid bare the shocking truth of decades of cover-up, deception and concealment by J&J of the asbestos found in talc baby powder,” he added about the merits of the case.

These three cases are just a drop in the bucket, as J&J is reportedly facing some 13,000 more, all of which allege that the company’s talc products contain cancer-causing asbestos. J&J, however, continues to deny these allegations, insisting that multiple studies and tests conducted by regulators from all around the world confirm that J&J’s talc products are safe and asbestos-free.

“This trial suffered significant legal and evidentiary errors which Johnson & Johnson believes will warrant a reversal on appeal,” J&J told CNBC. “Decades of tests by independent experts and academic institutions repeatedly confirm that Johnson’s Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer.”

“Of all the verdicts against Johnson & Johnson that have been through the appellate process, every one has been overturned,” the company went on to say.

It’s unfortunate that it took thousands of lawsuits and countless customers getting cancer for J&J to finally reformulate its baby products to contain fewer toxins

As part of a massive damage control effort, J&J last spring relaunched its entire baby-care products line, which has been hit hard by relentless negative press.

Since 2011, sales of the brand, which is now 125 years old, have declined by a whopping 20 percent – which amounted to $1.9 billion just last year. In the first quarter of 2018, sales in the United States dropped by 14 percent.

Part of this rebrand reportedly involves J&J removing certain toxic ingredients from its products that, like asbestos, could potentially cause cancer. Reports indicate that the new varieties are being marketed towards “millennial moms” who prefer baby products that contain “more natural ingredients.”

“I try to avoid products that have sulfates, parabens, phthalates and artificial fragrances,” says Meg Conrad, the mother of a three-year-old daughter who told CNBC that she always checks product labels to make sure that her baby products are free of these additives – which is why she doesn’t purchase J&J baby products, at least in their current form.

“Everything you put on your skin gets absorbed into your bloodstream, so I want to protect my daughter from any harmful chemicals and toxins that could potentially be in products.”

In 2015, J&J removed all parabens and phthalates from its baby products line. However, critics said the company still had a long way to go, which is why it has now announced that it plans to remove synthetic dyes and sulfates from its products, as well as replace ingredients like mineral oil with coconut oil.

For more related news, be sure to check out Chemicals.news.

Sources for this article include:

CNBC.com

NaturalNews.com

Monsanto Ordered to Pay $2 Billion to Cancer Victims

Source USRTK
by Carey Gillam, May 13th, 2019

After less than two full days of deliberations, a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay just over $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages to a married couple who both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they say was caused by their many years of using Roundup products.

After listening to 17 days of trial testimony, jurors said Monsanto must pay $1 billion to Alberta Pilliod, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma brain cancer  in 2015, and another $1 billion to her husband Alva Pilliod, who was diagnosed in 2011 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma that spread from his bones to his pelvis and spine. The couple, who are both in their 70s,  started using Roundup in the 1970s and continued using the herbicide until only a few years ago. The jury also awarded the couple a total of $55 million in damages for past and future medical bills and other losses.

In ordering punitive damages, the jury had to find that Monsanto “engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto”  who were acting on behalf of the company.

Pilliod v. Monsanto is the third Roundup cancer case to go to trial. And it is the third to conclude that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides can cause cancer and that Monsanto has long known about – and covered up – the risks.

In March, a unanimous jury in federal court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay roughly $80 million in damages for failing to warn plaintiff Edwin Hardeman of the cancer risks of Roundup herbicide. Last August, jurors in state court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million  in damages to school groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who is dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma the jury found was caused by his exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides. The judge in that case lowered the total verdict to $78 million and the verdict is now on appeal.

Both Johnson and Hardeman attended closing arguments in the Pilliod trial.

The Pilliod verdict is expected to only further erode the market value of Bayer AG, which purchased Monsanto last summer for $63 billion. Shares have dropped more than 40 percent since the Aug. 10 Johnson verdict was handed down.

More than 13,000 plaintiffs have filed similar lawsuits against Monsanto, alleging the company’s herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and the company has hidden the risks.

Evidence laid out in the three trials included numerous scientific studies that showed what plaintiffs’ attorneys said was proof Monsanto’s herbicides can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. As well, the attorneys presented jurors with many internal Monsanto communications obtained through court-ordered discovery that show Monsanto has intentionally manipulated the public record to hide the cancer risks.

Among the many revelations that have emerged from the trials:

* Monsanto never conducted epidemiology studies for Roundup and its other formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate to evaluate the cancer risks for users.

* Monsanto was aware that the surfactants in Roundup were much more toxic than glyphosate alone.

* Monsanto spent millions of dollars on covert public relations campaigns to finance ghostwritten studies and articles aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found dangers with Monsanto’s herbicides.

* When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate glyphosate toxicity in 2015, Monsanto engaged the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review.

* Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who have repeatedly backed Monsanto’s assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products.

* The company internally had worker safety recommendations that called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides, but did not warn the public to do the same.

Pilliod attorney Brent Wisner suggested to jurors in his closing arguments that they consider punitive damages in the range of $1 billion to send a message to Monsanto and Bayer about the need to change the company’s practices.

“The jury saw for themselves internal company documents demonstrating that, from day one, Monsanto has never had any interest in finding out whether Roundup is safe,” Wisner said following the verdict. “Instead of investing in sound science, they invested millions in attacking science that threatened their business agenda.”

Michael Miller, who served with Wisner as co-lead trial counsel said: “Unlike the first two Monsanto trials, where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs’ evidence, we were finally allowed to show a jury the mountain of evidence showing Monsanto’s manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda despite Roundup’s severe harm to the animal kingdom and humankind.”

Bayer issued a statement after the verdict saying it would appeal: “Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month, the consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of extensive scientific research on which their favorable conclusions are based.

“We have great sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod, but the evidence in this case was clear that both have long histories of illnesses known to be substantial risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), most NHL has no known cause, and there is not reliable scientific evidence to conclude that glyphosate-based herbicides were the “but for” cause of their illnesses as the jury was required to find in this case.”

The damage award breaks down as follows:

Alva Pilliod

Compensatory:

Past economic – $47,296.01

Past non-economic loss – $8 million

Future non-economic loss – $10 million

Punitive damages – $1 billion

Alberta Pilliod

Compensatory:

Past economic – $201,166.76

Past non-economic – $8 million

Future economic  – $2,957,710

Future non-economic – $26 million

Punitive damages – $1 billion

TOTAL – $2.055 billion  

A federal judge has ordered Bayer to start mediation with plaintiffs’ attorneys and a hearing is set for next week in San Francisco on that issue. Several more trials are scheduled over the next year in courts around the United States.

For more updates follow Carey Gillam on Twitter @careygillam