campaign Intelwars Lawsuit Supreme Court trump Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump campaign election lawsuit — for now

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday declined to take up one of the lawsuits filed in the state by the Trump campaign earlier in the week, determining in a 4-3 decision that the petition seeking to toss out more than 220,000 absentee ballots should be heard by a lower court.

What are the details?

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their re-election campaign sued Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) and several election officials in the state, presenting what the campaign called “clear evidence of unlawfulness” that is says “affected no less than approximately 221,000 ballots out of over the three three million ballots cast.”

But the majority of the state’s highest court agreed that under Wisconsin law, the case should first be seen by a circuit court.

The Washington Post reported that “one conservative member of the panel, Brian Hagedorn, joined the court’s three more liberal members in declining to take the case,” writing “that he had determined the court should decline to take the case so the Trump campaign could ‘promptly exercise’ its right to seek action in a lower court.”

Courthouse News noted that “the other three members of the court’s conservative majority dissented.”

The outlet reported:

Grassl Bradley, an appointee of Republican former Governor Scott Walker, wrote that “the majority takes a pass on resolving the important questions presented by the petitioners in this case, thereby undermining the public’s confidence in the integrity of Wisconsin’s electoral processes not only during this election, but in every future election.”

In reaction to the court’s narrow decision, Trump campaign attorney James Troupis said in a statement, “We welcome the direction of the Supreme Court to file in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as we pursue making certain that only legal votes count in Wisconsin — and we will immediately do so.”

He added, “It was clear from their writings that the court recognizes the seriousness of these issues, and we look forward to taking the next step. We fully expect to be back in front of the Supreme Court very soon.”

Anything else?

The Trump/Pence campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits nationwide, alleging widespread voting fraud and irregularities in several states in challenging Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as the projected winner. The Hill noted that their litigation attempts “have largely proved unsuccessful.”

On Wednesday, the campaign filed another lawsuit in Wisconsin (in district court) against the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the mayors of the state’s five largest cities: Milwaukee, Madison, Kenosha, Green Bay and Racine.

The official Wisconsin tally indicates Biden won the state by more than 20,000 votes.

Betsy fresse christian Discrimination Intelwars Lawsuit LGBT Starbucks

Lawsuit alleges Starbucks fired Christian barista who refused to wear LGBT ‘pride’ shirt

A New Jersey woman has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks claiming that she was fired from her barista job because she refused to wear a company t-shirt that promoted LGBT “pride.”

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

What are the details?

According to the lawsuit, Betsy Fresse, a Christian from Newark, was attending a meeting in her manager’s office at the Glen Ridge location in June 2019 when she noticed a box of Starbucks-branded “pride” t-shirts, NBC News reported.

Fresse proceeded to ask her manager if she would be required to wear one — which would violate her religious beliefs — and she was allegedly assured that she would not.

But several weeks later, Fresse was contacted by Starbucks’ ethics and compliance department about not wanting to wear the shirt. She told the company official that doing so would compromise her religious beliefs. Then, on Aug. 22, 2019, the lawsuit alleges that Fresse was fired because “her comportment was not in compliance with Starbucks’ core values.”

More from

While court papers state that Fresse “holds no enmity toward individuals who ascribe to the LGBTQ lifestyle and/or make up the LGBTQ community, (she) believes that being made to wear a Pride T-shirt as a condition of employment would be tantamount to forced speech and inaccurately show her advocacy of a lifestyle in direct contradiction to her religious beliefs.” Those beliefs, according to the lawsuit, include the idea “that marriage is defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman only, and that any sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is contrary to her understanding of Biblical teaching.”

Fresse has also filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The government agency, however, said in August that it could not determine whether Starbucks wrongly terminated Fresse by engaging in religious discrimination, according to

Fresse is seeking back pay with interest, compensation for emotional suffering, punitive damages, and payment of her attorney fees.

What did Starbucks say?

In a statement provided to the New York Post, a representative for the coffee chain said they are prepared to fight Fresse’s claims in court, denying that she was required to wear the “pride” shirt.

“We are very aware of the claims by Mrs. Fresse, which are without merit and we are fully prepared to present our case in court,” the spokesperson said. “Specific to our dress code, other than our green apron, no part of our dress code requires partners to wear any approved items that they have not personally selected.”

absentee ballots GOP Intelwars Lawsuit Mail-in ballots Patricia mccullough Pennsylvania republican party

Pennsylvania judge rules GOP lawsuit challenging new absentee ballot law has ‘likelihood to succeed’

The Pennsylvania judge who temporarily halted the certification of election results in the Keystone State issued an opinion Friday explaining that the Republican plaintiffs in her case will likely win on the merits of their lawsuit.

What’s the background?

As TheBlaze reported, Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough issued an injunction Wednesday after Republican lawmakers made an emergency request to stop certification of the state’s election results over concerns about Act 77, a new law that allowed Pennsylvania voters to obtain an absentee ballot for the election for any reason.

From Sinclair Broadcasting Group:

The plaintiffs argue Act 77, which was signed into law in October 2019, wrongfully overrides the stipulations for absentee balloting established by the state’s constitution. The Pennsylvania Constitution states absentee ballots can be cast by those who cannot go to polling locations due to a work obligation, sickness, religious holiday, or “election day duties.”

As a result, the suit asks the court to prevent the certification of election tallies that include mail-in ballots resulting from the expanded rules of Act 77, and further moves to have the Pennsylvania General Assembly assign the state’s electors.

What is the judge saying now?

McCullough explained in a 13-page opinion that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their lawsuit because Act 77 appears to violate the Pennsylvania state constitution.

“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” McCullough wrote.

“Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77,” she continued.

“Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim,” McCullough said.

Anything else?

According to WESA-FM, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar have appealed to the state Supreme Court to intervene. Democrats currently hold a 5-2 majority on the Pennsylvania high court.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey noted at Hot Air that the “laches” doctrine could apply in this case, thereby hurting the plaintiffs’ argument, because they did not raise objections before or after Pennsylvania’s June 2 primary, which used the same absentee system as the general.

“Having raised no objection before the election, the plaintiffs have participated in the alleged violation, which would impact their standing to demand relief,” Morrissey explained.

Donald Trump Intelwars Lawsuit Matthew brann Pennsylvania

Federal judge dismisses Trump lawsuit in Pennsylvania, blasts campaign in scathing opinion

A federal judge tossed out another lawsuit from the Trump campaign late Saturday, rebuking the campaign in a scathing opinion, and allowing the state to move forward with the certification of its election results.

In response, Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) congratulated Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris for winning the election.

What did the judge say?

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes in Pennsylvania and block the certification of the state’s election results, which is set for Monday.

But granting the Trump campaign’s demands would have been tantamount to violating the Constitution, U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann ruled.

“[T]hey ask the Court to violate the rights of over 6.8 million Americans,” Brann wrote in a 37-page opinion. “It is not in the power of this Court to violate the Constitution.”

In fact, Brann explained that Trump’s legal team did not come to court armed with evidence to prove why Pennsylvania votes should be invalidated.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann explained. “That has not happened.”

“Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” Brann continued. “In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

Brann, although he was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2012, was a longtime Republican official, and was active both in the National Rifle Association and Federalist Society.

What did Toomey say?

Toomey recognized Biden and Harris as the election winners because he said Trump has exhausted his legal remedies in the Keystone State.

“With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania,” Toomey said in a statement.

“I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory,” Toomey added.

Toomey went on to say that he is “disappointed” that Trump lost, but urged the president to “accept the outcome of the election and facilitate the presidential transition process.”

How did Trump respond?

Trump’s campaign said they welcomed Brann’s decision because it expedites their plan to go to the Supreme Court.

“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock,” Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis said in a statement, according to Politico.

It should be noted that Brann dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Trump’s team cannot file another lawsuit on the same grounds as the one he dismissed. That, however, does not stop the appeal process.

Campaign 2020 Intelwars Lawsuit Michigan Timothy kenny voter fraud Wayne county

Michigan court rejects appeal for ‘independent audit’ of ballots over allegations of voter fraud

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Monday ruled against an effort to conduct an “independent audit” of ballots in Wayne County, the Democratic stronghold and most populous county in the Wolverine State.

The ruling means that certification of the county’s votes will move forward as scheduled, unless a higher court intervenes.

What are the details?

Officially, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected a request to overturn a ruling made by Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny last Friday.

The request, made in a lawsuit filed by attorney David Kallman on behalf of two Wayne County voters, sought to force an “independent audit” of Wayne County’s ballots, separate from the audit already being conducted by the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, according to the Detroit Free Press. The lawsuit also demanded officials stop the certification of the county’s results and asked the judge to completely void the election results.

The plaintiffs argued that voter fraud had occurred, but Kenny did not buy the allegations. He called their claims “incorrect and not credible.”

According to the Free Press, Kallman plans to appeal the appeals court decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. But his efforts may ultimately prove futile, since ballot certification begins Tuesday, Nov. 17, at 3 p.m.

Any other lawsuits?

As TheBlaze reported, four Michigan voters filed a separate lawsuit last week seeking to invalidate approximately 1.2 million votes.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, requested that votes in three Democratic stronghold counties — Wayne, Ingham, and Washtenaw — be tossed out over allegations of voter fraud. Plaintiffs claimed there is “sufficient evidence” that voter fraud occurred, citing “issues with transparency, fraudulent changing of dates, a software glitch, clerical errors, illegal votes, and many other issues and irregularities.”

Tossing the votes would have flipped the state in President Donald Trump’s favor. But on Monday, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit.

According to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the purpose of the lawsuit was clear.

“This case was clearly designed to spread misinformation about the security and integrity of Michigan elections,” Nessel said.

Meanwhile, an additional lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on Monday demanding an audit of ballots — again, separate from the one that county officials statewide already conduct — before the state’s results are certified, according to the Free Press.

So far, no legal challenge launched by Trump’s campaign or his supporters alleging voter fraud have been accepted by the court system.

Campaign 2020 Intelwars Lawsuit Michigan voter fraud Wayne county

New federal lawsuit seeks to throw out 1.2 million votes in Michigan, flipping the state for Trump

Another federal lawsuit was filed in Michigan this week that seeks to toss out up to 1.2 million votes, which would flip the Great Lakes State in President Donald Trump’s favor.

Media-declared president-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump in Michigan by approximately 146,000 votes.

What are the details?

The lawsuit, filed by four voters in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeks to toss out ballots in three Democratic strongholds — Wayne, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties — over allegations of voter fraud, according to Michigan Live.

Those three counties are responsible for about 1.2 million votes, favoring Biden by more than 2:1. Eliminating ballots from those counties would give Trump a victory in Michigan.

Plaintiffs claim that “sufficient evidence” exists “to place in doubt the November 3 presidential-election results” in the three identified counties, citing “issues with transparency, fraudulent changing of dates, a software glitch, clerical errors, illegal votes, and many other issues and irregularities.”

More from Michigan Live:

Plaintiffs also cite ongoing investigations launched by the Michigan Legislature and a variety of other claims that have been debunked. The allegations include charges of Republican ballot challengers being harassed and illegal tampering with ballots.

Plaintiffs conclude that “this evidence suffices to place in doubt the November 3 presidential election results in identified counties and/or the state as a whole.” However, the group of voters also claims to have additional evidence of illegal ballots being included in unofficial results, based on “expert reports” and data analysis.

The lawsuit further says that certifying the votes would violate voters’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by “vote-dilution disenfranchisement.”

Defendants include Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, members of the Michigan State Board of Canvassers, Wayne County Board of Canvassers, Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers, and Ingham County Board of Canvassers.

Are the lawsuits working?

Lawsuits alleging unproven claims of voter fraud are losing the legal battle in court.

The most recent loss came on Friday, when Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied a request for an independent audit of Wayne County votes, according to the Detroit Free Press. The lawsuit had claimed local election officials managed a fraudulent election.

Also on Friday, Trump’s campaign dropped a legal challenge in Arizona and shut down its voter fraud hotline. The campaign also suffered a loss in federal court when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against the campaign’s efforts to block mail-in votes received after Election Day from being counted.

Intelwars Jesus loves me mask Lawsuit Lawsuits Lydia booth Mississippi third-grader Simpson central elementary school

School reportedly forces 9-year-old to remove ‘Jesus loves me’ mask. Now her parents are suing.

The parents of a Mississippi third grader are suing a school district after they say an elementary school principal violated the child’s free speech and discriminated against her on the basis of religion.

What’s a brief history?

According to the
New York Post, the principal at Simpson Central School in Pinola directed the child, 9-year-old Lydia Booth, to remove her face mask, which said “Jesus Loves Me,” in October.

WLBT-TV reported that school officials advised the child that the mask went against district policy.

Immediately following the move, the school issued a statement on new mask policies, revealing that no masks displaying “political, religious, sexual, or any inappropriate symbols, gestures, or statements that may be offensive, disruptive, or deemed distractive to the school environment” would be permitted within the district.

The Booth family insists that the school not only singled out Lydia for her beliefs — which were evident based on her mask — but also changed the policy to prohibit such masks only after they objected to their child’s forced removal of the mask.

What’s happening now?

On Monday, the Alliance Defending Freedom
filed a federal lawsuit on Lydia and her family’s behalf, insisting that the district violated the child’s right to free speech.

Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Michael Ross said, “Public schools have a duty to respect the free expression of students that the First Amendment guarantees to them. Other students within the school district have freely worn masks with the logos of local sports teams or even the words ‘Black Lives Matter.’ This student deserves an equal opportunity to peacefully express her beliefs.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Tyson Langhofer told WBRC-TV that the move is unfair.

“When the school is discriminating against individuals who want to wear masks expressing religious beliefs but are allowing students and faculty to wear masks expressing messages with other beliefs and that’s not allowable in the First Amendment,” Langhofer said.

“[Lydia has] told her parents she wants to be a missionary and that’s why she wants to wear this mask. It made her really sad when she was forced to remove this mask, because the message means something to her and it’s her choice to wear it,” he added.

An attorney for the Simpson County school board told the station that the district has not yet been served in the suit, and provided no further comment.

Donald Trump Election 2020 Election Results Intelwars Joe Biden Lawsuit Nevada voting irregularities

Latest Nevada results show Biden widening lead over Trump as president’s campaign claims illegal voting

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden expanded his lead in Nevada after several outstanding mail-in ballots were counted Thursday, as President Donald Trump’s campaign makes allegations of illegal voting in the state.

Biden and Trump have so far run neck and neck in the state, with Biden holding a slight lead over Trump before the latest results were announced. As of Wednesday, Biden led Trump by just .64%, a little more than 8,000 votes. At noon on Thursday, Biden’s lead grew to 12,042 votes, according to multiple reports.

Many of the ballots still to be counted are from Clark County, a Democratic stronghold.

Whichever candidate wins Nevada will gain six Electoral College votes of the needed 270 Electoral College votes to win the White House.

On Wednesday, Nevada elections officials announced that all in-person early votes, all in-person Election Day votes, and all mail-in ballots through Nov. 2 had been counted. Still to come are mail ballots received on Election Day and those received over the next week, officials said.

Voters casting mail-in absentee ballots needed to postmark their ballots by Tuesday, Nov. 3. State elections officials will receive postmarked ballots until Nov. 10. With the large volume of absentee ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic, the final vote count may remain unknown until next week.

During a Wednesday press briefing, Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon predicted Democrats would win the state.

The Trump campaign is filing a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas Thursday to stop the counting of “illegal votes” in Nevada, Fox News reported. The campaign claims to have evidence of deceased and nonresident voters casting ballots in the 2020 election.

Former Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, and Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald announced the lawsuit at a news conference.

“We are confident that when all legal votes are tallied — and only legal votes are tallied — President Trump will win the state of Nevada,” Grenell told Fox News.

An anonymous source that spoke to Fox News about the lawsuit claims the campaign has evidence that “tens of thousands” of people voted in Nevada illegally.

With the margin for victory so narrow in several states, the Trump campaign has vowed to demand a recount anywhere the campaign loses within a 1% margin or less. The campaign has already demanded a recount in Wisconsin, where Biden defeated Trump by a little over 20,000 votes.

Donald Trump Election 2020 Election legal challenge Intelwars Joe Biden Lawsuit Michigan

Trump campaign files lawsuit to stop vote counting in Michigan

President Donald Trump’s campaign says it has filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims seeking a court order to halt the counting of ballots until it is given “meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process.”

In a statement published Wednesday, Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien claimed the campaign “has not been provided with meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan law.”

“We have filed suit today in the Michigan Court of Claims to halt counting until meaningful access has been granted,” Stepien said. “We also demand to review those ballots which were opened and counted while we did not have meaningful access.”

The Associated Press reported that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden currently leads Trump in Michigan by 45,000 votes. Outstanding absentee and mail-in ballots are still being counted in the state.

If ballot counting continues, Michigan election officials expect to announce a winner later Wednesday, after the remainder of roughly 100,000 outstanding ballots are counted. Michigan state law prevents election officials from counting mail-in ballots until the morning of the election. A massive surge in absentee voting likely caused by concerns over the coronavirus pandemic created delays in ballot counting, which state officials expected.

The presidential contest between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden still has no declared winner. Several states remain too close to call, depriving either candidate of the 270 votes needed to claim the presidency. Michigan’s 16 Electoral College votes remain up for grabs, though Biden is expected to maintain his lead given that outstanding ballots are coming in from parts of the state with many Democratic voters.

President Trump won Michigan in 2016, becoming the first Republican candidate to do so since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

In neighboring Wisconsin, Biden was declared the victor Wednesday, claiming the state’s 10 Electoral College votes and delivering a blow to Trump, who won there in 2016. Biden’s narrow lead, less than one point, gives the Trump campaign the legal right to request a recount, an opportunity that the campaign said Wednesday they will take.

“Despite ridiculous public polling used as a voter suppression tactic, Wisconsin has been a razor thin race as we always knew that it would be,” Stepien said in a statement. “There have been reports of irregularities in several Wisconsin counties which raise serious doubts about the validity of the results. The President is well within the threshold to request a recount and we will immediately do so.”

Intelwars jack dorsey Kenosha shooting Kyle rittenhouse Lawsuit Legal defense Lin wood Twitter

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer says Twitter locked him out of his account for ‘glorifying violence’: ‘I’m going to take Jack Dorsey’s a** down’

An attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse — the 17-year-old charged with fatally shooting two men amid Kenosha rioting last week — said he was locked out of his Twitter account for “glorifying violence” after he’d been tweeting about raising money for his client’s legal defense, Fox News reported.

L. Lin Wood also told the cable network he intends to file a lawsuit against Twitter and its CEO Jack Dorsey.

“I’m going to take Jack Dorsey’s ass down,” Wood added to Fox News. “He has been abusing the First Amendment of this country for his own agenda.”

What are the details?

Wood was locked out of his account for several hours Tuesday for violating Twitter rules — specifically for “glorifying violence,” the cable network said, adding that Wood insisted he has been careful to abide by the social media giant’s terms of service.

More from Fox News:

On Monday, Wood revealed on Twitter that more than 11,000 donors have raised $605,550 for the legal defense of Rittenhouse, who claims the shootings in Kenosha were self-defense.

A Twitter user asked if Wood would be selling or disclosing his donor list to other groups. Lin replied “No” and added “#fightback” in reference to the name of the legal fund foundation. That was his last tweet before getting locked out.

Wood also represents Nick Sandmann, Carter Page, St. Louis couple Mark and Patricia McCloskey, Dr. Simone Gold, and Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene, who posted that “Twitter is censoring” Wood:

“I was arrested today & confined in Twitter jail falsely accused of glorifying violence. I was exonerated this evening by a finding of ‘incorrectly actioned.’ I am free tonight,” Wood tweeted Tuesday night after his account was reinstated.

He added: “Kyle Rittenhouse was arrested on 8/26 & is confined in Illinois jail falsely accused of murder. Kyle will be exonerated when truth is revealed by a finding of ‘incorrectly actioned.’ Kyle will be free soon.”

What did Twitter have to say?

A Twitter spokesperson told Fox News it was all a big mistake: “This account was incorrectly actioned. This has been reversed, and the account has been reinstated.”

Twitter has been criticized lately for double standards in its treatment of posts. During a July hearing on anti-Semitism, a Twitter representative defended his company’s decision to not block tweets from Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for genocide while flagging tweets from President Donald Trump.

Wood told Fox News he wasn’t surprised by what Twitter did to him: “I knew they were going to censor me because I’m sending a message of hope. I’m sending a message of truth. And I’m sending a message that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent.”

Wood added to the cable network that he now will rely on Parler, a newer social media service that has attracted conservatives tired of Twitter.

Et tu, Facebook?

TheBlaze recently reported that Facebook has banned users from sharing a crowdfunding link to assist with Rittenhouse’s legal fee but allows fundraising posts for others charged with crimes — including murder — which makes it appear as though Facebook unfairly singling out Rittenhouse.

Anything else?

Another Rittenhouse attorney, John Pierce — who said his client acted in self-defense — shared video footage of a conversation he said was between him and Rittenhouse. The caller can be heard on the phone saying, “I just wanna thank every single one of you from the bottom of my heart for the underlying support. I just want to thank all of you for the mail I’ve been receiving. It’s been really helpful.” The caller added, “I’m going to be out of here soon.”

Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters and wounding a third on Aug. 25, the third night of the Kenosha riots. Violence erupted in the southern Wisconsin city after police shot Jacob Blake, a black man, on Aug. 23.

While leftists have — without evidence — resoundingly condemned Rittenhouse as a murderer and white supremacist, Elijah Shaffer of TheBlaze TV recorded an interview with Rittenhouse prior to the shootings that paints quite a different picture of the teen:

Even the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse seems to read as though he acted in self-defense.

Defamation Intelwars Lawsuit New York Times Sarah Palin Trial

Judge rules Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against The New York Times can go to trial?

Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is moving forward and headed to trial after a federal judge ruled Friday that a jury will decide whether the newspaper acted with “actual malice” when it published a false editorial pointing to Palin as the motivation behind the 2011 assassination attempt on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

What are the details?

Palin sued The Times in 2017 over a piece that linked materials distributed by the former Alaskan governor’s political action committee and the Tucson, Arizona, mass murder at a Giffords event that left six people dead and Giffords injured.

An excerpt from the editorial — which was later corrected — read:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

The lawsuit has been tied up in the courts ever since, and on Friday, Manhattan Federal Judge Jed Rakoff denied The Times’ request to bring the case to a close, which Law & Crime called “a major procedural win” for Palin.

“Gov. Palin brings this action to hold [former editor] James Bennett and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,” the judge wrote.

“Specifically,” he continued, “on June 14, 2017, The Times published an editorial authored in the name of its Editorial Board (which represents the ‘voice’ of The Times) that falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Gov. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, mass shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona.”

Rakoff added, “Taken in the light most favorable to (Palin), the evidence shows Bennet came up with an angle for the editorial, ignored the articles brought to his attention that were inconsistent with his angle, disregarded the…research he commissioned, and ultimately made the point he set out to make in reckless disregard of the truth.”

In reaction to the judge’s decision, a spokeswoman for The Times said in a statement, “We’re disappointed in the ruling but are confident we will prevail at trial when a jury hears the facts,” the New York Daily News reported.

Chuck Schumer Coronavirus relief Donald Trump executive action Intelwars Lawsuit legal action Nancy Pelosi

Democrats will take legal action against Trump to stop coronavirus relief executive action: report

Democrats are expected to take legal action against President Donald Trump for his executive orders aimed at providing Americans with critical economic relief during the coronavirus pandemic.

What’s the background?

Trump took unilateral action late Saturday after negotiations between Democrats in Congress and the White House broke down last week. Democrats were demanding more than $3 trillion tax dollars be spent in the next relief bill, a prospect that Republicans and the White House outright rejected.

According to Politico, Democrats finally shaved $1 trillion from their demands on Friday, but their requests remained bloated at more than $2 trillion. The White House ultimately rejected the alleged compromise.

However, because Congress was heading to recess with no compromise, Trump chose to take action. He signed a series of executive orders that will provide Americans with a $400 supplemental unemployment stipend, defer payroll taxes for Americans who make less than $100,000 annually, extend the federal eviction moratorium, and further defer student loan payments and forgive interest.

What are Democrats expected to do?

According to the Los Angeles Times, Democrats are expected to pursue legal action against the president over the executive orders, putting the relief in jeopardy.

However, it’s unclear whether Trump has the legal authority to make such changes on his own, because the power to collect taxes, spend money and write laws rests with Congress. His orders are expected to face legal challenges from Democrats that could blunt their impact.

In a joint statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blasted Trump.

“Today’s meager announcements by the President show President Trump still does not comprehend the seriousness or the urgency of the health and economic crises facing working families. We’re disappointed that instead of putting in the work to solve Americans’ problems, the President instead chose to stay on his luxury golf course to announce unworkable, weak and narrow policy announcements to slash the unemployment benefits that millions desperately need and endanger seniors’ Social Security and Medicare,” they said.

What did Republicans say?

According to Republican leaders, Democrats are not being honest about what caused the failure to pass additional COVID-19 relief.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats “sabotaged backroom talks with absurd demands that would not help working people.”

“Democrats have continued to block all of it while holding out for non-COVID-related liberal demands like a huge tax cut for rich people in blue states and a massive slush fund for state and local governments that is many times the size of the actual coronavirus shortfall they are projected to face,” McConnell said. “Weeks ago, some predicted that Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer might actually prefer if the American people received no further bipartisan aid before the election. Sadly, they have done nothing to suggest otherwise.”

Though most Republicans applauded Trump’s action, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) released a statement condemning Trump for “lawmaking by executive order.”

“The pen-and-phone theory of executive lawmaking is unconstitutional slop. President Obama did not have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law with DACA, and President Trump does not have the power to unilaterally rewrite the payroll tax law. Under the Constitution, that power belongs to the American people acting through their members of Congress,” Sasse said.

D.C. foundation Intelwars Lawsuit New York NRA Sues Washington

DC sues NRA and its foundation — as New York sues to dissolve NRA altogether

The democratic attorney general of Washington, D.C., sued the National Rifle Association and its affiliated NRA Foundation on Thursday, the same day the democratic attorney general of New York state sued to have the NRA dissolved entirely.

What are the details?

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued the NRA on Thursday, alleging during a press conference that “the NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets.”

She further claimed, “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.”

James made headlines with the move, and afterward, longtime NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre reacted in a statement, “The NYAG’s actions are an affront to democracy and freedom. This is an unconstitutional, premeditated attack aiming to dismantle and destroy the NRA — the fiercest defender of America’s freedom at the ballot box for decades.”

He added, “The NRA is well governed, financially solvent, and committed to good governance. We’re ready for the fight. Bring it on.”

The same morning, D.C. Attorney General Karl Rancine announced his own attack on the NRA — going after the organization along with its affiliated foundation further alleging misappropriation of funds.

The lawsuit is asking a court to appoint someone to “monitor all Foundational financial decisions and transactions” and to “impose a constructive trust, for the benefit of the Foundation, over Foundation funds improperly diverted to the NRA in violation of District Law and the Foundation’s nonprofit purpose.”

According to a press release put out by Rancine’s office:

In 2017, the NRA Foundation’s board approved a $5 million loan request from the NRA, despite awareness of the NRA’s financial problems. In 2018, the NRA requested a second $5 million loan, which the Foundation’s Board also approved. Later, the Board also granted repeated requests to extend and modify loan terms in ways that benefitted the NRA and harmed the Foundation—including a change that allowed the NRA to repay other debt before it repaid the Foundation. As of August 2020, the NRA still owes the Foundation $5 million.

The NRA tweeted Thursday night, “From our cold, dead hands.”

Anything else?

The NRA has been a frequent target of progressive politicians pushing for gun control, but the organization has also faced several internal problems in recent years.

WRC-TV reported:

There has been an ongoing factional war within organization, pitting some of its most ardent gun-rights supporters and loyalists against one another. The NRA has traded lawsuits with Ackerman McQueen, which crafted some of its most prominent messages for decades, eventually severing ties with it last year and scrapping its controversial NRA-TV, which aired many of its most controversial messages.

The internal battles reached a fevered pitch at its 2019 annual meeting where its then-president, Oliver North, was denied a traditional second term amid a tussle with LaPierre as he sought to independently review the NRA’s expenses and operations. He accused LaPierre of exerting “dictatorial” control.

Chris Cox, the NRA’s longtime lobbyist and widely viewed as a likely successor to LaPierre, left after being accused of working behind the scenes with North to undermine LaPierre.

expensive Intelwars Lawsuit protective gear Protesters Seattle

Protesters sue Seattle, claiming they need ‘expensive’ protective gear to demonstrate safely

A group of protesters has filed a lawsuit against the city of Seattle, claiming the police department’s anti-riot tactics have forced demonstrators to buy prohibitively “expensive” protective gear in order to continue to enjoy their First Amendment rights.

What are the details?

KIRO-TV reported that the suit was filed Monday “on behalf of five protesters who attended the July 25 protest on Capitol Hill that police later declared a riot, seek[ing] an order from a judge to stop the city from using controversial tactics on protesters, including blast balls and pepper spray.”

“Because protestors now must purchase expensive equipment to be assured that they will be able to protest safely,” the filing claims, “the indiscriminate use of weapons by [the Seattle Police Department] implicates equal protection.”

It went to on say that “each of the Plaintiffs was unable to protest for a period of time for want of additional gear necessitated by SPD’s unmitigated and indiscriminate tactics utilized without restraint.”

The plaintiffs further argue that “the continued misuse of war munitions by SPD against civilians turns the streets — a public forum and site of protest — into a pay-to-protest racket where only a privileged few who are wealthy enough or popular enough to crowdsource funds to purchase gear akin to that used by the police department they fund can truly be in the streets.”

Fox News reported that some of the items listed as necessary protest gear “included boots, gloves, helmets and gas masks.”

The Seattle City Council is currently considering plans to slash its police spending by at least 50%, a prospect that was not lost on the plaintiffs who declared, “It is chilling to the bone that this quelling is occurring at the hands of SPD — the agency whose very existence is being challenged, its funding debated this week.”

The Seattle City Attorney’s Office issued a statement to KIRO in reaction to the suit, saying they would look into the claims. The plaintiffs are asking for a judge to order the city to cease using certain “less-lethal weapons to control and suppress demonstrations,” and to pay for the protesters’ costs associated with filing the lawsuit.

Anything else?

Seattle descended into chaos as part of the nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in late May, and part of the city became occupied and turned into what was known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

The police department abandoned its precinct in the area for weeks, leading to delays in responding to calls over several blocks. Multiple people were shot and at least one person was killed during the cop-free CHOP take-over, but police were eventually able to dismantle the encampment, arresting dozens of demonstrators.

Convention Intelwars Lawsuit Mayor sylvester turner sue Texas gop

Texas GOP sues Democratic Houston mayor for canceling their convention

The Republican Party of Texas has filed a lawsuit against Democratic Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, saying he singled them out and shut down their gathering out of political motivation.

What are the details?

The Texas GOP was notified Wednesday that they could no longer hold their convention slated for next week in Houston, after the mayor instructed the city’s legal department to coordinate with the venue’s owner, Houston First Corporation, to scrap its contract for the gathering over coronavirus fears.

Republicans called Turner’s move “a political stunt,” and accused him of hypocrisy given the mayor’s participation in George Floyd protests involving thousands of people weeks earlier.

The next day, the party filed a lawsuit against Turner, the City of Houston, Houston First Corporation, and its CEO seeking a court order allowing the in-person convention to go on as planned. If the court does not respond in time and the event is still canceled, the plaintiffs are seeking $1 million in damages.

In a statement explaining the legal action, the Republican Party of Texas stated:

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner’s use of the Force Majeure clause is just a pretext to his intent to treat the Republican Party of Texas differently than other groups, such as those we have seen from recent protests in the city of Houston. It should go without saying that a political viewpoint cannot be the basis for unequal treatment. Mayor Turner publicly stated his intention to interrupt the convention process and disenfranchise Republicans around the state, and yesterday he put his scheme into action.

The lawsuit argues that “mere pandemic is not sufficient to warrant cancellation of the Convention,” and “the Convention is an exercise of the fundamental right of Freedom of Assembly” under the Constitution.

Mayor Turner stated on Twitter:

No one wanted to politicize the decision to cancel the (Republican) convention. The medical association, Greater Houston Partnership, and their sponsors wrote letters asking the party to cancel their in-person convention and make it virtual.

The public health concern for our first responders, convention workers, and those who would have attended weighed heavily in our decision making. Houston is in the midst of a global health crisis and we are doing everything in our power to combat #COVID19.

In regards to comparing the marches and protests to the convention: ‘If people want to march from (venue) George R. Brown to City Hall, that’s your right. It’s a different thing when you’re taking (sic) about an indoor convention and people are in close proximity.’

The mayor added, “When people are marching or demonstrating, they are walking, they are moving. Nobody is making their breakfast or serving them. If you want to march and protest, you are assuming responsibility for yourself and those around you.”

Intelwars Lady a Lady antebellum Lawsuit trademark

Band formerly known as Lady Antebellum sues black singer Lady A after taking her name

The country group formerly known as Lady Antebellum changed their name to Lady A last month, apologizing for “the hurt” caused by their original band moniker due to its association with “the period of history before the Civil War, which includes slavery.”

But a black gospel and blues artist, Anita White—who has used the stage name Lady A for decades—protested over Lady Antebellum’s decision to hijack her brand. Now, the country group is suing White to be sure they can perform as Lady A without her claiming trademark infringement.

What are the details?

The group Lady A, comprised of members Dave Haywood, Hillary Scott, and Charles Kelley, said in a statement Wednesday:

Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended. She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years. It was a stirring in our hearts and reflection on our own blindspots that led us to announce a few weeks ago that we were dropping the word ‘Antebellum’ from our name and moving forward using only the name so many of our fans already knew us by.

According to the lawsuit obtained by Pitchfork, the band holds federally registered trademarks for the brand names “Lady Antebellum” and “Lady A,” and the group “started using ‘Lady A’ as a source indicator for their goods and services as early as 2006-2007.”

It also noted that “prior to 2020, White did not challenge, in any way, Plaintiffs’ open, obvious, and widespread nationwide and international use of the LADY A mark as a source indicator for Plaintiffs’ recorded, downloadable, and streaming music and videos, Plaintiffs’ lives musical performances, or Plaintiffs’ sale of souvenir merchandise.”

White told KING-TV last month that she holds a business trademark for Lady A LLC, and she was furious about Lady Antebellum’s decision to go by the same name she had used for so many years without asking her first.

“I can’t imagine that they could go on Google and not see me there, you can go on Spotify and see me, go on Amazon and see me,” White said.

She added, “To totally disregard the fact that there is another Lady A out there, or is the Lady A, because I am, and have been for over 30 years, I don’t understand how they would not reach out to me, and say something at least.”

The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages in their lawsuit against White, and they are not attempting to prevent White from continuing to perform under the name Lady A.

After the lawsuit was announced on Wednesday, the blues singer Lady A tweeted, “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”

2020 presidential election democratic party Hillary Clinton Intelwars Lawsuit Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard drops $50 million defamation suit against Hillary Clinton

Former Democratic presidential hopeful U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) on Wednesday dropped her defamation suit against former Secretary of State and onetime Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Reuters reported.

Gabbard filed the suit in federal court against the Democratic powerbroker in January seeking at least $50 million for remarks Clinton made saying the congresswoman was a “favorite” of Moscow who was being “groomed” by the Kremlin, and reportedly implying that she is a “Russian asset.”

Gabbard and her campaign filed a notice of dismissal, Reuters said, saying they “remain certain of the action’s legal merit” but they wanted to focus on the current coronavirus pandemic and “defeating Donald Trump in 2020, rather than righting the wrongs here.”

What was the suit about?

The lawsuit claimed that Clinton “carelessly and recklessly impugned” Gabbard’s reputation during an October podcast interview

The lawsuit began:

Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain. In October 2019—whether out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated—Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard. She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent. Tulsi has been harmed by Clinton’s lies—and American democracy has suffered as well. With this action, Tulsi seeks to hold Clinton, and the political elites who enable her, accountable for distorting the truth in the middle of a critical Presidential election.

“[I]n October 2019, she sought retribution by lying, publicly and loudly, about Tulsi Gabbard,” the suit continued. “Specifically, in widely disseminated national comments, Clinton falsely stated that Tulsi — an Army National Guard officer and United States Congresswoman who has spent her entire adult life serving this country — is a ‘Russian asset.’ Clinton’s false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi’s presidential campaign.”

The interview in question was one Clinton gave on the “Campaign HQ” podcast with host Davie Plouffe. During it, she indicated that Moscow was “grooming” Gabbard for a spoiler campaign.

“They’re also going to do third-party again,” Clinton told Plouffe. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Asked if she was referring to Gabbard, Clinton responded, “If the nesting doll fits.”

What about Jill Stein?

Clinton added that the attempt to get a Democrat to run third party would happen only if the Russians didn’t use 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein to accomplish the same thing.

“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton said. “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

Team Clinton called the suit “ridiculous.”

And now it is suddenly gone.

5G biological health cell phone service Debate Effects Environment Farragut Headline News installaton Intelwars Laws Lawsuit Ordinance Resolutions Safety Sick Tennessee Transmission Verizon

Farragut, TN Passes Resolution to Stop 5G Installation Until FCC Limits Ensure Safety

This article was originally published by B.N. Frank at Activist Post. 

People worldwide – including elected officials – are opposed to 5G being installed in their communities because of risks to biological health, cybersecurity (see 123), environmental health (see 1234), privacy (see 12), safety, and more.  Many cities and countries have taken action including banning it, filing lawsuits, issuing moratoriums, passing ordinances and resolutions, etc. (see 123456).  This now includes Farragut, TN.

From Environmental Health Trust:

The Farragut Tennessee Resolution on 5G

Farragut Tennessee has approved a resolution calling on state and federal governments to halt 5G until health risks are evaluated by “sound science.”  The resolution details how FCC limits are outdated and considered inadequate to protect human health by many scientists. (EHT maintains research on 5G, 4G and wireless radiation HERE.)

“The measure asks governments to halt 5G infrastructure until the FCC conducts an independent study into any possible health risks posed by the technology.”- WBIR Farragut leaders call on state, federal governments for a halt to 5G towers

Excerpts from the 5G Resolution

WHEREAS, as the result of the concerns of numerous local governmental entities from around the country and their citizens that the FCC has failed to study and reevaluate the health effects of its current standards in light of the inherent changes characterized by the 5G technology, litigation is pending against the FCC that seeks to stop the rapid deployment of the 5G infrastructure until the FCC has completed its study of the health effects of the deployment of 5G technology and, if necessary, has updated its regulations accordingly.

NOW, THEREFORE, by the adoption of this Resolution the Board of Mayor and Alderman of the Town of Farragut, Tennessee petitions and encourages the governments of the United States of America and the State of Tennessee to take actions within their power to halt the deployment of the 5G wireless facilities within the rights-of-way of our local communities belonging to the public until such time as the only agency with the authority to do so, the FCC, reevaluates by an independent study the adequacy of its radio frequency emissions standards and concludes on the basis of sound science that those standards, or standards adopted as a result of said further study, are adequate to ensure that the health of the public at large will not be adversely affected by long-term exposure to radiofrequency emissions from the placement and operation of 5G wireless facilities throughout our communities

See a PDF of  the Farragut Tennessee 5G Resolution

Farragut Tennessee is one of several US cities taking action on the issue of 5G

Hallandale Beach Florida and Greendale Wisconsin have also passed 5G resolutions.

In April 2020 Sandy Springs Orders Stop Work Order for 5G Poles. “Upon hearing that subcontractors were approaching homeowners during this time of a national pandemic crisis, the city has issued a Stop Work Order on all installation in [residential] neighborhoods until the end of [the] pandemic crisis,” city spokesperson Sharon Kraun said. The installation of poles had already been controversial, with the city and residents critiquing them, but the city has failed to be able to block the installation locally due to state law.”

In March 2020, Keene New Hampshire halted 5G. “The council unanimously approved a separate motion, instructing staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance that would create location and design standards for small wireless facilities installed in public rights-of-way. Also known as small cells, these facilities can be used to roll out 5G, the next generation of mobile networks that boasts faster download and upload speeds, as well as previous generations.”

March 2020: Santa Barbara California Paused 5G. “Facing a gathering storm of opposition from anti-radiation activists worried about the health effects of the new 5G cellular technology, the Santa Barbara City Council voted to delay authorizing a licensing agreement with Verizon that would have allowed the cell phone service giant to install up to 60 new 5G cell phone antennas on light fixtures downtown.”

Actions by US Cities to Restrict “Small Cells” and/or 5G with ordinances include: 

  • Los Altos California:  installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential neighborhoods is prohibited.
  • Petaluma, California, no Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence.
  • Fairfax and Mill Valley California, small cells prohibited in residential zones
  • San Diego County, no small cells located within 1,000 feet of schools, child care centers, hospitals, or churches.
  • Mason, Ohio, No small cells in residential areas or within 100 feet of residential property
  • Burlington, Massachusetts, annual recertification fees for small cells.
  • Baton Rouge, Small cell deployment halted.

See a full compilation of the US Cities issuing ordinances to slow the densification of 4/5G Antennas at this link – USA Cities on 5G Small Cells Action.

Since 2018, there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G was turned on (see 1234).  Thanks to these organizations for providing updated resources for Americans fighting 5G deployment:

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom history.  Despite opposition and warnings, they are using the pandemic as an excuse to speed up 5G installation (see 123456).  This includes launching tens of thousands of satellites with millions of antennas to blast 5G and WiFi at us from space (see 123).  Lawsuits have been filed against them for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation (see 12) and 5G (see 123).

Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology.  For more information, visit our archives.

Campus college students Coronavirus Education Intelwars Lawsuit

College students are not happy with the education they’re paying for during the pandemic, so they’re suing their schools to get their money back

When the coronavirus pandemic hit, colleges across the nation sent students packing, telling them to get off campus. The schools vowed to the students that shortly they would resume classes, but only in an online format. The students didn’t need to fear: The education would be just about as good.

Well, students from more than 25 U.S. universities are calling balderdash on their colleges’ promises and are now suing the schools to get at least part of their tuition and fees back, the Associated Press reported Monday.

Why? The students say they are not getting the quality of education the universities promised when the whole COVID-19 crisis hit.

What’s happening?

According to the AP, at least 26 colleges are being targeted with class-action lawsuits demanding tuition refunds. The schools include wealthy private schools — such as Drexel, Vanderbilt, Brown, Cornell, and Columbia — and large public universities like Michigan State, Purdue, the University of Colorado, and the University of California, Berkeley.

The students say they are frustrated with the online classes that schools “scrambled to create” when the campuses closed, the AP said. The suits state that students should pay lower tuition rates for the part of the year that was moved to online-only, saying that the quality of the education has gone way down.

One student who filed a suit against Drexel University told the AP that the online courses have little interaction with professors — and some are even pre-recorded and offer zero discussion.

A lawsuit against Cal-Berkeley, the AP reported, says professors are just uploading assignments without providing any video component.

The schools, of course, disagree, saying no refunds are in order because students are still learning form the same professors and are still earning credits that count for their degrees.

The AP cited one school spokesman, Ken McConnellogue of the University of Colorado, who said that not only are the lawsuits disappointing, considering they are coming just weeks into the pandemic, but also the suits look like they are being pushed by some “opportunistic” law firms.

The AP pointed out that some of the suits do “draw attention to schools’ large financial reserves, saying colleges are unfairly withholding refunds even while they rest on endowments that often surpass $1 billion.”

Lawyers for the students said that it’s all about fairness and giving the money back to the families that need it. From the AP:

“You cannot keep money for services and access if you aren’t actually providing it,” said Roy Willey, a lawyer for the Anastopoulo Law Firm in South Carolina, which is representing students in more than a dozen cases. “If we’re truly going to be all in this together, the universities have to tighten their belts and refund the money back to students and families who really need it.”

Willey said his office has received hundreds of inquiries from students looking to file suits, and his firm is looking into dozens of possible cases. Other firms taking on similar cases say they’re also seeing a wave of demand from students and parents who say they deserve refunds.

When combined with the demands for refunds for student fees covering things like gyms, labs, and libraries, schools are looking at complaints seeking several thousand dollars per student.

Coronavirus death toll Coronavirus Pandemic Fox News Hannity Hannity tonight Intelwars Joe joyce Lawsuit New York Times Sean hannit... Sean Hannity Sean hannity nytimes Sean hannity versus nyt The New York Times

Hannity demanded a retraction of a coronavirus article and the New York Times just responded

The New York Times responded Tuesday to a demand from Sean Hannity to retract claims made against him in their article about coronavirus and apologize.

“The columns are accurate, do not reasonably imply what you and Mr. Hannity allege they do, and constitute protected opinion,” wrote David E. McCraw, the attorney representing the New York Times.

“In response to your request for an apology and retraction, our answer is ‘no,’ ” he concludes.

Hannity’s lawyers threatened to sue the Times over an article published on April 18 documenting the death of Joe Joyce from coronavirus.

The family of Joyce say that he was warned not to go on a cruise during the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, but that he ignored the warnings because of the news broadcasts on Fox News downplaying the threat.

One of those cited was a segment by Sean Hannity.

On Monday, Hannity sent a demand from his lawyers that they apologize and retract the story because his report was chronologically a week after Joyce decided to go on the cruise.

“We demand that you promptly remove the foregoing false and defamatory statements from the Stories and any subsequent republications in print or any other medium, and publish a full, fair and conspicuous retraction, correction and apology as to each of the false and defamatory statements identified above,” read the letter from Hannity.

In 2017 Hannity threatened to sue former President Barack Obama with the “biggest lawsuit” possible over reports that he had been incidentally surveilled as part of the investigation into Russian election interference.

Here’s Hannity on the New York Times feud:

Hannity demands retraction, apology from the New York Times

chicago Hoax Intelwars Jussie smollett Lawsuit Police

Actor Jussie Smollett’s malicious prosecution lawsuit against city of Chicago dismissed by federal judge

Jussie Smollett — indicted two months ago on charges that he lied to police about a racist and homophobic attack against him last year which authorities accused the former “Empire” actor of staging — has experienced another setback.

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed Smollett’s lawsuit against the city of Chicago and several police officers, which claimed he was the victim of a malicious prosecution that caused him humiliation and extreme distress, the Associated Press reported.

What’s the background?

Smollett was arrested and charged with felony disorderly conduct in February 2019 for filing a false police report stemming from his claim that he was the victim of a racist, homophobic attack by masked men who yelled “MAGA country” — a reference to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” — and put a noose around his neck and poured liquid on him that smelled like bleach. Smollett is gay.

Image source: Chicago Police Department

The alleged attack took place on a Chicago street at 2 a.m. Jan. 29, 2019, amid near-zero temperatures. No video of the alleged attack has been found.

Former Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson brutally took Smollett to task after his arrest, saying the actor “took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career.”

Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images

A grand jury in early March 2019 indicted Smollett with 16 counts of disorderly conduct in connection with the staged-attack allegations. But a few weeks later, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office abruptly dropped all the charges against Smollett.

Then-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel angrily blasted the move, calling it “not on the level.” It also was widely reported that Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the Smollett case after rumblings that she interfered in the investigation — but then it came to light that she never actually recused herself at all.

Zbigniew Bzdak/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Former U.S. attorney Dan Webb was appointed last August by Cook County Judge Michael Toomin to investigate why Smollett’s charges were dropped. Toomin noted prior to appointing Webb that “the unprecedented irregularities identified in this case warrants the appointment of independent counsel to restore the public’s confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system.”

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall in October denied a request from Smollett’s lawyers to dismiss the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the actor to recoup $130,000 it spent investigating his attack claims. But Smollett filed a countersuit in November alleging that a “malicious prosecution” caused him a variety of issues such as “humiliation, mental anguish, and extreme emotional distress.”

In February, Webb said he’s moving forward with prosecuting Smollett after a Cook County grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging the actor with making four separate false reports to Chicago police officers “related to his false claims that he was the victim of a hate crime, knowing that he was not the victim of a crime.”

Finally, on Wednesday, Kendall ruled that Smollett can’t bring his malicious prosecution claim until all proceedings against him have ended, the AP said. She also said the motive of Chicago police was bringing Smollett to justice “for a crime it had probable cause to think he committed,” the outlet noted.

Anything else?

A week ago it was reported that Smollett had a sexual relationship with his one of his alleged attackers and visited an upscale bathhouse with him.

According to a Page Six story, a source told the New York Post that Smollett and his alleged attacker Abimbola “Abel” Osundairo engaged in sexual relations and even visited a Chicago bathhouse for the elite.

“They used to party together and he had a sexual relationship with [Abel],” an insider told the Post. “They went to this affluent Chicago bathhouse multiple times and they had to show ID. It’s known as a bathhouse where a lot of affluent black gay men hang out. There should be a record of [their visits].”

California Church and State Church services Churches Coronavirus Coronavirus america Drive-in church services First Amendment Gavin Newsom Governor Intelwars Lawsuit religious freedom Shelter-in-place orders social distancing Stay at home

California now will allow drive-in church services amid coronavirus shelter-in-place order, reversing course after lawsuit

California has reversed course and now is allowing drive-in church services amid coronavirus shelter-in-place orders, KMPH-TV reported.

What are the details?

The policy change came after a lawsuit from the Center for American Liberty and its request for a temporary restraining order, the station said.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra responded by agreeing that since cars are “technology,” drive-in church services should be allowed under the state’s shelter-in-place rule, KMPH said.

The caveat is that drive-in church service participants must continue to follow social distancing guidelines, the station said.

“The state does not get to dictate the method of worship to the faithful,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, chief executive officer for the Center for American Liberty, said in a statement at the time of the lawsuit. “If a Californian is able to go to Costco or the local marijuana shop or liquor store and buy goods in a responsible, socially distanced manner, then he or she must be allowed to practice their faith using the same precautions.”

After the policy change, Dhillon called it “heartening progress for our clients, and all Californians. But while this is a step in the right direction, it is still not enough.”

More from Dhillon:

“The state is still holding houses of worship to a different standard,” explained Dhillon. “[Attorney General William] Barr’s statement on Tuesday was clear, states cannot have two sets of restrictions — those that apply to churches and the more relaxed standards that apply to other entities. The State’s orders still do not define worship as an essential activity that permits travel in California, even while at the same time the state is now saying drive-in worship is permissible. The orders are riddled with contradictory and confusing language.”

“Even after these policy changes, houses of worship are still very limited in their permissible activities. Many of these activities provide immeasurable societal good, be it delivering food to the elderly, hosting addiction support groups, providing spiritual comfort and counseling for Californians in crisis, and so many other essential services,” explained Dhillon.

Barr last week warned state authorities that social distancing mandates do not give them the right to restrict religious organizations more than nonreligious ones.

“We intend to pursue this case until all Californians are restored the full free exercise of religion guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution,” Dhillon added.

Anything else?

In Mississippi, a controversy over drive-in church services was resolved last week after the Democratic mayor of Greenville backed down from his executive order banning such services. Errick D. Simmons’ change of heart happened after uproar and lawsuits earlier this month after city police officers handed out $500 tickets to members of Temple Baptist Church who stayed in their vehicles with their windows up in the church parking lot to listen to their pastor’s radio sermon.

(H/T: LifeSite News)

Church Church services Coronavirus Coronavirus america Death Threats First Amendment Intelwars Lawsuit Mississippi religious freedom social distancing Stay at home

After lawsuits, uproar over $500 tickets for church members listening to radio sermon in church parking lot, mayor has come-to-Jesus moment

When Errick D. Simmons become mayor of Greenville, Mississippi, in 2016, he looked to keep God at the center of his administration by promoting a faith-based initiative called “Worship on the Water” to bring residents together.

“Psalm 100 demands us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord,” Simmons said, according to his page on the city’s website. “On the fifth Sunday of every month, residents and citizens come and worship at the water on our levee front to make a joyful noise together in corporate worship. Folks are not restricted by the color of their skin nor confined by their churches’ addresses. We come to exalt God as one community.”

But these days the noise around Simmons has been anything but joyful.

Church attendance restrictions

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, Simmons issued an executive order last week closing all Greenville church buildings for both in-person and drive-in services.

“It’s all about trying to save lives,” the mayor told the Delta Democrat-Times. “If people continue to gather, it’s going to spread.”

Well, the day after Simmons’ executive order, folks showed up to the parking lot of Temple Baptist Church in Greenville and listened to Pastor Arthur Scott’s sermon on the radio in their cars.

Lee Gordon — a 23-year member of the church as well as a representative for the Washington County Board of Supervisors — told the Democrat-Times he and his wife were among those gathered in the church parking lot, and they figured everybody was abiding by coronavirus social distancing guidelines given they were in their cars with the windows rolled up.

But that wasn’t the case. Gordon told the paper he and his wife were both issued $500 tickets.

‘Somewhere right now in the city of Greenville, real crime is going on’

Another Temple Baptist church member recorded video of police issuing tickets in the parking lot.

“Somewhere right now in the city of Greenville, real crime is going on,” the man said from behind the wheel of his vehicle. “They got half of the police squad at Temple Baptist Church. Seventy- and 80-year-old people … most of them never even had a speeding ticket. But this is a better use of Greenville’s resources.”

Image source: YouTube screenshot

The man recording the video got a ticket, too.

Image source: YouTube screenshot

“Just handed a ticket by a man with no gloves. He gave me an ink pen to sign it …,” he said, adding that he and other church members were “complying 100% with the governor’s ordinance on COVID-19. And they come and force us not to comply. They force us to make human contact. Your city dollars at work for you.”

Here’s the video:

Police Raid Drive-In Church Service for Elderly, Issue Fines to Entire Congregation


In the wake of the $500 ticket incident, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit last Friday saying the order banning church services is unconstitutional, the Associated Press reported.

Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General William Barr warned state authorities that social distancing mandates do not include the right to restrict religious organizations more than nonreligious ones. First Liberty Institute also filed a lawsuit against Greenville, the AP said.

Simmons also told the outlet he’s received death threats.

A change of heart

Finally the Democratic mayor said Monday the city wouldn’t make people pay the $500 tickets but that he wanted Republican Gov. Tate Reeves to give clear guidance about how his statewide stay-at-home order affects religious services, the AP said.

Reeves has said during public appearances in the last two weeks that he doesn’t believe government can ban religious services, but he’s also asked pastors and other religious leaders to hold worship services online rather than in person, the outlet added.

Simmons said Reeves provided clear guidance about worship services Wednesday during a call with mayors, the AP said.

“The governor stated today … for the very first time that drive-in church services where families stay in their cars with windows up are safe,” he said.

With that, Simmons said people may attend drive-in church services but must keep their windows up, the outlet said, adding that he also said churches may allow up to 10 people at a time in a building for worship services shown online or carried on TV or radio, as long as those inside the church follow public health guidelines to maintain a safe distance from one another.

During a news conference Wednesday, Reeves criticized the fact that Greenville police made motorists roll down their windows at drive-in church services to receive their tickets, the AP reported.

“The actions taken by an over-burdensome government actually put more people at risk,” he said.

Coronavirus Gretchen Whitmer Intelwars Lawsuit Michigan orders

Gov. Whitmer hit with multiple lawsuits from Michigan residents over ‘draconian’ pandemic orders

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer(D) has been hit with at least two federal lawsuits from residents pushing back on what they say are “draconian” mandates during the coronavirus pandemic, with one attorney likening her actions to “taking a sledge hammer to an ant.”

What are the details?

Reuters reported that separate complaints were filed in federal court on Tuesday and Wednesday wherein “several Michigan residents and one business accused the Democratic governor of violating their constitutional rights by imposing her ‘Stay Home, Stay Safe’ order.”

The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s lawsuit claimed they “reasonably fear that the draconian encroachments on their freedom set forth in this complaint will, unfortunately, become the ‘new norm.'”

David Helm, an attorney who represents four of the plaintiffs suing Whitmer, told WJBK-TV of the governor’s executive order, “It’s like taking a sledge hammer to an ant. We believe it is over-broad and over-reaching. There is a way to do it appropriately without infringing on Constitutional rights like the governor has.”

Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders go far beyond what most governors have issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are some of the most stringent measures in the nation — barring Michiganders from purchasing seeds for planting and even banning travel between households.

Along with the lawsuits, Whitmer has faced major pushback for her policies. A petition has been launched to have her recalled, thousands of demonstrators surrounded the Capitol building in Lansing in protest of her mandates earlier this week, and several county sheriffs in the state announced they would not strictly enforce her policies saying she was “overstepping her executive authority.”

Anything else?

For better or worse, the attention surrounding Whitmer’s orders has gained her national name recognition to the point that she is now being floated by pundits as a possible vice presidential pick of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.