lawsuit

DNA Force Plus

Limited Advanced Release

149.95

74.98

With one of our most advanced formulas yet, DNA Force Plus is finally here. Focusing on overhauling your body’s cellular engines and protecting them from reactive oxygen species, DNA Force Plus has one of the best combinations of antioxidants on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dna-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=byhxx&utm_campaign=Widget+-+DNA+Force+Plus+-+33%25+Off+-+Finally+Back&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-33%25off

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=byhxx&utm_campaign=Widget+-+DNA+Force+Plus+-+33%25+Off+-+Finally+Back&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-33%25off

DNA Force Plus

149.95

74.98

With one of our most advanced formulas yet, DNA Force Plus is finally here. Focusing on overhauling your body’s cellular engines and protecting them from reactive oxygen species, DNA Force Plus has one of the best combinations of antioxidants on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dna-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=byhxx&utm_campaign=Widget+-+DNA+Force+Plus+-+33%25+Off+-+Finally+Back&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-33%25off

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=byhxx&utm_campaign=Widget+-+DNA+Force+Plus+-+33%25+Off+-+Finally+Back&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-33%25off

DNA Force Plus

149.95

74.98

With one of our most advanced formulas yet, DNA Force Plus is finally here. Focusing on overhauling your body’s cellular engines and protecting them from reactive oxygen species, DNA Force Plus has one of the best combinations of antioxidants on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dna-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=byhxx&utm_campaign=Widget+-+DNA+Force+Plus+-+33%25+Off+-+Finally+Back&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-33%25off

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=byhxx&utm_campaign=Widget+-+DNA+Force+Plus+-+33%25+Off+-+Finally+Back&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-33%25off

BodEase

59.95

29.95

This is the ultimate turmeric and inflammatory support product on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bodease-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/bodease.html?ims=vafom&utm_campaign=IW+Bodease+50%25+Off+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-Bodease-50%25-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/bodease.html?ims=vafom&utm_campaign=IW+Bodease+50%25+Off+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-Bodease-50%25-Widget

BodEase

59.95

29.95

This is the ultimate turmeric and inflammatory support product on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bodease-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/bodease.html?ims=vafom&utm_campaign=IW+Bodease+50%25+Off+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-Bodease-50%25-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/bodease.html?ims=vafom&utm_campaign=IW+Bodease+50%25+Off+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-Bodease-50%25-Widget

BodEase

59.95

29.95

This is the ultimate turmeric and inflammatory support product on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bodease-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/bodease.html?ims=vafom&utm_campaign=IW+Bodease+50%25+Off+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-Bodease-50%25-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/bodease.html?ims=vafom&utm_campaign=IW+Bodease+50%25+Off+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-Bodease-50%25-Widget

Source: InfoWars

FILE PHOTO: General view of the Danske Bank building in Copenhagen
FILE PHOTO: General view of the Danske Bank building in Copenhagen, Denmark, September 27, 2018. REUTERS/Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen/File Photo

March 19, 2019

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – Two U.S. law firms have filed a lawsuit on behalf of institutional investors against Danske Bank over a 200 billion euro ($227 billion) money laundering scandal.

Shareholder law firms Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and DRRT filed the lawsuit in Copenhagen on behalf of investors from 19 countries, “asserting fraud claims stemming from a massive Russian money-laundering scheme and multi-year cover-up by Denmark’s largest bank and its senior leadership.”

The group seeks $475 million in damages, Grant & Eisenhofer said in a statement dated March 18.

Danske Bank was not immediately available for a comment

(Reporting by Stine Jacobsen, editing by Louise Heavens)

Source: OANN

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk attends the Tesla Shanghai Gigafactory groundbreaking ceremony in Shanghai
FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk attends the Tesla Shanghai Gigafactory groundbreaking ceremony in Shanghai, China January 7, 2019. REUTERS/Aly Song

March 19, 2019

(Reuters) – A tweet about Tesla Inc production targets by Elon Musk was “a blatant violation” of a court order to get his written communications pre-approved, U.S. securities regulators told a judge on Monday, doubling down on the government’s demand to find the Tesla CEO in contempt of a previous fraud settlement.

The Securities and Exchange Commission wrote in a filing in federal court in Manhattan that Musk’s Feb. 19 tweet to his more than 24 million Twitter followers claiming the electric vehicle-maker would build around 500,000 cars in 2019 contained or could have contained information material to Tesla or its shareholders.

The ongoing public battle between Tesla’s chief executive and the top U.S. securities regulator adds pressure on Musk, the public face of Tesla, who is struggling to make the company profitable after cutting the price of its Model 3 sedan to $35,000.

The regulator last month alleged that Musk had violated a September settlement of fraud charges by tweeting material information about Tesla without pre-approval from the company.

In response, Musk had argued that his “single, immaterial” tweet was in compliance with the settlement, and that the SEC’s push to find him in contempt infringed on his free speech..

The fraud settlement between Musk, Tesla and the SEC resolved a lawsuit brought by the regulator over claims Musk made on Twitter in August that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share. The SEC called those tweets “false and misleading” and a go-private deal never materialized.

As part of that settlement, Musk stepped down as the company’s chairman and he and Tesla agreed to pay $20 million each in fines.

He also agreed to submit written communications that could materially impact Tesla for pre-approval to the company before publishing them.

“It is therefore stunning to learn that, at the time of filing of the instant motion, Musk had not sought pre-approval for a single one of the numerous tweets about Tesla he published in the months since the court-ordered pre-approval policy went into effect,” the SEC said in Monday’s filing.

Tesla has backed off a plan to close all its U.S. stores and said it will instead raise prices of its higher-end vehicles by about 3 percent on average. Last week, Tesla unveiled its Model Y crossover SUV, targeted to begin production in 2020.

Musk called the regulator the “Shortseller Enrichment Commission” on Twitter after the settlement, and tweeted that “something is broken with SEC oversight” just one day after the agency started pursuing the contempt order.

Legal experts have said the SEC could pursue multiple avenues, including a higher fine, imposing further restrictions on Musk’s activities or removing him from Tesla’s board or helm.

Tesla published a new communications policy in December for senior executives as part of the settlement. It called for Tesla’s general counsel and a newly designated in-house securities law attorney to pre-approve any written statements about Tesla that could be material.

A disclosure controls committee, made up of board members Brad Buss, Antonio Gracias and James Murdoch, was tasked with overseeing compliance with the new policy.

The case is U.S. SEC v Elon Musk, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:18-cv-8865-AJN-GWG

(Reporting by Alexandria Sage in San Francisco; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Source: OANN

Neetu Chandak | Education and Politics Reporter

A Virginia student accused of sexual misconduct said Fairfax County Public Schools treated male students “disproportionately harsher” than female students in sexual harassment cases.

The 18-year-old male student, referred to as “John Doe” in the lawsuit, said the district violated his free speech, due process rights and did not investigate the situation properly. Doe was suspended and sent to a different school, according to the lawsuit given to The Daily Caller News Foundation by attorney Jesse Binnall.

A Robinson Secondary School female accused two male students of sexual harassment after her buttocks were allegedly slapped in December 2018. Surveillance video reportedly showed Doe did not hit the female student, according to the lawsuit.

Doe befriended the female student who was new to the school.

“Doe and Student A had classes together and would see each other at school outside of class,” the lawsuit said. “Doe flirted with Student A, which included friendly conversations, putting his arm around her and playfully poking her in class. Student A did not reject these overtures. In fact, she would often seek out Doe’s company and return his flirtations.”

The lawsuit claims the female student “colluded” with her friends to make false statements and the assistant principal was allegedly “seeking evidence that was inculpatory and ignored exculpatory evidence,” according to the lawsuit.

Binnall told TheDCNF one of the witnesses changed her story.

“If a male student and female student are both engaged in mutual sexual contact or touching on school grounds, it is common for the male student to be punished and for the female student not to be punished, based on gender,” the lawsuit said.

Pictured is a hand on a shoulder. SHUTTERSTOCK/Andrey_Popov

Pictured is a hand on a shoulder. SHUTTERSTOCK/Andrey_Popov

Doe’s punishment could affect his college wrestling scholarship and entry to a “prestigious” university unless his record gets cleaned by a judge, The Washington Post reported Sunday. A hearing is expected March 22. (RELATED: Education Department’s Budget Proposal Includes First Ever Teacher Voucher Program)

“He was never given a fair shot to make his case to prove that he was innocent in a school district that doesn’t even have a presumption of innocence,” Binnall said to TheDCNF.

John Torre, a spokesman for FCPS, would not comment on the specifics of the case to WaPo, but said the school district “thoroughly investigates all allegations of Title IX violations and takes action, where appropriate.”

Title IX does not allow sex-based discrimination to education programs receiving federal funding. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed sweeping changes to Title IX to clarify students’ rights and schools’ legal obligations in November 2018.

FCPS is dealing with two other federal lawsuits over mishandling of sexual allegation cases, according to WaPo.

The district is the 10th largest in the U.S. and serves more than 187,000 students.

Robinson Secondary principal Matt Eline could not provide comment on the case.

FCPS did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Follow Neetu on Twitter

Send tips to: neetu@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: The Daily Caller

Evie Fordham | Politics and Health Care Reporter

Republican California Rep. Devin Nunes filed suit against Twitter and some Twitter users Monday for $250 million in compensatory damages, alleging the social media platform engaged in “shadow-banning conservatives.”

“Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon,” Nunes’ legal team wrote in the filing. “Twitter is ‘responsible’ for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content.”

The lawsuit alleges defamation, conspiracy and negligence, reported Fox News. It also seeks an “injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he says have harassed and defamed him,” according to Fox News. (RELATED: Democrats Credit Health Care For House Win And Are Divided On What To Do)

The suit also names former Republican National Committee online communications director Liz Mair. Nunes’s lawyers say her tweets “implied that Nunes colluded with prostitutes and cocaine addicts, that Nunes does cocaine, and that Nunes was involved in a ‘Russian money laundering front.’”

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (L) arrives for a closed-door hearing with Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, in the basement of the House Visitors Center at the U.S. Capitol March 06, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (L) arrives for a closed-door hearing with Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, in the basement of the House Visitors Center at the U.S. Capitol March 06, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“To be fair, I think [T]he Fresno Bee writing up your investment in a winery that allegedly used underage hookers to solicit investment — an allegation you’ve known about for years, during which you’ve stayed invested in it, I might add — did surprise you,” Mair tweeted at Nunes June 22, 2018.

Mair wrote on Twitter Monday after news of the suit broke that she is declining to comment but posted a link for donations to cover her legal fees.

Nunes filed the complaint in Virginia state court Monday and is also seeking $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and the specified users. He wrote that Twitter was “knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform.”

Nunes’s legal team also wrote that Twitter should not be exempt from defamation liability because the platform actively curates and bans content to the point that it should have liability like other organizations that can be guilty of defamation, reported Fox News.

Nunes’s filing linked Twitter’s actions to influencing the 2018 midterm elections in which Republicans lost the House of Representatives. (RELATED: Twitter Censors ‘The Federalist’ Co-Founder Over Lisa Page Tweet)

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey speaks during a press event at CES 2019 at the Aria Resort & Casino on January 9, 2019 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey speaks during a press event at CES 2019 at the Aria Resort & Casino on January 9, 2019 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

News of Nunes’s suit comes on the same day Twitter said it “mistakenly remove[d]” a tweet from The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis’s account Monday but denied employing “shadow banning” tactics against users.

Twitter representatives including CEO Jack Dorsey have been invited to Capitol Hill by lawmakers numerous times to testify on how their platforms deal with issues like terrorist propaganda and more.

Twitter declined to comment on the suit to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Follow Evie on Twitter @eviefordham.

Send tips to evie@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: The Daily Caller

Lauryn Overhultz | Columnist

Actor Justin Theroux was not able to settle a lawsuit with his neighbor during talks Monday.

This is Theroux’s second time in court in the past two weeks as he met with Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gerald Lebovitz to talk about the lawsuit between him and his neighbor, Norman Resnicow, according to Page Six.

After meeting with both parties, Lebovitz said, “This matter cannot be settled. The parties are impossibly far apart.”

Both parties declined to comment on the lawsuit. Theroux’s lawyer, Eric Sherman, said they wouldn’t comment because “the case is very fluid right now.”

Resnicow originally sued Theroux over $1 million renovations to his West Village co-op according to the 2017 lawsuit documents. Theroux claimed Resnicow bullied him and Aniston after they didn’t immediately soundproof the apartment during the renovations.

Theroux then claimed that Resnicow trespassed on his property and harassed his construction workers. Last month, Theroux accused Resnicow of physically abusing his wife. (RELATED: Justin Theroux Accuses His Neighbor Of Domestic Abuse)

Talks on Monday were had in an effort to reach a settlement before the lawsuit went to trial. However, without a settlement, Theroux will be back in the court room soon. A trial date has yet to be set.

Source: The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • Private financiers, like hedge funds, could benefit if D.C. takes oil giant ExxonMobil to court over climate change.
  • D.C.’s solicitation for outside lawyers to investigate Exxon includes a clause would allow selling interest in court winnings to third-party investors.
  • “The contract anticipates that the attorneys will sell their interest in the law-enforcement action to third-party funders,” said one expert.

The District of Columbia’s solicitation contract for outside lawyers to investigate ExxonMobil opens the door for private financiers to profit off any litigation, according to a legal expert.

“The contract anticipates that the attorneys will sell their interest in the law-enforcement action to third-party funders, giving private investors a stake in D.C.’s law-enforcement actions against ExxonMobil,” said Andrew Grossman, an attorney with BakerHostetler and adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“This allows a litigation investor or even a hedge fund to invest in law enforcement, and the investors stand to profit the more aggressively that the private attorneys wield the government’s power,” Grossman told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine disclosed Friday his office was looking for outside legal counsel to investigate Exxon for allegedly misleading the public about climate change, including failing to notify drivers who filled up on Exxon gasoline that the product contributed to warming.

Racine tweeted out the solicitation Friday, which indicates that D.C. is preparing for a legal battle with Exxon. Racine is looking for two lawyers and a paralegal to handle its Exxon investigation on a five-year contract. (RELATED: DC Prepares For A Potential Climate Change Court Battle Against Exxon)

Racine and Frosh conduct a live television interview after their news conference to announce their lawsuit against Trump in Washington

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine (L) and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh conduct a live television interview after their news conference to announce their lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump on the issue of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clauses and Trump’s business ventures, in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 12, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Outside counsel would work in exchange for a percentage of any winnings D.C. may get in a legal settlement or court victory. No winnings, no pay, according to the solicitation.

Grossman pointed to a clause in D.C.’s solicitation for outside help that he finds concerning. As worded, the clause would allow outside attorneys to sell interest of any legal winnings to investors:

In accordance with 27 DCMR 3250, the Contractor may assign to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution funds due or to become due as a result of the performance of this contract.

“It is unusual enough that the government is looking to hire outside attorneys to target a particular private party for law enforcement, on a contingency-fee basis,” Grossman said. “That gives a whole new meaning to ‘policing for profit.’”

D.C. is allowing any outside counsel to engage in “litigation investment.” It is a fairly recent phenomenon, gaining media attention in the last couple years as hedge funds sought to invest in high-profile class action lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of the winnings.

Since outside counsel in these types of arrangements work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they won’t be paid unless they prevail in court, they look to investors to pay for the upfront litigation costs. For some companies, it’s an extremely profitable venture.

Grossman said litigation investment is still rare and, until recently, was even blocked by most states and bar associations. Grossman added, however, that it’s “unheard-of” for financing law enforcement actions.

Darren Woods, Chairman & CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation attends a news conference at the NYSE

Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation attends a news conference at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., March 1, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

The D.C. Bar Association did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment as to its stance on allowing attorneys contracting with state prosecutors to sell interest in potential court winnings.

If Racine takes Exxon to court, he would join a handful of Democratic attorneys general to do so. Litigation against Exxon is based on reporting from liberal journalists that the oil giant “knew” for decades fossil fuels could warm the planet while funding groups skeptical of climate science.

Racine’s investigation focuses on the oil giant’s alleged disclosures to consumers at Washington, D.C., gas stations with the Exxon logo. However, Exxon does not own or operate any retail gas stations anymore.

Racine’s office did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: The Daily Caller

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk claimed on Twitter that Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar once voted against a bill that blocked payments to the families of terrorists.

“In 2017, @IlhanMN voted no on a bill in the Minnesota Legislature that blocked payments to the children & spouses of known terrorists,” Kirk tweeted March 5.

Verdict: True

According to state records, Omar was one of two members in the Minnesota legislature who voted against H.F. 1397, a 2017 bill that sought to block life insurance payouts to the families of terrorists. It’s unclear why Omar voted against this bill.

Fact Check:

Omar, the freshman lawmaker from Minnesota’s fifth congressional district, is the first Somali American elected to Congress and one of three Muslims currently serving. Prior to her election, Omar served one term in Minnesota’s House of Representatives.

Voting records show that as a state representative, Omar was one of two members to vote against H.F. 1397, a 2017 bill that sought to allow life insurance companies the ability to deny payouts to beneficiaries “if the insured’s death occurs directly or indirectly as a result of the insured’s furtherance of terrorism.”

The bill was in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting. Syed Rizwan Farook, a California man who, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people, had previously taken out two life insurance policies worth a combined total of $275,000. After Farook was killed in a shootout with law enforcement, his mother was to be the primary beneficiary of the policies.

However, the federal government filed a lawsuit to seize the money, saying it planned to disperse the funds among the surviving victims and the families of those killed in the attack.

“Terrorists must not be permitted to provide for their designated beneficiaries through their crimes,” said then- U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker in a statement. “My office intends to explore every legal option available to us to ensure these funds are made available to the victims of this horrific crime. We will continue to use every tool available to seek justice on behalf of the victims.”

A federal judge ruled in August 2016 that the government could seize the funds, The San Bernardino Sun reported.

The Minnesota bill passed the House in a 127-2 vote. Omar and fellow state Rep. John Lesch were the only members to vote against the bill. Lesch voiced concern that the wording of the bill might give insurance companies too much discretion over what constitutes terrorism.

“[The bill] allows an insurance company, not a court, to decide what constitutes an act of terrorism under the cited statute, and it lowers the burden on that call to preponderance of the evidence,” Lesch told Alpha News, a Minnesota-based news outlet.

He expressed that he was not opposed to the idea behind the bill: “Terrorists should not be able to send life insurance benefits to beneficiaries based on bad faith recent policy purchases. I think we can all agree on that.”

It’s unclear why Omar voted against the bill. Her office did not respond to a request for comment. (RELATED: Did Ilhan Omar Vote Against A Bill Making Female Genital Mutilation A Felony?)

Omar has been criticized by some on the political right for a letter she sent a judge back in 2016 asking for leniency to be shown to nine Minnesota men charged with planning to join ISIS. “The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion,” reads one portion of the letter. “We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.”

Minneapolis, a city within Omar’s congressional district, has witnessed some of its young male residents join, or attempt to join, terror groups such as ISIS and Somalia-based al-Shabab, according to one Fox News story.

Omar has faced calls to be removed from her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee over comments she made that were perceived by some to be anti-Semitic.

Follow Brad on Twitter

Have a fact check suggestion? Send ideas to [email protected]

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court stands before decisions are released for the term in Washington
FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., May 14, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

March 18, 2019

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday wrestled for the second time over whether Republican legislators in Virginia drew electoral districts in the state in a way that unlawfully diluted the clout of black voters.

The high court heard arguments in an appeal by the Republican-led state House of Delegates in defense of 11 state House districts that a lower court ruled last year violated the rights of black voters to equal protection under the law under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The case involves gerrymandering, a practice involving the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to marginalize a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.

While the Supreme Court for decades has invalidated electoral maps due to racial gerrymandering, the justices have not yet made a definitive ruling on whether drawing legislative districts for purely partisan advantage violates the Constitution. The court will hear two major cases on that issue next week, one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland.

One way the court could resolve the Virginia racial gerrymandering dispute is to say that the House of Delegates, which sought to appeal the ruling, did not have legal standing to do so. The state’s Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring, has argued that the House cannot pursue the case independently and that only he could decide whether or not there would be an appeal.

Some of the nine justices appeared sympathetic to Herring’s argument, although it is unclear if there is a majority in favor of that outcome. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the court could send the case to the Virginia Supreme Court to decide who can represent the state.

“I would be very uncomfortable trying to decide whether, as a matter of Virginia law, anybody other than the attorney general can ever represent the Commonwealth,” Alito said, referring to Virginia.

Morgan Ratner, a lawyer for President Donald Trump’s administration, argued that the House of Delegates does not have standing to appeal. But Ratner said that the House of Delegates is correct that the lower court used the wrong standard to assess the districts.

Democrats have accused Republicans in Virginia and other states of crafting such legislative maps in a way that crams black and other minority voters, who tend to favor Democratic candidates, into certain districts in order to reduce their overall sway in the state.

The voters who brought the lawsuit accused Republicans of packing black voters into certain districts to diminish their voting power and make surrounding districts more white and more likely to support Republicans.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed sympathy for the Republicans who drew the maps, noting that if they assigned fewer black voters to each district “they would get hammered from the other side, saying you are discriminating against African American voters because you’re not giving the voters a sufficient opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice.”

When the litigation first reached the high court, the justices in 2017 threw out an earlier lower court ruling that had found the 11 districts, as well as one other district, to be lawful. The justices said the lower court had not sufficiently analyzed the consideration of race by the Republican legislators in the process of drawing Virginia’s electoral map.

At issue was the state legislative map drawn by Republicans after the 2010 national census. Since then, Democrats have made gains in Virginia in both state and federal elections. The current governor and attorney general are both Democrats.

Race can be considered in redrawing boundaries of voting districts only in certain instances, such as when states are seeking to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. That law protects minority voters and was enacted to address a history of racial discrimination in voting, especially in southern states.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Source: OANN

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine is preparing for a potential lawsuit against ExxonMobil over climate change.
  • Racine’s office alleges Exxon failed to inform D.C. consumers that gasoline combustion contributed to global warming.
  • “Exxon has also engaged or funded efforts to mislead DC consumers” about global warming, Racine’s office wrote.

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine is preparing for potential legal battle against ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, for allegedly covering up global warming science from the public.

Exxon’s alleged wrongdoing includes failing to tell consumers of its gasoline that fossil fuels contribute to global warming, according to documents from Racine’s office.

Racine indirectly acknowledged D.C.’s planned investigation into Exxon in a tweet linking to a solicitation for outside “legal services in support of [the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia’s] investigation and potential litigation against ExxonMobil Corporation” and affiliates.

The document alleged “potential violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) or other District laws in connection with Exxon’s statements or omissions about the effects of its fossil fuel products on climate change.”

“OAG has determined this conduct should the subject of an investigation or litigation against Exxon to secure injunctive relief stopping violations of the CPPA or other District law, as well as securing consumer restitution, penalties and the costs of any litigation,” reads the document.

Racine’s office is looking for a senior lawyer, junior lawyer and a paralegal to handle its Exxon investigation. Investigators would work on a five-year contract, with options to extend, in exchange for a percentage of any winnings D.C. may get in a legal settlement or court victory.

However, the D.C. attorney general’s office already has a full-time lawyer dedicated to climate change and environmental investigations. That employee is funded through a controversial grant program from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s personal foundation. (RELATED: Just 12 Years Left? Let’s Break Down The Alarmist Talking Point Fueling Kids’ Climate Change Strikes)

At least eight other Democratic attorneys general offices have or sought to hire Bloomberg-funded legal fellows. Critics have called this arrangement “law enforcement for hire,” and some offices have tried to withhold information about their Bloomberg-funded fellows.

Racine’s office would not say if the Bloomberg-funded lawyer would play a role in the investigation or potential lawsuit against Exxon.

“Thank you for your inquiry, however we will decline to comment on confidential enforcement activity,” Racine’s office said in an emailed statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Racine and Frosh hold a news conference to announce their lawsuit against Trump, in Washington

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (L) hold a news conference to announce their lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump on the issue of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clauses and Trump’s business ventures, in Washington, D.C., June 12, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

If Racine takes Exxon to court, he would join a handful of Democratic attorneys general to do so, including New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.

Democratic attorneys general began investigating Exxon’s climate change stance years ago, prodded by environmental activists and journalists who claimed the company “knew” for decades fossil fuels could warm the planet, but funded groups to challenge climate science and regulations.

Exxon has denied allegations it tried to mislead the public on climate science, and today the company supports taxing carbon dioxide emissions and funding for alternative fuels.

Racine’s investigation focuses on the oil giant’s alleged disclosures to consumers at gas stations in Washington, D.C. — though Exxon does not own or operate any retail gas stations anymore.

“Since at least the 1970s, Exxon has been aware that its fossil fuel products were significantly contributing to climate change, and that climate change would accelerate and lead to significant harms to the environment in the twenty-first century,” reads D.C.’s solicitation for attorneys.

Racine’s office continued that “in connection with selling gasoline to DC consumers and others, Exxon has failed to inform consumers about the effects of its fossil fuel products on climate change.”

“Exxon has also engaged or funded efforts to mislead DC consumers and others about the potential impacts of climate change,” reads the document. “This conduct may violate the District’s CPPA as well as other District laws.”

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: The Daily Caller


Current track

Title

Artist