media Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased coverage’ after acquisition by Dispatch Media

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 06 May 2025 16:15:39 +0000

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased coverage’ after acquisition by Dispatch Media

April 24, 2025, 11:52 am CDT

Dispatch Media Inc. has acquired SCOTUSblog, the website with in-depth and breaking news coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court that was founded by Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, a husband-and-wife legal team. (Photo by Rob Crandall/Shutterstock)

The New York Times described Dispatch Media as “a right-of-center political news and commentary startup” founded by two conservative journalists.

Law360 and Above the Law also covered the sale.

Dispatch Media “plans to maintain SCOTUSblog as our users have come to enjoy it and will continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost,” according to a SCOTUSblog announcement on the sale. “The site will also continue to remain a source of unbiased coverage of the Supreme Court.”

The announcement said SCOTUSblog “scaled back our coverage in recent years” because of rising costs, but “through our partnership with the Dispatch, we will be able to restore SCOTUSblog’s publishing capabilities, including expanded analysis for all merits cases and oral arguments.”

Dispatch Media will also bring back “beloved features” to SCOTUSblog, such as the Stat Pack, according to the announcement.

Howe continues her work at SCOTUSblog as her husband, a high-stakes poker player, faces a federal indictment accusing him of evading taxes and making false statements to mortgage lenders. Goldstein won’t be part of SCOTUSblog, according to Michael Rothman, the president of the Dispatch, who spoke with the New York Times.

As part of the acquisition, the Dispatch “will invest in Amy, her team and additional staff to ensure that SCOTUSblog remains the go-to authority on the Supreme Court,” said Steve Hayes, the CEO and editor of the Dispatch, in an announcement.

Dispatch Media will also “announce additional talent” in the coming weeks, “including a partnership with Original Jurisdiction founder and legal commentator David Lat,” Hayes said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased coverage’ after acquisition by Dispatch Media appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Journalists sue Trump, Kari Lake over VOA cuts

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 23 Mar 2025 02:12:23 +0000

Left: Kari Lake speaking during the second day of the Republican National Convention, Tuesday, July 16, 2024, in Milwaukee (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite). Right: President Donald Trump at a press conference at the White House in Washington on February 27, 2025 (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Sipa USA; via AP Images).

A group of journalists has sued the Trump administration over its efforts to shut down the Voice of America news network and other federally-funded global media organizations.

The lawsuit, filed Friday, names Kari Lake – the stalwart Arizona political candidate, election denier, and Donald Trump ally — along with the agency she oversees, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which houses VOA, among the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the administration’s massive cuts to the agency, which threaten thousands of jobs, violate their First Amendment free speech rights as well as the separation of powers, by taking a chain saw to an agency approved by Congress.

The VOA network — which is not broadcast within the U.S., but is heard by more than 350 million people worldwide each week — has long been on the president’s list of agencies to be targeted. In his March 15, 2025, executive order, Trump refers to the organization as “the voice of radical America” and asserts that under his watch, “taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.”

The order then goes on to cite multiple right-wing media organizations, including the Daily Caller and The Washington Free Beacon, as proof of VOA’s alleged “radical” agenda.

The plaintiffs in the case include Patsy Widakuswara, previously VOA’s White House bureau chief, and Jessica Jerreat, its press freedom editor. Four other journalists sued anonymously.

The lawsuit says this move is nothing short of historic — and devastating.

“Prior to March 15, 2025, Congress’s statutory mandate that VOA continuously broadcast to the world had been honored and faithfully upheld for more than eight decades,” the lawsuit says. “Today, for the first time in VOA’s history, it is defied.”

The lawsuit lays out the stakes in stark terms:

If VOA and the other USAGM networks are to survive, this Court must act. It must recognize and protect, as the court did in Turner v. U.S. Agency for Global Media, the rights of journalists and those who assist them to work and produce content free from partisan interference by the Executive Branch — including the “interference” inherent in being locked out of their offices, computer networks, email accounts, and broadcast studios, and living under the threat of termination. It must enforce the firewall in the way Congress wrote it. And it must uphold the foundational principles of Congressional authority, appropriations, and separation of powers that are set forth in the Constitution and laws of the United States, and which prevent the Executive Branch from dismantling by decree an agency created and mandated by Congress, as a court recognized earlier this week when it blocked a similar shuttering of USAID.

According to the lawsuit, the move to gut the government-funded networks is unlawful content-based restriction barred by the First Amendment.

“Defendants have shuttered USAGM’s networks’ operations because of the content and perceived viewpoint of the networks’ speech, unlawfully interfered with the editorial independence of the networks’ journalists, and seek to chill the future speech of the networks’ journalists,” the complaint says.

The complaint also accuses Lake and the administration of unlawfully violating the “statutory firewall” that is intended to maintain the independence of VOA — and of going after individual journalists and possibly endangering their lives.

“As officers of USAGM and its associated entities, Defendants are bound by the statutory firewall,” the complaint says. “Defendants have egregiously, aggressively, and unabashedly violated the firewall by interfering with and indeed preventing VOA’s newsgathering and news dissemination. Defendants have caused the killing of valuable news stories and ‘disappeared’ editorials—and Defendants have also directly risked Plaintiffs’ livelihoods and future careers, smearing them as incompetent or, worse, as ‘spies” and “terrorist sympathizers.””

Describing “government-funded journalism” as having long been a “central component of the United States’ effort to combat disinformation and propaganda abroad,” the complaint says that VOA plays a key role in maintaining American interests around the globe.

“Today, some of American broadcasting’s biggest audiences are in North Korea, Iran, and China, where millions of people seek credible, impartial news uninfluenced by government agenda or politics,” the complaint says. “American government-funded broadcasting services have played key roles in foreign policy by providing truthful information about local and world repressive regimes that otherwise suppress or censor the press. The global public’s trust in the accuracy of reporting from these organizations is paramount to the success of their mission.”

Congress, the complaint continues, has recognized the independence of these journalists, despite being on the government payroll.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction reinstating all employees, contractors, and grantees to their jobs at USAGM, and an order that the Trump administration “take no further action to reduce USAGM’s workforce (whether employees, contractors, or grantees).” In addition, the plaintiffs seek an order that the defendants “comply with Congressional statutes that require VOA to ‘serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news,’ and require international USAGM outlets to “provide news which is consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive[.]’”

In addition, the plaintiffs are asking the court to “[d]eclare that Defendants violated the First Amendment and statutory firewall, separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the appointments clause,” and to order the defendants to “cease their violations of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Source link

The post Journalists sue Trump, Kari Lake over VOA cuts appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump threatens to sue New York Times, Penguin Random House

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 03:23:02 +0000

Insets: New York Times and Penguin Random House buildings (YouTube/Fox News/Penguin Random House). Background: President-elect Donald Trump speaks at an election night watch party, Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).

President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly sent a $10 billion warning shot across the legal bows of Penguin Random House and the New York Times — threatening to sue the print giants for eleven figures — over allegedly “false and defamatory statements” that were published about him in articles before the election, the companies say.

“There was a time, long ago, when the New York Times was considered the ‘newspaper of record,’” a letter reads from Trump’s attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, to Penguin Random House and the Times, which was reviewed and first reported by Columbia Journalism Review on Thursday.

“Those halcyon days have passed,” the letter says, blasting the Times as a “full-throated mouthpiece of the Democratic Party” that employs “industrial-scale libel against political opponents,” per CJR.

The newspaper reportedly had “every intention of defaming and disparaging the world-renowned Trump brand that consumers have long associated with excellence, luxury, and success in entertainment, hospitality, and real estate, among many other industries, as well as falsely and maliciously defaming and disparaging him as a candidate for the highest office in the United States,” the letter asserts.

When CJR reported the legal threat on Thursday, it said the letter was received a week before the 2024 election. The ten-page warning names writers Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner as being behind “false and defamatory statements” published by the Times and Penguin Press, which is a publishing company within the Penguin Random House Group.

Some of the “defamatory” comments cited in Trump’s letter, per CJR, are about the future and former president’s alleged financial dealings, with there being references to Buettner and Craig’s recently released book, “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success,” which was spurred on by a 2018 expose by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters and former Times journalist David Barstow, who disputed Trump’s claims of being a self-made billionaire.

“Drawing on over twenty years’ worth of Trump’s confidential tax information, including the tax returns he tried to conceal, alongside business records and interviews with Trump insiders, New York Times investigative reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig track Trump’s financial rise and fall, and rise and fall again,” a description reads from Penguin Press.

Some other writings cited by Trump’s lawyer come from an October 20 article written by Baker for the Times — titled, “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” — in which he declared that “no major party presidential candidate, much less president, in American history” had been “accused of wrongdoing” as many times as Trump has. Publishers Weekly referred to “Lucky Loser” as a “scrupulous takedown of Trump’s competence and character” in its September review.

“Given the long list of well-known and historic business achievements by President Trump and his family, President Trump’s remarkable business, literary, media, and real estate achievements, and the fact that President Trump — and his life story — are the epitome of the American Dream and what it means to be an American patriot, as well as his lifelong support for America’s men and women in uniform, these defamatory statements are all the more despicable in their falsity,” Trump’s letter said.

The document claims that “harm” has been done to the value of Trump Media, per CJR, and reportedly demands $10 billion in damages. Trump is seeking this same amount in a lawsuit against CBS News over an October “60 Minutes” interview it aired with Vice President Kamala Harris, with his attorneys claiming the aired footage was “doctored” to “confuse, deceive, and mislead the public” to “tip the scales” in favor of Democrats before the election. Trump’s camp has blasted the move as “election and voter interference.” The complaint for that case was filed on Oct. 31 in the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division, where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — a Trump appointee — is the lone federal judge.

On Nov. 5, Trump’s legal media crusade continued as he sent a four-page letter on behalf of campaign manager Chris LaCivita to the Daily Beast, per CJR, demanding that the outlet issue a correction and retraction for articles published about his co-chief, including one on Nov. 2 that is now titled, “Trump Raged at Daily Beast Revelation That Campaign Boss’ LLC Got $19.2 Million.”

The Daily Beast initially claimed that LaCivita “raked in” $22 million to help Trump win the 2024 election. An editor’s note has been added to the Nov. 2 story to clarify that it was actually $19.2 million in wake of Trump’s letter.

“Editor’s Note: The original version of this article mistakenly reported that LaCivita’s firm had received a total of $22 million from Trump’s campaign and affiliated PACs,” the Daily Beast says. “Based on a further review of FEC records, the correct total is $19.2 million. The Beast regrets the error. The article has also been updated to make clear that payments were to LaCivita’s LLC not to LaCivita personally.”

Trump’s crusade may have kicked off before the election, but it’s gained even more steam with his win and recent comments he’s made, with free speech advocacy watchdog group PEN America touching upon this in a press release on Friday.

“President-elect Donald Trump’s legal threats mark an ominous start to his transition to the White House, signaling his intent to escalate attacks on journalism and publishing,” said Tim Richardson, program director for Journalism and Disinformation at PEN America, in response to CJR’s reporting. “While The New York Times and Penguin Random House may have the resources to defend themselves against these clearly frivolous claims, smaller news outlets and publishers do not and may be forced to censor themselves rather than risk critical coverage of Trump. That is the point.”

According to Richardson, legal threats and lawsuits like the ones being hurled at CBS and the Times “aren’t about stopping false reporting or even winning cases” brought against them. “They’re about intimidating journalists, writers, and publishers into self-censorship,” Richardson charged. “The worrisome results will be less accountability for our elected leaders and a less informed public.”

Speaking in the press release, PEN America condemned the threats from Trump as being part of a “broader pattern by the President-elect targeting media organizations.” It cited the Times and Random House letter in the release, as well as the CBS lawsuit, the Daily Beast editor’s note and a recent Federal Election Commission complaint against the Washington Post.

“PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide,” the group says in a description. “We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.”

An insider tells CJR that Penguin Random House responded to Trump’s legal warning with a statement, saying it stood by everything it published. It’s unclear whether Trump’s lawyer has replied.

The Daily Beast, meanwhile, was unable to get off the hook with its editor’s note as Trump’s team sent a follow-up letter on Nov. 12 saying the move “does not remedy the overall messaging of the story — which depicts Mr. LaCivita as deceptively pocketing campaign money for his own personal gain and that he was and is on the verge of being ‘fired’ because of it,” Politico reports.

“This entire narrative is completely false and a result of malicious and irresponsible reporting by the Daily Beast,” the letter said. “Specifically, the now ‘corrected’ reporting has adjusted the $22 million figure to $19.2 million instead. While not all Daily Beast articles on this subject have yet incorporated the ‘corrected’ figure, some have been ‘updated’ with an editor’s note which stating that ‘This article was updated to clarify that the $22m went to LaCivita’s LLC and not to him personally.’ The remainder of the reporting has remained substantially the same, and despite the addition of the editor’s notes and corrections, it continues to falsely imply that Mr. LaCivita personally pocketed $19.2 million allegedly paid by the Trump campaign for campaign advertising.”

CBS has said that Trump’s lawsuit against the outlet is “completely without merit,” adding that it will “vigorously defend” itself against it. The Committee to Protect Journalists, another watchdog group, has blasted Trump’s legal attacks as being a “clear and direct danger to media freedom.”

“The hostile media climate fostered during Donald Trump’s first presidency — expected to continue in his forthcoming second term — poses great risks to media inside and outside the country,” the group said in a Nov. 6 statement.

“The threats against, and lies about, the media that have characterized much of the Republican Party’s presidential campaign represent a clear and direct danger to media freedom,” added CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “CPJ will continue to defend a free and independent press in the United States as we do around the world and to take all measures to keep reporters safe.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Trump threatens to sue New York Times, Penguin Random House appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Love on the Run’ most popular feature on Netflix

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 01 Oct 2024 09:50:11 +0000

Left: Casey White, Right: Vicky White (Law&Crime Productions)

Top legal and true crime network Law&Crime announces the successful premiere of its newest original premium documentary, “Jailbreak: Love on the Run,” after its recent climb to the #1 watched movie on Netflix in the U.S. and U.K. today.

“Jailbreak: Love on the Run” follows the baffling and gut-wrenching story of Vicky White, a respected and lauded correctional officer who abandons her impending retirement in favor of running off with 38-year-old Casey White, a convicted murderer serving a 75-year prison sentence for a violent crime spree involving home invasion, kidnapping and the attempted murder of a young woman.

The affair between Vicky and Casey White, which started when she met him behind bars, culminates in an illegally facilitated break from prison and subsequent 11-day fatal manhunt.

On the one hand, the documentary has been praised for depicting a shocking portrait of a respectable woman who throws it all away — including her own life — for a real-life romance novel. On the other, it tells the story of a tight-knit community in Alabama where everyone suffers the ramifications of the couple’s inexplicable choice. The documentary includes some of the more than 1,000 exclusive jailhouse calls and handwritten letters between Casey and Vicky White, giving viewers an up-close glimpse of the unlikely relationship.

Steamy jailhouse calls reveal details of heart-pounding prison break in Netflix’s ‘Jailbreak: Love on the Run’

“Initially, I couldn’t understand how such a well-liked, stellar employee would throw everything away for a criminal,” said Rachel Stockman, president of Law&Crime and an executive producer on the Netflix documentary. “But by the end of production, I understood — and it was both heartbreaking and tragic.”

The documentary, which premiered on Sept. 25, was executive produced by Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams, Melody Shafir, Rachel Stockman, Lana Wilson and Angie Dorr and produced by William Green and Aaron Ginsburg.

Jailbreak: Love on the Run can be watched on Netflix here.

ABOUT LAW&CRIME NETWORK

Law&Crime is the leading platform for legal and true crime content, offering a wide range of programming including live trials, legal commentary and analysis, law enforcement-related footage, and documentary-style crime stories. Its revered network of lawyers, former prosecutors, and law enforcement officials provides unprecedented access to key sources as well as unique insight into the nation’s highest-profile and newsworthy cases. Created by award-winning ABC News Chief Legal Correspondent, Dan Abrams, the network reaches a massive, multi-platform audience across digital, cable, and social, with its YouTube channel alone boasting well over 5 million subscribers and 3 billion video views. Law&Crime prides itself on upholding the highest standards of journalistic integrity, offering fact-based storytelling that reflects its profound, unmatched expertise in the legal and criminal justice world.

Law&Crime joined the Jellysmack portfolio of brands in 2023 and is available on basic cable packages and leading streaming services including YouTube TV, Peacock, Xfinity, Verizon and Samsung TV Plus, among many others.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Love on the Run’ most popular feature on Netflix appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

The Murdoch family fight for control over a media dynasty

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:32:19 +0000

Rupert Murdoch, center, and his wife Elena Zhukova Murdoch arrive at the Second Judicial District Court in Reno, Nev., Monday Sept. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Andy Barron)

Headlines have been circulating in recent weeks about an ongoing legal battle between a high-profile media mogul and his children for control over the patriarch’s news empire — but no, the hit HBO series “Succession” is not back for another season.

The courtroom showdown involving Rupert Murdoch and four of his children is, in fact, all too real. Late last year, Murdoch made a change to the irrevocable Murdoch Family Trust, which was set up in 1999 to transition Murdoch’s vast media holdings, now consisting of News Corp and Fox Corporation, to the control of Murdoch’s four eldest children, each of whom would have an equal vote, upon his death. News Corp oversees such powerful media entities as the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, while Fox Corporation is home to conservative juggernauts Fox News and Fox Business.

In a shocking twist, Murdoch changed the trust in 2023 to convert control of the vast entity to his eldest son Lachlan — much to the surprise of remaining siblings Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who opposed the change and sought to challenge it in court. Although the trust is irrevocable, the Nevada probate commissioner found in June that Murdoch could amend the trust if he is able to show he did so in good faith and for the sole benefit of his heirs.

Two additional Murdoch children, youngest daughters Grace and Chloe, do not have voting rights in the trust.

The trial kicked off Sept. 16 in probate court in Nevada. The children Murdoch tried to cut from the trust undoubtedly are seeking a favorable result in court, while the public, the legal world, and the media in general are left with more questions than answers. How will the court rule, now that oral arguments have reportedly concluded? What will this mean for the future of all the entities under the trust’s control? And finally, what impact will this result have on the media world in general?

The Murdoch family battle played out in downtown Reno. The state where the trust was created, Nevada, is known for providing more privacy and having favorable probate laws — perhaps the reason why Murdoch wanted the Silver State to have jurisdiction. The trial was closed to the media, yet a coalition of high-profile outlets such as CNN and the New York Times, which first revealed the change to the trust in July and the ongoing battle that followed, have filed motions to obtain access to the proceedings. They have cited the potentially massive impact this ruling would have not just on the Murdoch family, but on the multiple outlets owned by News Corp that have readers and viewers numbering in the millions. The matter is now before the Nevada Supreme Court, which may ultimately decide whether the court filings should be made public.

On Sept. 12, a federal judge rejected a majority of the outlets’ arguments and only allowed a few details about the case to be made public. As a result, the public has not been granted much insight into what evidence has been presented, what testimony has been given, or what potential way the court will rule. Yet one thing the public knows is that the key question the presiding probate commissioner will be focusing on is whether Murdoch was acting in good faith and for the benefit of his heirs when he made the change to the trust. One potential reason behind the change that some outlets have proposed is that Murdoch was allegedly attempting to ensure his media empire — and particularly Fox News — would still maintain its right-leaning viewpoints, as Lachlan, the son Murdoch named as successor to the trust, has been deemed more conservative than his siblings.

How the court will rule remains to be seen, but in the meantime, one must ask: What is at stake in the ultimate ruling?

The ruling would likely impact the overall viewpoint and editorial balance of News Corp and Fox Corporation and the companies the own, particularly Fox News — and such a change would affect the content and way those entities deliver that content to its viewers. Moreover, given the significant following Fox News has in terms of viewership, especially regarding politically-focused news, the change in the trust could possibly lead to real political outcomes, particularly given the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Finally, no matter what the ultimate decision the commissioner will render in this case, there is no doubt that this decision will be used as precedent by the heads of other media entities seeking to alter ownership or structure in leadership. One alteration in the Murdoch Family Trust could possibly significantly change the way numerous media entities work, the type of news they deliver everyday to the public, and critical decisions their followers make, including who they vote for, how they contribute to their communities, and what causes they support.

Access to the proceedings could also have an impact on the response to its outcome. Journalism and a free press are critical to a free society, and media organizations have sometimes stepped in to achieve justice where other industries cannot. In 2017, for example, an undercover investigation regarding sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein sparked the MeToo movement and ultimately resulted in his conviction for sexual assault; a 2002 story by The Boston Globe featuring results of an investigation into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church led to prosecutions of five Catholic priests in Boston; and, ironically, in July 2009, Nick Davies, a reporter for The Guardian, broke a story revealing UK tabloid News of the World — which was owned by Murdoch — had apparently engaged in phone hacking to report some of its stories. The tabloid ended up folding in 2011.

The stakes for the Murdoch probate matter are high, given the crucial role the media plays in breaking news and the industry’s impact on society as a whole. Now that the legal battle has concluded — playing out entirely behind closed doors — all that’s left is to wait for the judge’s ruling.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post The Murdoch family fight for control over a media dynasty appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Hush money trial should be delayed due to media bias

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 06:22:22 +0000

Former President Donald Trump arrives for a news conference on Monday, March 25, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump recently filed a motion to adjourn his impending New York City hush money trial.

In the 31-page motion, the 45th president’s defense team claims their client “cannot get a fair trial in Manhattan County right now.”

“[N]o fair and impartial jury can be selected in this County at any time in the near future, including in April of this year,” the motion reads. “Therefore, the Court should adjourn the trial date until the prejudicial media coverage subsides.”

The twin hearts of the motion for further adjournment are a poll of New York State residents and an accompanying media study that purport to show publicity has infected the case to the point that the defendant’s “right to a fair trial” has been called into doubt.

According to the motion, 400 residents were polled in New York County and four surrounding counties that make up the suburban outskirts of the five boroughs — which also includes the relatively politically conservative borough of Staten Island.

“[P]otential jurors in Manhattan have been exposed to huge amounts of biased and unfair media coverage relating to this case,” the motion argues, referring to the survey. “Many of the potential jurors already wrongfully believe that President Trump is guilty.”

The motion goes on to cite some “1,223 online news articles between January 15, 2024 and February 24, 2024” which allegedly “provided details regarding the People’s allegations and purported evidence as well as opinions about this case” during the six-week period.

The filing also claims a “significant number” of the articles from the media study in question contain “prejudicial discussion of other proceedings involving President Trump and inaccurate and irrelevant discussions of alleged sexual misconduct” including rape.

According to Trump’s motion, the survey shows 88% of respondents had read or heard information about the “hush money” payments. And, the motion notes in a chart, there were 142 mentions of “hush money” in the articles identified by the media study.

The end result, Trump’s defense attorney’s claim, is that the prospective panel of jurors in the case has been “saturated” by anti-Trump media.

“The Survey and the Media Study provide quantitative force to that research and establish that potential jurors in New York County have been bombarded with online media coverage relating to this case and prejudicial references to other cases and irrelevant matters,” the motion argues. “Moreover, the Media Study does not even capture the incredible amount of prejudicial television coverage, which has been too voluminous to tally.”

The motion goes on to cite additional poll questions and responses that they argue show an “overwhelming bias against President Trump” by residents in New York County — which the motion also takes stock of by including presidential voting data. All this together, the court filing argues, compounds the pretrial publicity issues.

‘The People have sought to make their case a review of President Trump’s victory in the 2016 election,” the motion argues. “We have objected to those efforts in motions in limine, but respondents’ accounts of their voting history sheds light on the improper purpose behind the prosecution strategy.”

While mainly arguing that “significant adjournment is further supported by current prejudicial pretrial publicity,” the filing also references since-dispensed-with arguments that the defense needs additional time to review some 170,000-plus Michael Cohen-related documents recently dumped on them by federal prosecutors.

The filing marks the second time this month that Trump’s attorneys have moved to adjourn his trial on a 34-count indictment over alleged book-cooking in relation to the Stormy Daniels sex scandal.

In early March, attorney Todd Blanche filed a motion to adjourn the Empire State’s case against Trump until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity issues arguably implicated by some of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recent pretrial motions.

The adjournment motion also takes issue with Cohen’s and Daniels’ appearances in the media. Trump’s attorneys claim the district attorney’s office has improperly sought to boost both of them.

“The fact that President Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York County right now is underscored by recent actions by DANY and its star witnesses, Michael Cohen and Stephanie Clifford,” the motion goes on. “DANY has used strategic leaks to prejudice President Trump since the early days of its ‘zombie’ investigation in 2018.”

While dated March 18, news of the motion to adjourn came fresh off a tripartite thrashing via court orders by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan earlier on Tuesday — copies of the motion were distributed to the press just moments after three setbacks for the defense were filed on the case’s public docket.

In a quick succession of orders, the ex-president’s attorneys were threatened with sanctions over their too-numerous pretrial filings, the defense was denied a request to unseal certain documents already filed, and Trump himself was subject to a limited gag order.

Trump’s first criminal trial is currently slated to begin with jury selection on April 15 and is expected to last roughly six weeks.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Hush money trial should be delayed due to media bias appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Judge’s hot tub social media post makes waves with judicial conduct commission; she quotes Cardi B in response

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:01:49 +0000

Ethics

Judge’s hot tub social media post makes waves with judicial conduct commission; she quotes Cardi B in response

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 1, 2024, 11:42 am CST

While attending a music festival in September 2021, Clark County, Nevada, Judge Erika Ballou posted on Instagram: “Life is STILL beautiful, despite the fact that Billie Eilish doesn’t START for 30 minutes and I have a 8:30 calendar tomorrow.” The hot tub photo of Ballou and the two public defenders can be viewed in the complaint. (Image from the Jan. 24 misconduct complaint)

A Las Vegas judge is facing ethics charges partly for a social media photo of herself sporting a bikini while in a hot tub with public defenders.

Clark County, Nevada, Judge Erika Ballou is facing a Jan. 24 misconduct complaint filed by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. The document cites the hot tub post as well as a second post complaining about an early court calendar.

The hot tub post used a slang word for breasts, while the second post used an expletive in a hashtag.

The New York Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, KLAS and Law & Crime have coverage.

The misconduct complaint has specifics on the social media posts:

• In April 2022, Ballou posted on Facebook a photo of herself in a hot tub with two public defenders—one man and one woman. Referring to the male public defender, Ballou said he was “surrounded by great tits.”

• While attending the Life is Beautiful music festival in September 2021, Ballou posted on Instagram: “Life is STILL beautiful, despite the fact that Billie Eilish doesn’t START for 30 minutes and I have a 8:30 calendar tomorrow.” The Instagram post carried the hashtag #VacateTheShitOuttaOutofCustodyCases.

Ballou apparently responded to the controversy last weekend in a Facebook post that quoted lyrics from rapper Cardi B, according to KLAS.

“Went from makin’ tuna sandwiches to makin’ the news,” Ballou posted. “I started speakin’ my mind and tripled my views.”

The misconduct complaint alleges that both posts violate ethics rules requiring judges to act in a way that promotes public confidence in the judiciary; requiring them to comply with the law, including the judicial ethics code; and providing that judges participating in extracurricular activities should not act in a way that appears to undermine their independence and integrity.

The hot tub post also violates ethics rules banning judges from conveying the impression that others are in a position to influence them, the ethics complaint alleges. And the Billie Eilish post also violates ethics rules requiring judicial duties to take precedence over personal activities, according to the complaint.

Ballou became a district judge in January 2021. She was previously criticized for telling a Black defendant accused of battery against a police officer that he should stay away from officers.

“You know you don’t want to be nowhere where cops are ’cause I know I don’t, and I’m a middle-aged, middle-class Black woman,” she said. “I don’t want to be around where the cops are because I don’t know if I’m going to walk away alive or not.”

Ballou had explained that she supports law enforcement, but she tries to communicate with defendants “in a manner that is straightforward and understandable.”

Ballou did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal voicemail and email seeking comment. She also did not reply to requests for comment from publications covering the ethics charges.

Source link

The post Judge’s hot tub social media post makes waves with judicial conduct commission; she quotes Cardi B in response appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Las Vegas judge formally charged over social media posts

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:03:01 +0000

Left: Clark County District Court Judge Erika Ballou appears in an image with two public defenders; Right: Ballou appears in a selfie (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline)

A judge in Las Vegas, Nevada, is facing disciplinary charges over a series of social media posts. After the charges were filed, the judge posted again: a selfie captioned with defiant Cardi B lyrics.

Clark County District Court Judge Erika Ballou was hit with two charges by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline on Jan. 24.

For each charge, the judge stands accused of violating four specific ethical rules and is accused of violating five separate rules in total.

The 10-page charging document obtained by Law&Crime identifies the first disciplinary offense as an Instagram post that refers to the judge’s attendance at a music festival on Sept. 19, 2021.

During her attendance at iHeartRadio’s Life is Beautiful, at 10:46 p.m., Ballou allegedly posted that Billie Eilish was scheduled to start in 30 minutes — a seemingly late-in-the-evening start time for a judge with “an 8:30 calendar tomorrow.” The post also contained the hashtag: “VacateTheShitOuttaOutOfCustodyCases”

Special counsel Francis Flaherty alleges the Instagram post violated a rule requiring judges “to comply with the law.” The charging document also alleges Ballou violated two rules about refraining from actions that might cause someone to question “the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Instagram post also allegedly violated a rule requiring that the “duties of judicial office” take “precedence over all of a judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities.”

The second count against Ballou is over a Facebook post featuring a picture of herself in a hot tub with two other attorneys — one man; and one woman. Both women wear bikini tops. The man is shirtless.

The two other attorneys in that photo happen to be public defenders. The post is captioned: “Robson is surrounded by great t–––.”

The Facebook post allegedly violated the same rules about complying with the law and maintaining “the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” Additionally, the charging document alleges Ballou violated a rule requiring judges not to “convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.”

Law&Crime reached out to the judge’s chambers for comments on this story but Ballou’s clerk of court declined to comment.

According to Las Vegas-based CBS affiliate KLAS, the judge has, at least in some sense, responded to the allegations against her.

This past weekend, in a Facebook post, Ballou reportedly quoted the Cardi B song “Get Up 10.”

“Went from makin’ tuna sandwiches to makin’ the news,” the post reads. “I started speakin’ my mind and tripled my views.”

The post continues:

Get money, go hard, you’re m––––f––––– right
Never been a fraud in my m––––f––––– life
Get money, go hard, damn f––––– right
Stunting on these bitches out of m––––f––––– spite . . .

Knock me down nine times but I get up 10

Ballous has been a lightning rod for controversy since being first elected in 2020. The judge previously earned the ire of Sin City police for comments she made skeptical of police officers’ ability to interact with Black people without resorting to fatal violence, KLAS reports.

“You’re the one making the decisions not to walk away from cops,” the judge reportedly once told a defendant in her courtroom. “You’re a Black man in America. You know you don’t want to be nowhere where cops are. You know you don’t want to be nowhere where cops are ’cause I know I don’t, and I’m a middle-aged, middle-class Black woman. I don’t want to be around where the cops are because I don’t know if I’m going to walk away alive or not.”

Judges in the United States often praise law enforcement. Ballou’s against-the-grain commentary prompted the Las Vegas Police Protective Association to call for her resignation and an ethics investigation. The charges, however, do not reference those police-related comments.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Las Vegas judge formally charged over social media posts appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Illegal drug trade thrives on social media

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 28 Dec 2023 01:36:46 +0000

Illegal drug trade thrives on social media – CBS News

Watch CBS News

A CBS News investigation found that the sale of illegal drugs is booming on social media, making access easier for teenagers. Tom Hanson reports.

Source link

The post Illegal drug trade thrives on social media appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.