Sha'Carri Richardson addresses domestic violence arrest and apologizes to Christian Coleman
Richardson posted a video on her Instagram account Monday night in which she said she put herself in a 'compromised situation.' She issued a written apology to Coleman on Tuesday morning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Natick MA roofer pleaded guilty to tax evasion. Here's what the judge decided
A federal judge in Boston has sentenced a Natick roofer to one year in federal prison after he pleaded guilty to tax evasion. U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy on Tuesday, Aug. 12, also sentenced Jake Miller, 42, to one year of supervised release. Murphy also ordered Miller to pay $449,329 in restitution. Miller pleaded guilty in February to one count of tax evasion. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Miller owned Kostas Roofing, which he ran under an alias of Paul Kostas. From 2013 to 2021, Miller deposited money earned from his roofing business into a personal bank account rather than a business account. He did not file income taxes during those years, despite receiving at least $1.6 million. The U.S. Attorney's Office determined Miller should have paid nearly $450,000 in taxes as a result of that unreported income. Norman Miller can be reached at 508-626-3823 or nmiller@ For up-to-date public safety news, follow him on X @Norman_MillerMW. This article originally appeared on MetroWest Daily News: Natick roofer sentenced to one year in prison for tax evasion Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The $62m question: does a high school really need a professional-style stadium?
When the television cameras pan around the US's newest sporting temple to show the cavernous stands, elegant brick exterior, VIP suites and massive video board, viewers might believe they are looking at a professional venue. Yet the occupants of Phillip Beard Stadium, the Buford Wolves, are not a professioanl team or even a college one. They are high-schoolers. In the exorbitant world of high school football, Buford's $62m, 10,000-capacity arena is not the biggest or most expensive taxpayer-funded student stadium in the US. But it may be the most luxurious. The Wolves host the Milton Eagles on Thursday in the stadium's first regular-season game, which will be broadcast nationally on ESPN. With 13 Georgia state championships from 2001 to 2021 and a long record of players progressing to college scholarships and, eventually, the NFL, Buford is a football powerhouse – and the new stadium is a loud statement of the school's desire to keep it that way. Related: 'The stadium is secondary': how US sports teams became real-estate speculators If it feels like half of Buford is at the big game … they probably are. The Atlanta-area city has roughly 19,000 residents and the well-regarded high school (rebuilt in 2019 for $85m) has about 1,900 students. In 2010, another educational institution in the Atlanta region, Kennesaw State University, built a smart 10,200 capacity multi-use stadium for $16.5m. In the past 15 years, however, construction costs have soared, fan expectations have evolved, streaming and social media have changed how we consume sports and college athletes are now allowed to earn significant sums by monetising their personal brands. The trend is clear: newer, fancier, costlier. Phillip Beard Stadium has the typical uncovered benches familiar to anyone who's seen Friday Night Lights. Yet it also boasts more than 1,500 premium seats, 15 suites, a 3,600 sq ft double-sided video board and a 10,500 sq ft event space with a trophy wall. Buford City manager Bryan Kerlin told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the stadium had been paid for by the city general funds and its funding 'had no impact on teacher salaries, classroom resources, or any educational funding'. Still, there may well be other parts of the city the money could have been diverted to. Besides, blending spartan spaces for students and high-end facilities for corporate clients and rich alumni is increasingly common. It could make financial sense for schools aiming to maximise revenues and claw back some of the construction and operating costs, according to Victor Matheson, an economics professor at College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts. 'The economics term is price differentiation,' he says. It's long been common in professional sports as teams adopt a strategy beloved of airlines, with their myriad fare classes and options: charging wildly different amounts for the same product based on variations in the customer experience. As the masses in the cheap seats generate the noise, corporate boxes can deliver thousands of dollars in income per event, giant video screens appeal to advertisers, and perhaps former students who've been wined and dined in air-conditioned comfort and enjoyed a perfect view of the action will be inspired to make generous donations to the alma mater. Upscale new arenas are also a way to entice fans off the couch in an era when it seems like almost every sporting contest, no matter how obscure, is streamed. 'Everyone knows their biggest competitor is being able to watch on TV,' Matheson says. Climate-controlled facilities mitigate against extreme weather, and with gargantuan video boards, televisions on concourses, myriad food and drink options and glitzy graphics on LED ribbon displays, fans can go to the stadium, experience the live atmosphere and still gaze at screens. Northwestern University in Illinois is building a privately-funded new stadium guided by the principle of 'premium for everybody,' reports Front Office Sports. At a projected cost of $862m it will be the most expensive college stadium ever, yet with only 35,000 seats it will hold 12,000 fewer people than the venue it is replacing. The theory underpinning the design is that modern fans want a more intimate and luxurious experience, with changing tastes – and a changing climate – rendering even relatively recent venues obsolete. In 2020 Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers quit their open-air 48,000-capacity ballpark, which opened in 1994, for a new 40,000-capacity building with a retractable roof. This season a minor league baseball team, the Salt Lake Bees, moved from Smith's Ballpark, which also opened in 1994, to a new home, hiking ticket prices and halving their seating capacity in the process. The concentration on high-end customers, of course, prices out fans who cannot afford to spend heavily on a night out at the game. 'In all, premium seating makes up one-sixth of seats at the new ballpark, whereas it contributed to just 3% of Smith's Ballpark's capacity,' the Salt Lake Tribune reported. 'The seats closest to the action aren't available for sale on a per-ticket basis; instead, those are field-level suites that must be reserved in their entirety.' Sports' growing focus on premium customers mirrors a shift in the American economy as a whole: this year a Moody's Analytics study found that the US economy is now deeply reliant on the richest households, with the top 10% of earners accounting for 50% of consumer spending, a sharp rise from recent decades. Logically, better facilities should breed better players, with victories leading to bigger attendances, swelling civic pride, adding to the appeal of the fast-growing suburbs where large high school stadiums are often located and boosting the prospects of the kids who dream of reaching the NFL. The trickle-down effect from the professional and college ranks to high schools isn't only a matter of swankier facilities. It's also visible in the potential financial incentives. College players have been permitted to make money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights since 2021. In June this year a former high school player filed a class-action lawsuit in California challenging restrictions on the ability of the state's high school student-athletes to profit from their NIL rights. It could pave the way for high school stars across the US to earn income and to transfer to other schools for sporting reasons. 'Corporations see a lot of untapped economic value in high school athletics,' Yaman Salahi, an attorney representing the player named in the suit, said in a statement to Front Office Sports, 'and we want to ensure that value is shared equitably with the athletes that create it.' Like teenaged soccer starlets at professional clubs in other countries, 16- and 17-year old American football players might one day be wealthy and famous, with a status to match the grandeur of their home stadiums. 'The difference here is that it's the local public school that's doing the development,' Matheson points out. For now, stadiums as sizeable and expensive as Buford's remain rare outside Texas, the state that is the epicentre of the high school football infrastructure arms race. In 2017 the independent school district in the Houston-area suburb of Katy opened a $70m, 12,000-capacity stadium adjacent to its existing and still operational 9,800-seat venue. According to the website more than a quarter of the 1,267 high school football stadiums in Texas can hold over 5,000 people, with eight seating at least 16,500. The combined capacity of 4.4 million is larger than the populations of 24 states. About a quarter have video scoreboards and 27 high school stadiums have opened in Texas since 2020. A $56m multi-purpose venue in the Houston-area city of La Porte is set to host its inaugural match this month. Texas produces more NFL players than any other state, found a study by the data analysis firm Lineups, with Houston the leading city. On the other hand, Texas is ranked 34th for educational attainment by US News & World Report, is far below the national average for teacher pay and expenditures per student, and according to one study, this year Texas teachers expect to spend on average $1,550 of their own money on classroom supplies. Many would argue there are better things to spend money on than school sports.
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
Adam Schiff, Letitia James and Trump's Payback Plan
President Trump's Justice Department recently reached a nadir when two prominent Democrats, New York's attorney general, Letitia James, and Senator Adam Schiff of California, were placed under criminal investigation for their personal financial dealings. They are the wrong targets chosen for the wrong reasons in a case supervised by the wrong prosecutor. But there's not much either of them can do about it. The process leading up to the investigation demonstrates how this president has eroded longstanding ethical norms governing the relationship between the White House and the Justice Department. As the head of the executive branch, the president has authority over all the agencies in his cabinet, including the Justice Department; but since the abuses of Watergate, all subsequent presidents have taken steps to remove themselves from individual prosecutorial decisions while still leading on policy matters. The Justice Department manual instructs that 'the legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence. It is imperative that the department's investigatory and prosecutorial powers be exercised free from partisan consideration.' To that end, the manual sharply restricts contacts between prosecutors and the White House in criminal cases. With Mr. Trump using his social media megaphone, those limits don't exist. Ms. James earned the president's ire by accusing him and the Trump Organization with fraud in connection with the valuation of real estate and winning a $454 million judgment against them (Mr. Trump is appealing). Mr. Schiff was a leader, in his days as a member of the House of Representatives, of the investigation of Russia's efforts to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, and he became the lead House manager in Mr. Trump's first impeachment. Among many other insults, Mr. Trump has reposted a call for Ms. James to be 'placed under citizens arrest' for 'blatant election interference and harassment,' and over the years he's denounced 'Shifty Schiff,' demanding that he be 'questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.' If there were any doubt that these investigations amount to political hit jobs against two of President Trump's most indefatigable political adversaries, the issue was settled with Attorney General Pam Bondi's pick to lead the inquiries — Ed Martin, the Justice Department official who was so unqualified and partisan that he couldn't win confirmation in the Republican Senate to be the United States attorney in Washington. As a consolation prize for that failure, Mr. Trump appointed him to lead the so-called Weaponization Working Group, the Orwellian name for the prosecutorial payback operation designed to build cases against those who investigated Mr. Trump during the Biden administration. Some of Mr. Martin's first targets are Ms. James and Mr. Schiff. Far from displaying the open mind that honorable prosecutors should demonstrate, Mr. Martin said his goal was to 'stick the landing' against the two Democrats. But a president's critics, like the president himself, should not be above the law, so what, then, is the evidence against Ms. James and Mr. Schiff? For both, the issues relate to real estate and mortgages, and the facts about them seem already well established. The case against Ms. James has three parts, First, in 2023, she financed the down payment to help her niece buy a single-family home in Norfolk, Va. According to her attorney Abbe Lowell, Ms. James signed several documents that made clear that her niece, not Ms. James herself, would live in the house. But on one form, a power of attorney, she indicated that she herself would live there, which was obviously a mistake. In light of the other documents, the bank itself could not have been misled, and in any event, the mistake on the power of attorney brought Ms. James no monetary gain. In 2001, Ms. James bought a four-story brownstone in Brooklyn with separate apartments for herself, her mother, her brother and a family friend. On one form, filed 24 years ago, the property was listed as having five units, not four. At all other times, she correctly listed it as four units. Last, in 1983, Ms. James's father bought a house in Queens for the family. On the mortgage application, he mistakenly listed Ms. James, who was just out of college, as his spouse, not his daughter, although other documents listed their relationship correctly. Ms. James has denied any wrongdoing, and according to her lawyer, the accusation that she may have financially benefited is baseless. In a demonstration of the ferocity of the legal assault on Ms. James, her office was subpoenaed last week in a different criminal investigation, led by Justice Department prosecutors in upstate New York. This inquiry is apparently aimed at proving that Ms. James committed some kind of misconduct during the fraud investigation of Mr. Trump and his company, as well as in a separate lawsuit that her office filed against the National Rifle Association. The only basis for this case, it seems, is that the president was unhappy with the outcome of both cases, which Ms. James's office won. As for Mr. Schiff, the investigation of him is rooted in the fact that like many members of Congress, he owns two residences, one in his home state of California and another in the Washington suburbs. According to mortgage documents, Mr. Schiff listed both as his 'primary' residence, which, according to a social media post by the president, represented an effort to 'get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.' At the time Mr. Schiff applied for the mortgages, he was already in Congress, so the banks knew he had two residences. There does not appear to be any deception by Mr. Schiff and he has publicly denied the claims. (In addition, Mr. Schiff apparently last applied for a mortgage in 2012, which means any possible crime would be outside the 10-year statute of limitations; that would probably apply to most of the charges against Ms. James as well.) For the moment, Ms. James and Mr. Schiff are essentially powerless. There is no remedy in federal law to stop even clearly meritless investigations. At best, the two elected officials can look forward to months of detailing their personal financial arrangements; in other words, they will be compelled to violate the political maxim that holds if you're explaining, you're losing. Worse yet, their legal fates are in the hands of a dedicated political enemy who will be able to present the case for indictment to a grand jury. There, in the famous utterance of Sol Wachtler, the onetime chief judge of New York's Court of Appeals, prosecutors can get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.' The two elected officials will be able to offer formal legal and factual defenses only after they are indicted — that is, when they are criminal defendants in federal court, which is, to put it mildly, hardly a welcome forum. President Trump has always been a master of projection. His accusations of misconduct nearly always replicate what he himself has done. So it is with 'weaponization,' which is how he describes the entirely legitimate efforts during the Biden years to hold him accountable for his financial chicanery and his efforts to overturn his loss of the 2020 election, among other misdeeds. Now, at his behest, his administration is turning that word against two of his most prominent critics. For Mr. Trump, there may be few spoils of victory sweeter than the ordeal that Ms. James and Mr. Schiff will soon endure. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@ Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
