Boater in Clearwater ferry crash steps down from Jannus Live
The local business owner who is under investigation for his role in a fatal Clearwater ferry crash"is stepping down" from his position at Jannus Live, the downtown St. Petersburg concert venue announced Wednesday.
State of play: Jeff Knight "will no longer have any affiliation with the venue," read a statement posted on Instagram, signed "The Jannus Live family."
The statement attributes the decision to Sunday's crash, which killed ferry passenger Jose Castro, a 41-year-old father of two girls, and injured 10 others.
The intrigue: The statement didn't specify whether Knight has sold his ownership stake in the company or plans to do so.
A statement provided to Axios by Travis Horn, president and CEO of public relations firm Bull Horn Communications, said Knight "no longer has any title or position" at Jannus Live, but it didn't address ownership.
Knight became a minority owner in the venue in 2009, per a Tampa Bay Times story.
Catch up quick: Knight was driving a 37-foot recreational boat Sunday night when it plowed into the back of a Clearwater ferry with 45 people on board just south of the Memorial Causeway, authorities said.
Knight, who court records show has a history of DUI and boating-related legal trouble, had no alcohol in his system and has been cooperative with authorities, per the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which is investigating the crash along with the U.S. Coast Guard.
Although authorities haven't arrested anyone, Castro's family this week called for justice, the Times reported. "I want this guy to pay for what he did," Castro's sister told the newspaper.
The latest: Kevin Hayslett, Knight's lawyer, sent a letter to investigators Tuesday saying the ferry wasn't adequately lighted at the time of the crash, the Times reported. The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, which runs the ferry system, declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
Hayslett also disputed initial reports from police that the crash was a hit-and-run. Knight had someone on his boat call 911 and stayed at the scene, offering help, until emergency responders got there, his lawyer said.
He did eventually leave because his boat was taking on water, Hayslett wrote, per the Times. Law enforcement helped tow him to the Belleair Causeway boat ramp.
A city camera that captured the crash shows Knight's boat remaining at the crash scene for about 10 minutes before driving off.
Yes, but: The manager of a pirate cruise crew that was nearby on the water that night, and which helped some of the passengers in the aftermath, said he was skeptical of Hayslett's claim about the lighting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni's $400 Million Countersuit Against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds Dismissed by Judge
Justin Baldoni's $400 million countersuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds and other parties was dismissed by the judge on June 9 The New York Times has stood by its coverage since the lawsuit, and Lively's lawyers previously called Baldoni's lawsuit "vengeful" Baldoni's lawyer previously called Lively's motion to dismiss the lawsuit an "abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system"In a major setback for Justin Baldoni, the It Ends With Us director-star's countersuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds and their publicist, as well as his lawsuit against The New York Times, have been tossed out by the judge. On Monday, June 9, Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to dismiss the $400 million lawsuit filed by Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties against Lively and Reynolds, which alleged extortion and defamation, as well as the $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Times. The judge noted, though, that Baldoni's legal team can still amend the claims for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract if they choose to, with a deadline of June 23. "The Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged," Judge Liman wrote in the opinion and order filing viewed by PEOPLE. "The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and [publicist Leslie] Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane or the Times would have seriously doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law." The judge added, "The Wayfarer Parties' additional claims also fail. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety." Attorneys for Baldoni did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment. Lively's lawyers Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb call the decision a "total victory and a complete vindication" for the actress and the others whom "Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and The New York Times." "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," they say in the statement, adding that "we look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages" from the Wayfarer parties who they say "perpetrated this abusive litigation.' Sigrid McCawley, an attorney representing Lively's publicist Sloane, says in a statement, "Leslie Sloane has consistently said that she never defamed Baldoni or the Wayfarer Parties and she was wrongfully dragged into this lawsuit because the Wayfarer Parties wanted to actively harm Sloane's reputation. Today's decision by the Court makes clear that Sloane did nothing wrong. Sloane stands fully vindicated, and justice has been served." The Times has long stood behind its coverage of Lively's complaint that was filed in December 2024 and led to her lawsuit against Baldoni. She has alleged sexual harassment and retaliation, which he denies, and her lawyers have previously called his subsequent countersuit "vengeful" and "meritless." A spokesperson for the newspaper previously said, "Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported." Lively, 37, recently agreed to drop two of her claims against Baldoni, 41 — intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress — in a move her legal team described as a "routine part of the litigation process" for "streamlining and focusing" their case. is now available in the Apple App Store! Download it now for the most binge-worthy celeb content, exclusive video clips, astrology updates and more! In March, Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman spoke out after Lively filed a motion to dismiss their countersuit, saying the actress' attempt to "dismiss herself from the self-concocted disaster she initiated is one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system." He added at the time, 'Stringent rules are put into place to protect the innocent and allow individuals to rightfully defend themselves. Laws are not meant to be twisted and curated by privileged elites to fit their own personal agenda." Lively and Baldoni's trial — during which both are expected to testify — is currently scheduled for March 2026. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
LA Riots, Deportations, N-Word Karens and Other Distractions That Have Black Folks Sleepwalking
In an era marked by rising hate and division, the Black community faces a new kind of attack — and it isn't always glaringly obvious. As chaos unfolds on screens and in headlines, the real threats slip by unnoticed, quietly reshaping our future. This is the cautionary tale about how distraction has become a weapon, and why staying truly woke means seeing beyond the noise to protect what's ours. Now, we love the phrase 'Stay woke' — thanks, Donald Glover — but it feels like we're sleepwalking through some of the biggest moves against us without fully grasping the severity of the situation on our hands. Whether people are picking up the pieces to failed immigration policies — sparking protests like the ICE L.A. riots — or we're sucked into reality TV, we must face these issues head-on. Let's take a deep dive into some of the major players in this advanced game of distraction, and how the tactics are used against us. Shocking immigration riots took place on June 8 in Los Angeles, where thousands took to the streets after ICE launched sweeping raids. Protesters were outraged over mass detentions, family separations, and the sudden deployment of National Guard troops while facing troops, tear gas, rubber bullets, and site-wide curfews. While Black and immigrant communities fight for their voice and future, chaos is staged at the hand of the Trump administration — once again — to keep everyone on edge and off their game. Frankly, the visible and physical tactic of slapping down unity is a slap in the face…and protesters weren't afraid to turn up in the faces of the California National Guard. At least 56 were arrested over the weekend, per NBC News. Don't come for us when we say this, but entertainment is slowly but surely becoming a form of mind control. Every scandal, every rabbit hole, every bombshell media trial (we're looking at you, Diddy) — it's all keeping us locked in and tuned out. Using celebs to push agendas? We're over it. It's Rome all over again, a reminder of how entertainment was used as a tool to minimize the potential for civil unrest, while enhancing their popularity and image. Works every time — but we're on to it. Many Black folks feel some decisions made by the Trump administration are slowly chipping away at the potential for Black progress. Community programs that offer support to education and health are being cut and stripped of their funding, such as proposed cuts to Title I funding. By the time we look up, they're already out the back door with a program — such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that was set in place to encourage Black success. Needless to say, politics can be a masterclass in misdirection. During the era of our civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, activism was rooted in real sacrifice. Today, social justice is somewhat of a trendy accessory: changing your Facebook photo to stand with victims and adding the black square to your Instagram profile. During the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, people, young and elderly, opted out of the bus system due to harsh treatment for a staggering 381 days—from Dec. 5, 1955 to Dec. 20, 1956. Compare that to now, where many won't log off for three minutes — let alone stand ten toes down for over a year. We can easily call this digital programming. Every person's feed is created especially for them, fueling their triggers, addictions, and messiest obsessions for monetary gain. No matter the social app, the goal is to keep us doom-scrolling until we're late for work, short on sleep, or deep into a chaotic rabbit hole. All the trash gets pushed to the top while real-world updates are suppressed, rendering many uninformed. Election disputes causing voter suppression may not be the intention, but it can delay access or hinder full participation. Allegations of voter fraud, battles over ballot access and unexpected changes to voting rules disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities. Claims of fraud become justifications for reduced early voting periods, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and stricter voter ID laws — all of which directly impact Black folks. It's bad enough some don't see the need to vote at all, and this surely doesn't help. At this point, just stop selling the microphones. Since the rise of YouTube podcasts, everybody's a scholar, everybody's got 'sources,' and everybody's reporting something — facts optional. It's a mess. And while the misinformation marathon continues, the truth doesn't even get a head start and opinions are seemingly as good as facts. Thanks to the late Kevin Samuels and many others, Black men and women turned what should be a wholesome discussion into a full-blown battlefield — and social media's eating it up. Known as 'Red Pill' content, some podcasts are built on dragging each other down, 'high value' nonsense and endless 'who brings what to the table' debates. Unifying the Black family has to be central to maintain success. While we're busy fighting each other, the real ops stay winning and we're watching it happen in 4K. They're not even hiding it anymore. Right under our noses, Black studies are being slashed from school curriculums, and key parts of our history are vanishing from textbooks. Since 2021, 44 schools have proposed bills in favor of restricting what's called critical race theory (CRT), per EdTrust. This prevents teachers from giving lessons on important topics, including systemic racism. From Florida to Texas, the erasure is real — and strategic. Whether it's 'talk proper' or 'dress like you want the job,' respectability politics whispers lies about what it takes to be accepted or protected here. We're taught to shrink, conform, and dilute our Blackness to make others comfortable — even though it hasn't stopped injustices. It's a distraction that places blame on individuals instead of the system designed to undermine, no matter how polished we appear. Covert anti-Blackness — whether it's subtle or in-your-face systemic discrimination — chips away at a system that talks big about freedom, equality, and representation. Under Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Navy to wipe the names of civil rights legends like Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg off naval ships. This kind of quiet erasure isn't loud, but it's no accident — it's polished and intentional. It seems Trump's administration has mastered the art of political theatre — one minute commuting the federal sentence of Chicago gang founder Larry Hoover, the next stripping the names of beloved civil rights leaders from U.S. Navy ships. While our attention was diverted to controversy, chaos, and entertainment, critical programs were defunded, protections dismantled, and inequalities deepened. This isn't just politics — it's a performance meant to mislead and confuse. With so many distractions in play before us, becoming more vigilant and spotting foul play is key. The time has come to cut the noise, and focus on moving forward together as a people in power.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge tosses Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively and New York Times
In a sweeping decision capping one of Hollywood's most closely watched legal battles, a federal judge on Monday dismissed two high-stakes lawsuits brought by 'It Ends With Us' director Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, against actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, The New York Times, and others — ruling that the wide-ranging claims, including defamation, extortion and breach of contract, failed to meet legal standards. The case stemmed from a December 2024 New York Times article detailing sexual harassment allegations that Lively made against Baldoni during production of the romantic drama, based on a formal complaint she filed with California's Civil Rights Department. Baldoni and Wayfarer alleged that the article — and Lively's broader conduct — were part of a retaliatory campaign to seize creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from publicity efforts and harm his reputation. U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected those theories in full, granting the motion to dismiss both the $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds and others and the $250 million defamation claim against the Times. 'The motions to dismiss are granted,' Liman wrote in a 132-page opinion, which also denied — for now — requests from Lively's team for attorneys' fees and sanctions under anti-SLAPP statutes in New York and California. In a statement, Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb called the ruling a decisive legal victory. 'Today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit,' they said. 'As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation.' Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In her complaint, Lively accused Baldoni of inappropriate physical and verbal conduct, including improvised scenes of intimacy and unsolicited comments about her appearance — allegations Baldoni strongly denied. The Times article recounted those claims, which Baldoni and Wayfarer argued were false and defamatory. In his decision, Liman found the article was protected reporting on a matter of public concern and dismissed all claims against the Times. He also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a series of pre-publication emails with the paper formed a binding agreement. 'The Wayfarer Parties plead in their complaint that 'the express written words' of the emails 'created an implied-in-fact contract,'' Liman wrote. But he concluded that no such contract existed, adding that the communications did not 'plausibly support an inference that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.' The court also rejected the notion that Lively's conduct — including her hesitation to promote the film and her insistence on workplace protections — amounted to extortion or breach. 'Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at [the] workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion,' Liman wrote. 'If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee's wrongful threats.' He added: 'There also is no allegation that Lively had a contractual obligation to promote the film; if not, there is no basis to assume that the value that she conveyed in terms of her willingness to promote represented anything other than a fair trade for the Wayfarer Parties' willingness to use her cut.' Liman further criticized the sprawl of the plaintiffs' filings — including a 224-page complaint and a 168-page 'timeline' exhibit — calling the latter improper and legally meaningless. While he declined to strike the exhibit from the docket, he said he would simply disregard it. Liman granted the plaintiffs leave to amend only a narrow part of their case — allegations that Lively interfered with Apple and Sony's promotional arrangements — but dismissed all other claims with prejudice, signaling that he found the broader legal theories fundamentally flawed. While an appeal remains possible, the ruling delivers a decisive and public defeat for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their attempt to reframe the fallout over the film. Lively's push to dismiss the lawsuit had drawn support from several advocacy groups, who argue that the case threatens hard-won legal protections for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Organizations including Equal Rights Advocates, Child USA and Sanctuary for Families filed amicus briefs in support of Lively's motion, warning that allowing such claims to proceed could deter survivors from coming forward and chill public discourse on workplace abuse.
