Latest news with #anti-SLAPP
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Navy veteran's $500M defamation lawsuit against Associated Press advances with first hearing
Zachary Young's high-stakes defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press continues to inch along in Bay County, Florida, as the U.S. Navy veteran seeks to clear his name. Young successfully sued CNN for defamation earlier this year after saying the network smeared him by implying he illegally profited from helping people flee Afghanistan on the 'black market' during the Biden administration's disastrous 2021 military withdrawal. Advertisement When covering the trial in January, Associated Press media reporter David Bauder wrote that 'Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan.' Young's legal team has said that the Associated Press article 'went even further than CNN's falsehoods,' and the veteran is seeking nearly $500 million in a defamation suit against the AP. On Monday, Young's legal team responded to the AP's motion to dismiss the suit. The AP had insisted Young's complaint is 'without merit' and unjustly challenges the outlet's free speech rights, but the Navy veteran's legal team believes the motion failed to address 'core issues.' Advertisement 'It does not dispute that the term 'human smuggling' implies criminal conduct, nor does it offer any valid explanation for its use of that term, even though a court previously ruled that Mr. Young committed no crime. AP's own Stylebook defines 'smuggling' as illegal,' Young's attorney, Daniel Lustig, wrote. 3 Former U.S. Navy Veteran Zachary Young continued his high-stakes defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press to clear his name of the report that he smuggled people out of Afghanistan. FOX News 'Dozens of AP articles reflect that usage. Just days before this filing, AP published a story about a man sentenced to 25 years in prison for 'smuggling people,' reinforcing that understanding,' Lustig continued. 'Even after receiving notice, AP refused to retract or revise the statement, not even to use a more accurate term such as 'evacuate' or 'rescue.'' Advertisement 3 Young was able to successfully sue CNN and is seeking nearly $500 million in a defamation suit against the AP. AP Young's attorney believes the most 'notable' part of the AP's motion to dismiss is that it never denied that 'smuggling' refers to a criminal act. 'Instead, it argues that the statement, in context, was not defamatory. That is not a defense, it is a concession. Under Florida law, if a statement is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, it is a question for the jury, not one to be resolved on a motion to dismiss. AP's attempt to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute to shield such a statement is both legally unsupported and fundamentally flawed,' Lustig wrote. Young's legal team has also filed a motion to amend the complaint to include punitive damages. Advertisement 3 Young's attorney Daniel Lustig said, the most 'notable' part of the AP's motion to dismiss is that it never denied that 'smuggling' refers to a criminal act. FOX News The 242-page filing suggested this case 'exemplifies the very scenario in which punitive damages are warranted to punish and deter such consciously indifferent conduct by a media organization.' On Tuesday, each side appeared for the first hearing in front of 14th Judicial Circuit Court Judge William S. Henry, who also presided over the CNN trial. The Case Management Conference, conducted over Zoom, was largely procedural and offered a chance for each party to explain why respective motions should be heard. Judge Henry scheduled the next hearing for July 3. He is expected to rule on both the AP's motion to dismiss and Young's amended complaint. The AP has referred to the lawsuit as 'frivolous' in past statements to the press.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Smokey Robinson Responds to Bombshell Sexual Assault Lawsuit With His Own Bombshell Claims
Legendary singer Smokey Robinson isn't taking those surprising sexual assault lawsuit lightly. In fact, his latest move proves he just may be gearing up for a big fight and we've got all the details. As we previously told you, four women have accused the Motown legend of sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, gender violence and creating a hostile work environment. His wife, Frances, has also been named in the suit. The women in particular are all allegedly former housekeepers of Robinson who claim that his wife had 'full knowledge of his prior acts of sexual misconduct' but 'failed to take the appropriate corrective action' to prevent 'deviant misconduct' from Robinson. They're seeking $5o million in damages. In the immediate aftermath, Robinson's attorney spoke out on behalf of him, describing the suit as an 'ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon' and the accusations as 'vile' and 'false.' Now, Robinson is taking further action to clear his name by filing a $500 million defamation countersuit against his accusers. Per court documents obtained by PEOPLE on Wednesday, the 'Cruisin'' singer is countersuing over allegations of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, financial elder abuse and more. The documents claim that the women lobbed 'gratuitous and slanderous allegations' against him, specifically citing a May 6 press conference in which 'The Tears of a Clown' singer was allegedly referred to as a 'serial and sick rapist.' 'The statements were false, and Plaintiffs knew them to be false,' the countersuit read. 'Nevertheless, they made the statements, and undoubtedly many people believe the statements to be true.' It later added: 'The Robinsons did not abuse, harm, or take advantage of Plaintiffs; they treated Plaintiffs with the utmost kindness and generosity. Unfortunately, the depths of the Plaintiffs' avarice and greed knows no bounds.' The countersuit also went on to say that Robinson's wife Frances was particularly distraught and felt betrayed by the accusations and their allegations of financial elder abuse stem from the fact that the four women's claims have 'caused the Robinsons, who are senior citizens, loss of income and assets set aside for retirement or for personal or family care and maintenance.' Additionally, Robinson alleges that this suit only came about after he and his wife rejected the women's demands of $100 million. Lawyers representing the unidentified women have since responded to Robinson's countersuit in statement, calling it 'a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.' They also said that their clients remain dedicated to receiving justice in this case and will file an anti-SLAPP motion in an attempt to get rid of the 'Ooo Baby, Baby' singer's suit altogether. 'This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others,' the four women's response read in part. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Disciplinary commission rejects Indiana AG Todd Rokita's call to dismiss latest ethics complaint
Attorney General Todd Rokita speaks to the media on Friday, March 21, 2025. (Niki Kelly/Indiana Capital Chronicle) The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission issued a firm rebuttal this week to Attorney General Todd Rokita's attempt to dismiss a pending ethics complaint accusing him of misleading the court. In the 44-page brief filed Tuesday, Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, called Rokita's motion 'procedurally improper' and 'meritless.' She referenced the Republican attorney general's filing from February, in which he argued that the pending disciplinary case violates his First Amendment rights and Indiana's anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect political speech from frivolous legal action. Meiring repeatedly rejected Rokita's claims that three new charges filed against the Republican attorney general were politically motivated or an unconstitutional attack on free speech. She urged the state's high court to move forward with the case. 'This matter is not about politics. It is not about (Rokita's) viewpoint on any political, social, or cultural issue, nor is it about any executive decision or action by (Rokita) in his statutory office of Indiana Attorney General,' Meiring wrote. 'Instead, this matter pertains to the integrity of the judicial system and the attorney disciplinary process.' At the heart of the dispute is a press release Rokita issued just hours after the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded him in November 2023 for earlier misconduct. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to violating professional conduct rules in exchange for a public reprimand. Although he agreed not to contest the charges, the commission found that Rokita recanted almost immediately, suggesting in a public press release that he had done nothing wrong. The disciplinary commission held that 'this retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.' One member of the nine-person commission, Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter, abstained from the proceedings. Story continues below. Commission's Brief in Opposition Rokita did not contradict the earlier disciplinary agreement — or the sworn affidavit — in his motion to dismiss. Rather, he maintained the disciplinary commission's latest charges against him violated Indiana law, specifically the 'constitutional separation of powers principles.' The attorney general also said he 'should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents without the constant threat of an unelected commission parsing his every word, ready to pounce with a disciplinary action when they perceive any imagined inconsistency.' 'Given the serious constitutional, statutory and factual problems with its case,' Rokita continued, the 'right thing' for the commission to do is 'withdraw its complaint.' Few actions could be deemed more in need of the Court's exercise of its constitutional responsibility than an allegation that a lawyer has lacked candor and been dishonest with the State's highest court. – Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission The commission disagreed. 'The Commission has no dispute with Respondent's right to issue a press release or to discuss the Conditional Agreement and the resolution of his disciplinary case. The fallacy in Respondent's argument is that he misidentifies the speech involved in this disciplinary matter,' Meiring wrote. 'The core issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent was candid with this Court in making sworn statements recited and relied upon in the 2023 Opinion. Simply put, Respondent's statements to the Court in the 2023 disciplinary proceeding, under oath, are the problematic speech.' As to Rokita's free speech claims, Meiring further argued that 'the First Amendment does not protect attorney speech that lies or misleads,' and cited multiple state and federal precedents that permit disciplinary sanctions for dishonest conduct by attorneys. Meiring asserted, too, that Rokita failed to file a required answer to the charges and instead tried to 'improperly' use a motion to bypass a formal hearing. Rokita additionally accused the commission of retaliating against him for proposing reforms to Indiana's attorney discipline rules, which he submitted to the state supreme court in November and released to the public in January. The changes sought to limit the disciplinary commission's power and protect attorneys from politically driven complaints. CONTACT US Rokita argued that the commission was aware of the proposal well before it was made public. He said the new disciplinary complaint filed against him at the end of January was a direct response. Meiring disputed those 'groundless' claims at length in this week's brief. She called Rokita's theory baseless, noting that the commission was already bound by a Feb. 4 deadline to conclude its investigation, 'and, if appropriate, file charges.' '(Rokita)'s decision on when to publish his Rules Proposal had no bearing on the Commission's filing decision,' Meiring wrote. 'Respondent's decision to publicly release his Rules Proposal on or about January 7, 2025, when the Proposal had been delivered to the Justices two months earlier, was his own timing choice,' she continued. 'Respondent cannot create suspicion of retaliation simply by publicizing his Rules Proposal closer to the Commission's deadline for filing the instant proceeding. Just as a litigant cannot prompt disqualification of a judge via the litigant's own action of filing an unfounded complaint or lawsuit, Respondent should not be able to prompt dismissal based on alleged 'suspicious timing' brought about by his own actions.' Central to the disciplinary commission's complaint is Rokita's sworn conditional agreement regarding his discipline, and a subsequent press release issued by the attorney general. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022. That November, a split-decision and public reprimand from state Supreme Court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Bernard. Rokita and the commission agreed to the discipline in the conditional agreement. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita seeks dismissal of latest disciplinary commission charges The parties disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. Rokita's punishment included a public reprimand and $250 in court costs. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita shared a lengthy and unrepentant statement, defending his 'true' remarks in which he attacked the news media, medical field and 'cancel culture.' The disciplinary commission pointed to those remarks — as well as earlier drafts of the statement obtained by subpoena, and a recent quote provided to the Indiana Lawyer — as evidence of Rokita's 'lack of candor and dishonesty to the Court' after he agreed to accept responsibility for misconduct. A decision on the dismissal motion and the disciplinary commission's new complaint is up to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the charges aren't dismissed — or if the disciplinary commission and Rokita can't reach a settlement agreement — the state's high court justices will appoint a hearing officer to hold a public hearing on the case and hear evidence. It would be up to the hearing officer to then issue findings and recommendations to the court, which has final say over the outcome of the case. Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include: a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed, however. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Associated Press
07-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Associated Press
Ryan Kavanaugh Defeats Ethan Klein
As published in CSQ on April 5th, 2025. Court Upholds Major Defamation Ruling in Favor of Mega Producer Ryan Kavanaugh Against Podcaster Ethan Klein - Is This Just the Beginning? Landmark decision marks a turning point in the battle against online defamation. LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESS Newswire / April 6, 2025 / Today Kavanaugh's legal team is celebrating a landmark win. As published in CSQ Magazine. In a dramatic turn of events that could shake the foundations of influencer culture, controversial YouTuber Ethan Klein-best known for his H3H3 podcast empire and often referred to as professional Troll-has suffered a major legal defeat in a defamation case brought by film producer Ryan Kavanaugh. The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a previous court ruling, dismissing Klein's appeal and holding him and his company legally accountable for knowingly spreading false, harmful narratives against Kavanaugh. Klein, often self-described as a provocateur and satirist, has long come under fire for using his platform-followed by millions, many of whom are minors-to target individuals with relentless smear campaigns. But in the case of Ryan Kavanaugh, Klein may have gone too far. According to court documents and extensive digital evidence, Klein launched a coordinated effort to tarnish Kavanaugh's reputation after being accused of illegally streaming a pay-per-view boxing match produced by a company Kavanaugh was affiliated with. Rather than respond with legal clarity, Klein retaliated publicly-weaponizing his fanbase and social channels to paint Kavanaugh as a villain in hundreds of podcast episodes and clips, many of which were riddled with falsehoods and personal attacks. Worse, Klein reportedly encouraged his audience, many of whom are estimated to be under the age of 15, to manipulate search engine results and vandalize Kavanaugh's Wikipedia page. The strategy? Use Reddit and other forums to circulate defamatory clips and articles, then boost them with engagement to ensure they dominate search algorithms. Kavanaugh's legal team described it as 'digital mob warfare' led by a self-proclaimed influencer who knows how to exploit social platforms-and young followers-for personal vendettas. Klein publicly claimed victory in the lawsuit and misled his audience about the outcome. In reality, the courts not only rejected his anti-SLAPP motion-designed to dismiss frivolous suits-but also cleared the way for Kavanaugh to pursue what could amount to more than tens of millions in damages. This ruling significantly bolsters Kavanaugh's claim that Klein acted with actual malice and deliberate intent to defame. Beyond the legal ramifications, the case casts a harsh light on Klein's broader pattern of behavior: recruiting an army of online followers-many too young to discern fact from fiction-to do his dirty work. Multiple individuals over the years have reported harassment, doxing, and threats after becoming targets on the H3H3 podcast. This included Klein engaging people specifically to 'vandalize' Kavanaugh's Wikipedia page and have his followers send 'hundreds of death threats to Kavanaugh and his family including his ex-wife and kids'. This time, however, the consequences have gone beyond YouTube comments and trending hashtags-they've entered the courtroom. The last major similar media case involved Gawker and Hulk Hogan who was awarded $140 Million dollars Ryan Kavanaugh's lawyer, Amy McCann Roller of Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch 'This is an important case about the growth of online and professional trolling, which required a real analysis of when free speech is no longer a harmless opinion. In this case, Ethan Klein used his large fan base to recklessly and knowingly spread malicious lies about my client Ryan Kavanaugh, harming him immeasurably. Klein has tried, unsuccessfully, to dodge responsibility at every turn. But Mr. Kavanaugh is willing to take this all the way, to set the record straight and hold Klein accountable for spreading malicious lies. The appellate court's decision sends a powerful message to those who think the California anti-SLAPP creates a zone where people can lie and hurt others with impunity. Hopefully this ruling can help others who are being wrongfully targeted and whose lives are being upended by those who act irresponsibly without regard for the harm they cause to others.' And now, with the court firmly siding against Klein, a chilling question emerges: Does this pave the way for the others he's targeted to finally step forward and seek justice? Given how many others have come public with horror stories of how Klein has intentionally targeted them in a similar manner it won't be surprising to see similar cases in the near future. Contact:
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Erie Community Foundation donates $15,000 for LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention
Advocates of the LGBTQ+ community say it's more important now than ever before to provide safe spaces for everyone. That's why the Erie Community Foundation continues to support the work that goes into it as well. Erie Land Bank changing policies to help drive development Statistics show that LGBTQ+ youth have higher risks of anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies than other groups. And investments into nonprofits like Compton's Table are what can help tip the scale in the other direction. 'Over the past several months we've seen several executive orders that have really been targeting the trans and the queer community stripping us of rights that we've been fighting for for centuries and decades really,' said Tyler Titus, the founder of Compton's Table. Titus said a statistic that keeps them up at night is a staggering 50% of LGBTQ youth have regular instances of suicidal ideation. And it's why groups like the Erie Community Foundation are continuing to support the work of nonprofits like Compton's Table. State Rep. Ryan Bizzarro named Advocate of the Year for anti-SLAPP law 'The LGBT fund is a really special group of people who are so passionate about turning around, taking their own experience as community members, or their passions as allies and using that to drive improvements for the LGBTQ+ community and this grant is a really perfect example of that,' said Olivia Burgess, director of collective giving for the Erie Community Foundation. The community foundation's LGBT fund is awarding $15,000 to Compton's Table to support youth programs. True North is a four-session life skills and empowerment program meant to help LGBTQ people ages 16-24. It gives them skills in things like career development, budgeting, self-care and beyond promoting confidence and resilience. Chat n' chill is what it sounds like, a safe space for peer groups to connect for open conversations regarding whatever might be happening in their lives. 'It was life-changing. I was able to learn life skills like how to cook, clean, be a good roommate and live with other people. They break it down into these nice bite-sized lessons each week so it's not too overwhelming for people. Especially when you're young, queer, and maybe even neurodivergent, it can be harder to absorb information like that,' said Sunny, a mentor at True North for Compton's Table. 'We need to create these people where can just show up as their full authentic self and just do things that teen and young adults do,' Titus went on to say. LECOM Health offers Erie's first treatment for Alzheimer's, dementia Titus said studies show that all it takes is just for one adult to be accepting of that individual and the risk of suicidal ideologies decreases by 40%. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
