“Within the NBA”

Consolation prize

Millions of DirecTV customers likely won't have the opportunity to look at the NFL's opening game, “Monday Night Football,” on ESPN because the corporate has yet to succeed in an agreement with the network's parent. Disney As of Monday evening.

Disney's television channels have been off the air for DirecTV customers since September 1 on account of a dispute over fees and package deals. These channels include the pay-TV channels ESPN and FX, in addition to the tv network ABC in some markets.

Disney and DirecTV are unlikely to succeed in an agreement in time for “Monday Night Football,” in keeping with people acquainted with the matter. But negotiations are still ongoing and things could change, they added. A deal could possibly come as soon as tomorrow.

The satellite and streaming company, which Disney, like DirecTV, describes as anti-consumer, is pushing for the potential for putting together genre-specific packages corresponding to kids, entertainment and news, which Disney rejects.

Because of the dispute, DirecTV customers were unable to look at the U.S. Open and the primary full weekend of the school football season.

Live sports proceed to attract huge audiences and result in hefty media rights deals, which in turn have produced among the most costly broadcast networks. ESPN is alleged to be collecting among the highest fees paid by pay-TV corporations to hold the network and its sister channels, CNBC previously reported.

Sports have long been seen because the glue that holds the normal pay-TV package together as customers migrate to streaming services. According to a recent report from MoffettNathanson, 4 million pay-TV customers have been lost to date this yr.

The dispute over DirecTV's broadcast rights comes at a time when the TV network's recent promoting campaign highlighted the channel's streaming options to draw consumers.

“The Walt Disney Co. once again disclaims any responsibility to consumers, distributors and now the American justice system,” said Rob Thun, DirecTV's chief content officer, in a press release last week.

Last month, a US judge temporarily blocked the sports streaming service Venu – a three way partnership between Disney, Fox Corp. And Warner Bros. Discovery — to begin in time for the NFL season. The lawsuit was filed by Internet TV bundle provider Fubo TV and supported by DirecTV and EchoStars Dish.

The lawsuit argued that there have been antitrust concerns related to Venu. The corporations also argued that Venu would hurt their businesses because it might offer a sports-only package. Pay-TV providers argued that they were quickly losing customers on account of high programming costs that drove up the worth of the package, despite the fact that streaming was originally a less expensive option.

DirecTV alarmed Customers were switched to competing alternatives for receiving ESPN on Friday and were also told they might receive a $30 credit.

DirecTV announced Saturday that it had filed a criticism with the Federal Communications Commission, saying Disney didn’t negotiate in good faith.

According to DirecTV, Disney insisted that DirecTV conform to a “clean slate” clause and an agreement to not sue, each of that are designed to forestall DirecTV from taking legal motion against Disney's anticompetitive claims, which would come with filing good faith complaints with the Commission.”

Disney has stated that the company is “willing to supply DirecTV the pliability and terms we have now granted to other distributors,” adding that it “won’t enter into any agreement that undervalues ​​our portfolio of television channels and programs.”

“We never wish to have a blackout. That's not good for either side. And in fact it's not good for the client. We've done every part we will,” ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro said on CNBC last week.

Disney later added that more than 90% of DirecTV households watched its channels each month last year and that it has the most successful content on the platform, citing Nielsen. The company also said it has offered DirecTV different packages and also charges rates that are consistent with other distribution partners.

The NFL in particular is often the reason why disputes over promotions are settled. The most recent case occurred just last year.

Last September Charter Communication and Disney engaged in a similar battle that ultimately lasted 10 days. However, Charter and Disney reached a settlement a few hours before “Monday Night Football” that allowed customers to tune in that evening.

Last year, Charter argued that the pay-TV business model was broken, pointing out that broadcasters like Disney had siphoned much of its content for their streaming services. In response, Charter pushed for its customers to have access to Disney's ad-supported streaming apps Disney+ and ESPN+ at no additional cost.

ESPN's Pitaro referred to negotiations that took place with Charter a year ago in his remarks last week.

“We comprehend it was very difficult to get this deal done … but I give Charter plenty of credit because they got here into the room with very concrete ideas. They had a vision that they desired to execute,” Pitaro told CNBC.

The dispute between DirecTV and Disney has led to a mudslinging match between the two companies that is reminiscent of most disputes in the television industry.

In this case ESPN reporter Adam Schefter proclaimed on social media platform X, Monday's game between the New York Jets and the San Francisco 49ers on ESPN and pointed out which other platforms DirecTV subscribers can log into to watch the game.

DirecTV also expressed its displeasure.

“Disney is within the business of making alternate realities, but that is the actual world where we consider you’ve gotten to earn your way and answer for your individual actions,” DirecTV's Thun said in a press release. “They wish to proceed to pursue maximum profits and dominant control on the expense of consumers – making it harder for them to decide on the shows and sports they need at an inexpensive price.”

It is simple to get distracted by the barbs, jabs and noise of ongoing and really public dispute between the richest man on the earth and a merciless justice system in Brazil's highest court. Elon Musk, the billionaire and owner of X, usually posts his contempt for Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes – a person whom Musk has known as “dictator”” And “Brazil's Darth Vader.” He makes these comments on a social media platform that Moraes has banned in Latin America's most populous country as a part of a long-running campaign against disinformation.

But as Expert in Brazilian digital lawI see this as greater than only a bitter personal feud. X's legal battle with Brazil's Supreme Court raises necessary questions on platform regulation and the way to combat disinformation while protecting freedom of expression. And while the main focus is on Brazil and Musk, it's a debate that reverberates all over the world.

Countdown to the massive fight

In August 2024, the situation between Musk and Moraes got here to a head, but this battle had been brewing for years.

In 2014, Brazil adopted the “Civil rights framework for the Internet” or the “Internet Bill of Rights” because it is often known. This bipartisan framework for Internet regulation outlined principles to guard user privacy and free speech while Introducing penalties for platforms that violate the principles.

It included a system of “judicial notice and takedown” whereby web platforms would only be held chargeable for harmful user-generated content in the event that they did not remove the content after receiving a court order to achieve this.

The approach should strike a balance between protecting free expression and removing illegal and harmful content. It prevents social media platforms, messaging apps and online forums from being robotically held answerable for users' posts and empowers courts to intervene when vital.

However, the 2014 law doesn’t provide detailed rules for content moderation and leaves much of the responsibility within the hands of platforms equivalent to Facebook and X.

And the rise of disinformation lately, especially concerning the 2022 Brazilian presidential electionshas shown the constraints of the framework.

The then President Right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaroand his followers were accused of using social media platforms like X to Spreading untruthssow doubts concerning the integrity of the Brazilian electoral system and fuel violence. When Bolsonaro defeated within the vote by the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silvaa web based campaign of election denial flourished. culminated within the storming on January 8, 2023 of the Brazilian Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidential Palace by Bolsonaro’s supporters – an event similar the riots within the US Capitol two years earlier.

The fight becomes personal…

In response to the disinformation campaigns and attacks, Brazil’s Supreme Court launched two investigations – the Investigation into digital militias and the Anti-Democratic Acts Investigation – to analyze the groups involved within the plot.

As a part of these investigations, the Supreme Court ordered social media platforms – equivalent to Facebook, Instagram and X – handy over IP addresses and block accounts linked to those illegal activities.

But now Musk, who describes himself as Fundamentalist of free speechhad acquired the platform and promised to support free speech, restore suspended accounts, and significantly calm down the platform's content moderation policies.

As a result, Musk has been openly defying the Supreme Court's orders for the reason that starting. In April 2024, X's global government affairs The team began informing the general public about what they considered to be the Supreme Court’s “illegal” demands.

The dispute escalated in late August when X’s legal representative in Brazil resigned and Musk refused to appoint a brand new legal representative – a move that Moraes interpreted as an attempt to avoid the law. In response ordered the ban of the platform on August 31, 2024.

The move got here with heavy penalties for Brazilians trying to avoid the ban. Anyone using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access X will face each day fines of nearly $9,000 – greater than the common annual income of many Brazilians. These decisions were confirmed by a panel of 5 Supreme Court judges on September 2, 2024. However, given criticism of the judiciary's overstepping of powers, the plenary of 11 judges will debate and possibly reconsider this a part of Moraes' decision.

… then becomes political

The battle between X and Brazil on the Supreme Court is deeply politicized. On September 7 Thousands of Bolsonaro supporters took part in a protest for freedom of expression. Lula's government and the Supreme Court have come under fire, with the opposition and right-wing factions calling the suspension of the platform a Symbol of state abuse.

This rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to the more balanced, deliberate efforts to control platforms that began over a decade ago with the Marco Civil da Internet. It also underscores the challenge of striking a balance between free expression and combating disinformation in a deeply polarized environment—an issue that Brazil is much from alone in facing.

The political pressure surrounding the ban on X doesn’t bode well for Brazil's ongoing efforts to counter online disinformation and hold platforms accountable for harmful content.

“Bill on fake news”, because it is known as by the Brazilian media, was introduced by the country’s Congress in 2020. It goals to create control mechanisms and increase transparency regarding political promoting and content moderation policies.

But despite good intentions and a really relaxed approach to “regulated self-regulation,” the ultimate version of the bill was blocked within the Brazilian Parliament after three years of debate.

It follows a campaign by right-wing politicians and Lobbyists of the foremost technology corporations who described the law as “Censorship law”, arguing that it could impair free speech and stifle political discourse. At this point, the fate of the bill seems uncertain.

Meanwhile, on August 23, The Supreme Court announced that a legal review to be held in November will address two key parts of the Marco Civil case.

The first is the Legal Notice and Takedown procedure, which Critics complain is just too slow and allows platforms to opt out of implementing more robust content moderation mechanisms. Proponents maintain that judicial oversight is vital to forestall platforms from arbitrarily removing content, which may lead to censorship.

The second area under review is the a part of the Marco Civil that sets the penalties for corporations that don’t comply with the principles. The debate revolves around whether the present penalties, particularly the suspension of services, are proportionate and constitutional. Critics argue that blocking a complete platform constitutes a violation of users’ rights to freedom of expression and access to information, while supporters insist that it’s a vital tool to make sure compliance with Brazilian laws and preserve sovereignty.

The fate of the “fake news law” and the Supreme Court’s review could set latest legal standards for platforms in Brazil and determine how far the country can go in enforcing its laws against global technology corporations to combat disinformation.

And while the Supreme Court did circuitously link the review to the continued feud with X, the fight with Musk provides the inevitable political backdrop to discussions concerning the future direction of Brazil's experiment in platform regulation. The fallout from this seemingly personal dispute could subsequently have significant regulatory consequences for Brazil and potentially other countries as well.

SAO PAULO — A judge of the Brazilian Supreme Court on Friday ordered the suspension of Elon Musk’s Social media giant X in Brazil after the tech billionaire refused to appoint a legal representative within the country, in response to a replica of the choice obtained by The Associated Press.

This move further escalates the months-long dispute between the 2 men over freedom of expression, right-wing extremist accounts and misinformation.

Judge Alexandre de Moraes warned Musk on Wednesday evening that X might be blocked in Brazil if he didn’t comply together with his request to appoint a representative, giving him 24 hours to achieve this. The company has not had a representative within the country for the reason that starting of this month.

In his ruling, de Moraes gave web service providers and app stores five days to dam access to X and said the platform would remain blocked until it complied together with his orders. He also said individuals or firms using virtual private networks (VPNs) to access X would face a every day tremendous of fifty,000 reais ($8,900).

“Elon Musk showed his total disregard for Brazilian sovereignty and especially for the judiciary by presenting himself as a true supranational entity, immune to the laws of each individual country,” de Moraes wrote.

Brazil is a crucial marketplace for X, which has struggled with a lack of advertisers since Musk bought the previous Twitter in 2022. About 40 million Brazilians, a couple of fifth of the population, access X no less than once a month, in response to market research group Emarketer.

Late Thursday, X posted on its official Global Government Affairs page that it expected de Moraes to shut down X “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.”

“When we tried to defend ourselves in court, Judge de Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with jail time. Even after she resigned, he froze all of her bank accounts,” the corporate wrote. “Our appeals to his blatantly illegal actions were either dismissed or ignored. Judge de Moraes' colleagues on the Supreme Court are either unwilling or unable to stand up to him.”

X clashed with de Moraes because the corporate refused to comply with instructions to dam users.

Among the accounts that the platform has previously closed on Brazilian orders are MPs from former President Jair Bolsonaro's right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy.

Musk, a self-described “champion of absolute freedom of expression,” has repeatedly claimed that the judge's actions amount to censorship, and his argument has been echoed by Brazil's political right. He has often insulted de Moraes on his platform, calling him a dictator and a tyrant.

De Moraes's defense team has argued that his actions against X were legal, supported by the vast majority of the court and aimed to guard democracy at a time when it’s under threat. His ruling on Friday relies on Brazilian law that requires foreign firms to have representation within the country in order that they might be notified when legal proceedings are underway against them.

Because operators are aware of the widely publicized stalemate and have an obligation to comply with an order from de Moraes, and doing so is simple, X might be offline as early as 12 hours after receiving the orders, says Luca Belli, coordinator of the Technology and Society Center on the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university in Rio de Janeiro.
The shutdown will not be an isolated case in Brazil.

Individual Brazilian judges shut down Meta's WhatsApp, the country's most generally used messaging app, several times in 2015 and 2016 because the corporate refused to comply with police requests for user data. In 2022, de Moraes threatened the messaging app Telegram with a nationwide shutdown since it repeatedly ignored requests from Brazilian authorities to dam profiles and supply information. He ordered Telegram to appoint an area representative; the corporate eventually complied and remained online.

X and its predecessor Twitter have been banned in several countries, mostly in authoritarian regimes comparable to Russia, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkmenistan. Other countries comparable to Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt have also temporarily blocked X, mostly to crack down on dissent and unrest. Twitter was banned in Egypt after the Arab Spring uprisings, which some called the “Twitter Revolution,” but has since been allowed again.

A search on X on Friday found that lots of of Brazilian users were on the lookout for VPNs that would potentially allow them to proceed using the platform by making it appear as in the event that they were logging in from outside the country. It was not immediately clear how Brazilian authorities would police the practice and impose the fines cited by de Moraes.

Mariana de Souza Alves Lima, known by her name MariMoon, showed her 1.4 million followers on X that she was going to competing social network BlueSkyposted a screenshot and said: “That’s where I’m going.”

X said that the organization desired to publish de Moraes' “illegal demands” and the related court documents “in the interest of transparency.”

Also on Thursday evening, Starlink, Musk's satellite web service provider, announced on X that de Moraes had frozen his funds this week, stopping the corporate from accessing any transactions within the country where it has over 250,000 customers.

“This order is based on the unsubstantiated finding that Starlink should be responsible for the fines imposed – unconstitutionally – on X. It was issued in secret and without granting Starlink the due process guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution. We intend to resolve the matter legally,” Starlink said in its statement.

Musk responded to people sharing the reports of the payment freeze, adding insults aimed toward de Moraes. “This guy @Alexandre is an outright criminal of the worst kind, posing as a judge,” he wrote.

Musk later posted on X that SpaceX, which operates Starlink, would supply free web service in Brazil “until the matter is resolved” because “we cannot receive payment but do not want to cut anyone off.”

In his decision, de Moraes said he ordered the freezing of Starlink's assets because X didn’t find the money for in its accounts to pay the increasing fines and on the grounds that the 2 firms were a part of the identical economic group.

When Michael Jackson died in 2009, he left behind an advanced legacy. But one thing stays true: The King of Pop's music still generates thousands and thousands of dollars yearly. Jackson biopic is predicted for 2025, and “MJ,” his Broadway show, has brought his music to theaters worldwide.

But despite the continued success of Jackson's music, his estate has been in limbo for greater than a decade. This is as a consequence of a long-term tax dispute concerning greater than 700 million US dollars allegedly owed to the IRS, and other legal challenges.

The latest development within the saga got here on August 21, 2024, when a California appeals court approved a $600 million sale of assets proposed by Jackson's estate.

As Law Professors We are lecturers on trust and estate matters and imagine that Michael Jackson's estate can function a lesson to anyone desirous about making a will – even in the event that they don't have the King of Pop's fortune.

The mother and the multinational corporation

When Jackson signed his will In 2002, he left almost every little thing to his children in the shape of a trust; his mother has a small share during their lifetime.

His may also contained a general provision giving his executors—the people managing his estate—the ability to sell the estate's assets “on such terms as the executors think best.” The proceeds from the sale would then be distributed to his children.

In February 2024, Jackson’s executors negotiated what the New York Times called “Blockbuster deal“ to sell a good portion of Jackson’s music catalog to a three way partnership with Sony for $600 million.

Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, nevertheless, objected, amongst other things because, because the court explained, “Michael had told family members before his death that the assets should never be sold.

But in mid-August, a California appeals court dismissed Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit in a final decision which approved the planned sale.

Legal requirements for a sound will

Although it is not uncommon for people to casually discuss their estate planning with family and friends, these wishes are usually not legally enforceable unless they’re captured in a sound will, trust, deed or contract.

In most states including California In Jackson's case, a will normally needed to be in writing and signed by the creator – referred to as the “testator” – and two witnesses who observed the testator signing the desire.

These requirements allow courts to differentiate early drafts and memos from the ultimate version that the testator intends to put in force after his death. These rules also force testators to retain reliable evidence of their estate planning, which is helpful in Probate proceedings which occur in court after the death of the testator.

Interpretation of the desire text

When the meaning of a will is unclear, courts let witnesses testify about how the text needs to be interpreted. Katherine Jackson offered such testimony, arguing that when Michael gave his “entire estate” to his trust, he intended that the trust should receive the estate's assets largely in the identical form as they existed when Michael died.

According to Katherine, Michael wanted to provide the Trust his music catalogue, not the proceeds from the sale of his music catalogue, nor partial management rights to that catalogue.

However, the court disagreed with Katherine's interpretation because Michael's will gave his executors broad powers even through the administration of the estate. The court explained that the trust would receive distributions from the estate, however the executors “Power of attorney to sell real estate“ while managing the property.

The executor’s authority to sell estate items

In estate planning, the importance of executor's powers is commonly missed because they’re amongst essentially the most technical terms in a will. But the dispute over Jackson's estate shows that executor's powers can play a crucial role in estate administration.

Estate planning attorneys typically advise their clients to provide the executor broad powers to purchase and sell estate assets through the execution of the desire in order that the executor doesn’t must waste money and time obtaining court approvals for routine transactions.

Comprehensive powers of attorney for executors, as provided for in Jackson's will, subsequently reduce transaction costs in the long term. This increases the web value of the estate, which is ultimately distributed to the beneficiaries. Trust law protects the estate by making executors personally responsible for any abuse of power.

Estate planning for special assets

When advising clients with unique assets reminiscent of Michael Jackson's music catalog, estate planning attorneys typically advise testators against restricting the sale of invaluable property. That's because it may possibly be difficult to predict how circumstances might change in the long run.

A famous example of this misstep is the twentieth century media giant Joseph Pulitzer – the founding father of the Pulitzer Prize – left a will which prohibited his estate administrators from selling shares in his highly valued newspaper company.

Twenty years after Pulitzer's death in 1911, the newspaper business became unprofitable, so Pulitzer's trustees petitioned a New York court for permission to revise the desire, arguing that Pulitzer had did not foresee the changing fortunes of his newspaper. Court agreedand concluded that “the continuation of the publication of the newspapers … will in all probability result in a substantial impairment or destruction of a large portion of the trust assets.”

The Pulitzer case shows how limiting the ability of executors and trustees can backfire – an issue that Jackson's lawyers obviously desired to avoid.

Estate planning lessons

Estate planning is simply enforceable when it’s formalized in a document reminiscent of a will. Once formalized in writing, courts are reluctant to vary an estate plan based on posthumous testimony in regards to the testator's oral statements – even when those wishes were expressed to a parent.

Testators should subsequently fastidiously review every provision of a will, including technical terms which will require explanation by a lawyer. Testators also needs to be cautious: it could be tempting to regulate assets from the grave, but restrictions that appear desirable during life can backfire after death.

RICHMOND – A lawsuit filed this month accuses Richmond City Councilwoman Doria Robinson and her partner, Najari Smith, of wrongfully evicting Smith's former business partner from his home and ignoring conditions that made the apartment uninhabitable.

The lawsuit, filed August 19 in Contra Costa Superior Court, is just the most recent development in a months-long dispute over the closed Rich City Rides bike shop.

Roshni McGee is searching for greater than $1 million in damages, alleging he was illegally evicted from his home at 801 Marina Way South #2 before his lease expired, court records show.

The lawsuit is against McGee's landlords – Smith, who runs the nonprofit Rich City Rides, property owner Charles Patterson, Robinson and the nonprofit she runs, Urban Tilth. McGee co-founded the Rich City Rides Bike Cooperative with Smith and likewise served as co-owner, CEO and program director.

The group of defendants is accused of causing McGee “emotional distress, discomfort, annoyance, physical injury, pain and suffering” by failing to properly maintain the house where McGee lived from 2019 to May 2023, the lawsuit says. Starting in early 2023, McGee was harassed and intimidated with the intent to evict him from the house, the lawsuit says.

McGee claims they neglected insect and rodent infestations, mold and mildew, broken plumbing and locks, holes within the partitions and gaps within the flooring.

“These deficiencies were serious and had existed for a long time,” the lawsuit states.

According to the five-year lease attached to the grievance, McGee agreed to pay $1,700 a month plus utilities. The lease expired in August 2024, but McGee says he moved out in May 2023. According to 2 checks attached to the court documents, McGee received $16,000 from Urban Tilth to vacate the premises.

Robinson, who represents the Third District on the City Council and has served as executive director of Urban Tilth since 2007, declined to comment on the lawsuit “due to the legal nature of these matters.” But she said the lawsuit was “a continuation of political attacks” by former Richmond Mayor Tom Butt and his sons Andrew and Daniel. Daniel Butt is currently representing McGee within the case.

Earlier this month, the previous mayor filed a grievance with the state's election regulator accusing Robinson of a conflict of interest due to “commingling of funds and concerns about a connection” between Robinson and the nonprofit Rich City Rides during her tenure on the City Council. The Fair Political Practices Commission responded that Butt provided no evidence to support his claims and that Robinson had previously told her she followed legal advice and abstained from voting on Urban Tilth, Rich City Rides' financial sponsor.

“I am confident that these new allegations will be proven to be baseless when the truth comes to light,” Robinson said of McGee's lawsuit.

Robinson also accused McGee of stealing inventory and embezzling funds from Rich City Bike Shop, which closed earlier this yr. McGee didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment through his attorney. However, his attorney, Daniel Butt, posted on social media that Smith “defamed” McGee and retaliated against him.

Smith initially reported a burglary to police, but after an initial investigation, officers believed no burglary had occurred. However, other possible crimes are still being investigated, Lt. Donald Patchin, a spokesman for Richmond police, confirmed in an email Tuesday.

“It appears to be a business dispute between the owners/operators of the business,” Patchin said. “After the initial report, investigators determined that while there does not appear to have been a break-in, there were some possible crimes related to the handling of business funds and property.”

Local news

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The $38 million verdict in a landmark trial over abuse at a New Hampshire youth correctional facility stays in dispute nearly 4 months later. Both sides filed their final motions with the judge this week.

“It is almost time to fully present and decide the facts,” Judge Andrew Schulman wrote in an order earlier this month, giving the parties until Wednesday to submit their motions and supporting documents.

At issue is the $18 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in aggravated damages that a jury awarded David Meehan in May after a month-long trial. His allegations of horrific sexual and physical abuse on the Youth Development Center within the Nineties sparked a significant criminal investigation that resulted in several arrests, and his lawsuit looking for to carry the state accountable was the primary of greater than 1,100 to go to trial.

The dispute centers on a portion of the decision by which the jury found the state chargeable for just one “incident” of abuse on the Manchester facility, now called the Sununu Youth Services Center. Jurors weren’t told that under the law, damages against the state are capped at $475,000 per “incident.” Some jurors later said they wrote “one” on the decision to point a single case of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from greater than 100 episodes of physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

In an earlier order, Schulman said the cap requested by the state could be an “unreasonable miscarriage of justice.” But in his Aug. 1 order, he indicated that the one other option could be to order a brand new trial since the state had not allowed him to regulate the variety of incidents.

Meehan's lawyers, nonetheless, asked Schulman to throw out only the a part of the decision by which the jury mentioned one incident, leaving the $38 million award in place, or to order a brand new trial to find out only the variety of incidents.

“The court should not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the jury made a single error,” they wrote.

“To force a man – who the jury found was seriously injured by the wanton, malicious or oppressive conduct of the state – to choose between reliving his nightmare in a new and very public trial or accepting one-eightieth of the compensation the jury intended is a grave injustice that cannot be tolerated in court,” wrote attorneys Rus Rilee and David Vicinanzo.

But the state's lawyers provided an in depth explanation of why imposing a cap is the one right plan of action. They said jurors could have found that the state's negligence created “a single, harmful environment” by which Meehan suffered harm, or they might have believed his testimony about only a single, episodic incident.

In support of their latter argument, they cited the testimony of an authority “according to which the mere fact that the plaintiff sincerely believes that he was raped multiple times does not mean that this was actually the case.”

Meehan, 42, went to police to report the abuse in 2017 and sued the state three years later. Since then, 11 former state employees have been arrested, although one has since died and charges against one other were dropped after the person, now in his early 80s, was declared incompetent to face trial.

The trial in the primary criminal case begins on Monday. Victor Malavet, who has pleaded not guilty to 12 counts of aggravated sexual assault, is accused of attacking a young girl in a jail in Concord in 2001.

WALNUT CREEK – Plans for a brand new Chick-fil-A in a Walnut Creek shopping mall have sparked a heated dispute between a whole bunch of neighbors and city planners – and left considered one of the last tenants there caught within the crossfire.

Residents and public officials are divided over whether the fast-food chicken chain's alternative of a vacant bank on the Citrus Marketplace Shopping Center will breathe recent life into this sleepy Walnut Creek square or further increase traffic on the nearby, busy Ygnacio Valley Road bypass.

Rica Zaharia opened her bakery, European delicaciesopened on the property two years ago, and it has turn out to be a well-liked hidden gem in the case of making croissants, brioche, pavlova, strudel and other internationally inspired baked goods baked fresh from scratch.

Now surrounded by 10 vacant lots, the 63-year-old Transylvanian native has welcomed the concept of ​​a brand new Chick-fil-A with open arms – not due to menu or conservative politics, but due to its potential to generate much-needed customer traffic and protect the plaza's small businesses, which she says are currently “dying daily.” Current tenants within the quiet plaza include a BevMo, Panda Express, a small ice cream shop, a youth gymnastics center, a post office and a hair salon.

Despite the town's intention to draw more businesses to the still-vacant lots, Zaharia was the one Walnut Creek resident to specific support for the initiative.

“Please don't hate me,” Zaharia said on the May 21 City Council meeting, addressing the backlash against her position on the Chick-fil-A proposal. “More than any other mall in Walnut Creek, this place feels like a ghost town.”

The issuance of Chick-fil-A's first constructing permits has infuriated dozens of neighbors within the affluent Woodlands neighborhood up the road, who’ve argued vehemently that the proposed Chick-fil-A at 2290 Oak Grove Road would increase automotive traffic on already congested and dangerous streets in the town's northernmost corner, lower property values ​​and attract drifters and criminals.

Despite concessions from the town's elected officials – including prohibiting the development of a drive-thru lane for the 5,363-square-foot Chick-fil-A project, requiring the restaurant to shut at the least 10 p.m., and requiring traffic, odor and other mitigation measures – neighbors were still upset concerning the Approval of the town council in May.

Now, Zaharia said she's coping with strong backlash from her neighbors — including threats of a boycott — because she believes a Chick-fil-A would help your entire mall and her own business, which has experienced a steep financial downturn for the reason that first fried chicken dispute. She needed to cut the bakery's hours in late July after recording the weakest month in sales within the two years she's worked at Citrus Marketplace.

“When people start telling me and others how to think and do things, that is not acceptable,” Zaharia said in an interview. “I have worked 17 hours almost every day for the past two years – starting at 3 a.m. I am not tired because I do everything out of passion and to make my customers happy, but we cannot find enough people to sell our products to.”

After five hours of intense public testimony – which, apart from Zaharia’s comments, was entirely directed against Chick-fil-A – The Walnut Creek City Council unanimously rejected the appeal to the restaurant's design plans.

City staff said any traffic spike attributable to the fast-food chain can be minimal, as they determined that Chick-fil-A would only add a couple of seconds to the common wait time at this busy intersection. The project will now be sent back to Walnut Creek's Design Review Commission for final consideration of the long run restaurant's planned architecture, landscaping and signage.

During the project's public comment period, opponents dismissed data from months of research by Walnut Creek's city planners and transportation consultants, demanding that the town reject Chick-fil-A's plans or at the least delay their approval, arguing that the town is giving fried chicken an undue priority over their neighborhood's character and quality of life.

“The City Council has tried for several years to create a culture, charm and feel of a small community,” said Corban Porter, an attorney and Woodlands resident who has appealed previous project approvals. “We submitted 200 signatures from Woodlands residents and nearly 700 surveys, most of which highlighted health and safety concerns … to allow this to happen without conducting a more comprehensive study of the neighborhood is irresponsible.”

While a handful of speakers raved concerning the delicious baked goods at European Delights and expressed their support for similar small businesses, the Woodlands can't have their pastries and eat them too.

First, city officials argued, there was no legal reason why Walnut Creek could reject the project outright during its May 21 meeting since it was consistent with the town's zoning and general development plan. Second, Chick-fil-A's construction might have been quickly approved months ago if the corporate had not opted for a conditional constructing permit to supply take-out food.

In addition to safety concerns concerning the many young individuals who walk or bike to nearby schools, many residents also expressed concern concerning the Atlanta-based chicken restaurant's conservative repute and its history as a funder of anti-LGBTQ groups.

Chick-fil-A “does not reflect the inclusive and diverse values ​​of our community,” says Jessica Hunt, who has lived in Woodlands for 40 years, owns an area small business and might be the brand new president of the Valley Verde Elementary School Parent Council.

Council member Kevin Wilk also identified that Citrus Marketplace is virtually empty. Business suffered a pointy decline after March 2022, when a former Nob Hill food market on the property closed, which was blamed on skyrocketing rents. Since then, it has turn out to be increasingly difficult to get other businesses to sign business leases, in keeping with representatives of DPI Realty, the space's landlord since 2001.

Wilk lives near the Woodlands but even closer to traffic that results in Whole Foods, Walgreens, Rocco's Pizzeria and other stores within the Encina Grande Shopping Center, lower than a half-mile from Citrus Marketplace across Ygnacio Valley Road. After explaining that traffic near his home will not be as bad as he once feared, he dismissed the notion that city officials haven’t rigorously considered the small print and impacts of Chick-fil-A's future development.

“It's not like companies have to break down the doors of the shopping centers and operate their businesses there,” Wilk said. “We have a shopping center there now, which we need to survive.”

Originally published: August 4, 2024 at 6:15 am

Celebrities who can't consider that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are still embroiled in a bitter divorce battle nearly eight years after their split will likely be reminded of one other ugly, drawn-out divorce battle in Hollywood that also involved a dispute over child custody.

Halle Berry and her ex-husband Olivier Martinez were back in court this week – nine years after announcing their divorce and a 12 months after seemingly settling their differences by reaching a joint custody and child support arrangement for his or her now 10-year-old son Matteo. reported the New York Post.

Berry, 57, has filed papers in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming the 58-year-old French actor violated the terms of their co-parenting agreement by allegedly “taking the summer off.” Instead of completing the agreed-upon therapy sessions, Martinez decided to travel to France in July and hang around along with his brother in Los Angeles, Berry said in court documents.

Berry's legal team stated that “co-parenting therapy was supposed to begin immediately and the agreed-upon six joint sessions were supposed to be completed by June 14, 2024. Today is July 26, 2024 and they haven't even started yet.”

Berry claimed that “Olivier has practically unilaterally decided to 'take the summer off,'” declaring that each one co-parenting sessions are happening over Zoom. The Oscar winner said she has “tried everything to build a better relationship with Olivier as co-parents,” but “instead of support, she is met with resistance and conflict.”

Berry and Martinez were married from 2013 to 2016. When they announced their separation in 2015, they said they made the choice with “a heavy heart.” reported the Los Angeles Times.

“We move forward with love and respect for one another and focus together on what is best for our son,” the couple said on the time.

But those friendly feelings didn't last – a pattern all too familiar to Berry, who has an extended, sad history of turbulent relationships.

In the Nineties, Berry said, she had an abusive relationship with a “well-known” Hollywood star. In 1991, in the course of the filming of “The Last Boy Scout,” he beat her so badly that she suffered everlasting hearing damage in a single ear. People reported. Berry too has uncovered that she grew up watching her mother being recurrently beaten by her father before her parents divorced when she was 4 years old.

Berry's first husband, from 1993 to 1997, was baseball star David Justice. She then married singer-songwriter Eric Benét in 2001, but in the course of the first 12 months of their four-year marriage he was undergoing treatment for sex addiction.

Berry's next partner from 2005 to 2010 was French-Canadian model Gabriel Aubry, with whom she has Nahla, now 16. But when the 2 separated and custody of their daughter was at stake, things got ugly between them.

In 2010, the “Monster's Ball” star began dating Martinez, whom she met while filming “Dark Tide” in South Africa. She desired to move to Martinez's home country of France to marry him and provides her daughter “a quieter life away from the pressures of Hollywood.” People have reported.

But a judge denied their request to take Nahla away from her father in November 2012. About two weeks after the judge's decision, Aubry and Martinez got into an argument at Berry's Los Angeles home. While each men accused one another of throwing the primary punch, Aubry specifically said Martinez threatened to kill him if he didn't allow him and Berry to take Nahla with them after they moved to France. TMZ reported on the time.

Berry and Aubry then “mutually” agreed on custody, the actor's lawyers said. However, details of the agreement weren’t made public. E!News reported. A 2014 court ruling required Berry to pay Aubry $16,000 a month in child support, plus $115,000 in back payments and $300,000 for Aubry's legal fees. ABC News reported this.

It was only in May that Berry and Martinez agreed to a brand new co-parenting agreement that included therapy sessions to “resolve disputes and conflicts between them in order to achieve successful co-parenting” of their son, court documents show. by Page Six.

Both parents agreed to attend two individual sessions and not less than six joint co-parenting sessions, the documents say, in response to Page Six.

But Berry now claims Martinez violated that therapy agreement “with reckless disregard,” the Post reported.

“To him, the terms of the parties' agreed-upon court orders are merely suggestions that he can follow when it suits him and ignore when it does not fit his alienation agenda,” the brand new court documents say.

“Olivier's conduct is damaging to the parties' son,” Berry alleged within the criticism, adding that it also “further harms the parties' already strained relationship.”

The Emmy winner asked a judge to force Martinez to follow the therapy plan, however the “Unfaithful” actor hit back, claiming his ex-wife “knew” he wouldn't have the option to attend therapy sessions this summer because he was traveling.

In Martinez's response, which was received by InTouchWeekly, He said Berry “continually attempted to bully and coerce the defendant (Martinez) by using her wealth and the legal experts at her disposal to 'force' him into submission.”

Originally published: August 2, 2024 at 11:58 am

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans Friday for military prosecutors to work with the California Department of Justice on certain East Bay cases, just weeks after an analogous agreement with Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price's office fell apart amid a rare public spat between the 2 Democrats.

Newsom said attorneys from CalGuard's Counterdrug Task Force would work with Attorney General Rob Bonta's office on Alameda County cases. Among those not involved is the county's top prosecutor, Price, whose dispute with the governor earlier this month resulted in “disappointment” on either side.

In an announcement announcing the move, Newsom portrayed it as a possibility to “help bring justice to the people of the Bay Area.”

“Today, we are strengthening accountability and justice for East Bay communities by quickly reaching an agreement to provide additional resources to prosecute criminal behavior,” Newsom's statement said.

In a separate statement, Price expressed her approval of this move.

“We hope that the swift agreement between the Department of Justice and CalGuard will produce equally swift results, and my office stands ready to support that effort in any way possible,” Price said within the statement.

She also appeared to query the outcomes of Newsom's much-vaunted increase within the variety of California Highway Patrol officers within the East Bay. Price as an alternative suggested that her office had received only a small fraction of the a whole lot of cases Highway Patrol officers have opened as a part of their deployments within the Oakland area this yr.

The reshuffle of state and military prosecutors was the newest twist in a months-long saga that took a bitter turn in mid-July.

In February, Newsom announced plans to send prosecutors and military prosecutors to work directly with the Alameda County District Attorney's Office as part of a bigger effort to curb crime across the East Bay. The effort was modeled on an analogous agreement with the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and got here amid a surge of state troopers within the Oakland area to combat a wide selection of crimes, including shoplifting and automotive break-ins.

However, the move failed as a result of a series of delays, with Newsom and Price blaming one another for failing to agree on the terms of the partnership.

One of Newsom's Cabinet secretaries identified to Price in a letter last month that the Attorney General's Office took too long to conform to a memorandum of understanding that might have paved the way in which for the prosecutors' arrival. The letter claimed the Attorney General's Office had not taken “initial” steps to finalize such an agreement or appoint National Guard lawyers to work in its office, regardless that Newsom's office had complied with Price's team's requests for resumes and interviews, it said.

But Price said the governor's office didn’t begin that process until April. She also said the unique plan to send three prosecutors to Alameda County has been reduced to at least one, and the one remaining prosecutor is not going to be available after mid-August as a result of “another commitment.”

The issue culminated in competing press conferences on July 12, when Newsom publicly withdrew his offer of aid.

“(The governor) has the right to do whatever he deems appropriate,” Price said on the time, adding that her office had received “mixed messages about what (the governor) would do” and that she was “disappointed” the governor's office had not reached out to her on to share its concerns.

Originally published: August 2, 2024 at 12:31 pm