suit

Dec. 23 (UPI) — The federal government is suing Washington, D.C., to ease its gun-ownership laws, which are the strictest in the nation.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed the suit Monday in federal court seeking to declare the laws unconstitutional and prevent the District from enforcing them. The laws ban most semiautomatic rifles and other firearms from being registered with the police department. This makes any possession of those guns illegal. AK-47s and AR-15s are among those that are illegal. Those owning those guns can face misdemeanor charges and fines.

The action “underscores our ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Washington, D.C.’s ban on some of America’s most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment — living in our nation’s capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The suit cites District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2008. Before Heller, the District made it illegal to carry unregistered firearms but it also banned the registration of handguns. The Heller decision said that people can have guns in their homes for self-defense.

After Heller, the District updated its gun laws and included a registry and training requirements. But it still makes assault rifles impossible to register.

The suit filed by the Justice Department argues the merit of the law.

“D.C.’s current semi-automatic firearms prohibition that bans many commonly used pistols, rifles or shotguns is based on little more than cosmetics, appearance, or the ability to attach accessories, and fails to take into account whether the prohibited weapon is ‘in common use today’ or that law-abiding citizens may use these weapons for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the District’s restrictions lack legal basis,” the filing said.

D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday, reported by the Washington Post, that the District would “vigorously defend our right to make decisions that keep our city safe.”

“Gun violence destroys families, upends communities, and threatens our collective sense of safety. MPD has saved lives by taking illegal guns off our streets — efforts that have been praised by our federal partners,” Bowser said. “It is irresponsible to take any steps that would lead to more, and deadlier, guns in our communities, especially semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s.”

Lawyers from Everytown Law, a gun safety organization, said the city’s gun bans are legal.

“The legal consensus is clear: assault weapon bans are constitutional. Since the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen and Rahimi, federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that these laws are consistent with the Second Amendment,” Bill Taylor, deputy director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, said in a statement. “Assault weapons are designed for mass devastation, and we look forward to supporting D.C. as it defends this critical common-sense safety measure.”

District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro told prosecutors in August not to enforce felony charges for the city’s ban on openly carrying rifles and shotguns in public or the city’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

AN Avengers star left fans stunned when he was spotted riding a Lime bike around London in a full suit – would you have noticed him?

A TikTok user shared a clip of the 44-year-old actor stopped at traffic lights in Oxford Circus, somehow managing to blend in with the other cyclists despite his attire. 

Realising it was Tom Hiddleston, they wrote: “Didn’t expect to see this today.” 

And, referencing Tom’s Avengers character, they added: “Loki on a Lime.” 

Commenting on the spot, one user said: “Riding a bicycle in a suit is such a vibe.”

Someone else wrote: “You’re telling me I could casually bump into Tom Hiddleston in London?”

But some questioned Tom’s safety, with another saying: “He should be wearing a helmet.” 

Another fan claimed Tom was on his way to the premiere of series two of the Night Manager – shunning a taxi in favour of the bike.

Tom and his actress fiancee Zawe Ashton confirmed last month they’d welcomed their second child.

The couple are extremely private and weeks earlier Zawe, 41, was forced to deny rumours they’d tied the knot.

She joined longtime pal Miquita Oliver on her Miss Me? podcast, clearing up the speculation – revealing even family members had believed it, sending her upsetting messages in the process after “not being invited”. 

She told Miquita: “We’ve been engaged for a long time.

“There are … I think there have been publications that have named us husband and wife already.

“Those text messages were very … there’s some toxic paragraphs that were thrown my way!

“Like ‘uh, okay, no invite? Whatever.” It’s like, no, no, no. It didn’t happen! We didn’t do it in secret. We haven’t eloped.”

Dec. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is suing the BBC for $10 billion, alleging it intentionally misrepresented a speech he gave before the Jan. 6 storming of Capitol Hill in order to influence the result of the 2024 presidential election.

The lawsuit was filed in a Florida court on Monday, more than a month after Trump threatened to bring litigation against Britain’s public broadcaster over the editing of a speech he gave to supporters in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, in the documentary Trump: A Second Chance.

Trump’s lawyers described the documentary’s depiction of him as “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory and malicious,” alleging it was aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment.”

The suit is for $5 billion in damages, plus interest, costs, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief the court finds appropriate.

The BBC declined to comment Tuesday but vowed it would fight the case.

“As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” said a spokesman.

The Panorama documentary aired in Britain on Oct. 28, 2024, just days ahead of the Nov. 5 election. The BBC stresses it was not broadcast in the United States and that it did not make it available to view there.

In the documentary, video of Trump’s speech was edited to piece together two comments the president made about 50 minutes apart, while omitting other parts of his speech.

“[T]he BBC “intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021,” his lawyers state in the lawsuit.

“The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The claim refers to the splicing together of excerpts lifted from the video that made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell,” was what viewers of the program saw, when Trump’s actual words were, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

It wasn’t until 50 minutes later in the speech that Trump made the comments about fighting.

The infraction went unnoticed until early November when The Telegraph published an exclusive on a leaked internal BBC memo in which a former external ethics adviser allegedly suggested that the documentary edited Trump’s speech to make it appear he directed the Jan. 6 attack on Congress.

Following the report, the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, and head of news, Deborah Turness, resigned.

BBC chairman Samir Shah immediately apologized for what he called an unintentional “error of judgment.”

After Trump wrote the BBC demanding a correction, compensation and threatening a $1 billion lawsuit, the corporation formally apologized and issued a retraction that was the lead story across all of its news platforms on television, radio and online — but said it strongly disagreed “there is a basis for a defamation claim.”

To win the case, Trump’s legal team would need to convince the court the program had caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The BBC has said that since the program was not broadcast in the United States or available to view there, Trump was not harmed by it and the choices voters made in the election were not affected as he was re-elected days after.

However, Trump’s legal team alleges the BBC had a deal with a third-party media company that had rights to air the documentary outside of the United Kingdom.

The blunder has reignited a furious national debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the institution itself, which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

It also comes as the future of the BBC is under review, with the renewal date of its royal charter approaching on the centenary of its founding in 2027.

Trump has won out-of-court settlements in a series of disputes with U.S. broadcasters, although largely at significantly reduced sums than those sought in the original lawsuit.

In July, CBS settled a $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 5.

ABC News paid Trump $15 million and apologized to settle a defamation suit over comments by presenter George Stephanopoulos that incorrectly stated Trump was “liable for rape.”

In 2022, CNN fought and successfully defended a $475 million suit alleging it had defamed Trump by dubbing his claim the 2020 election was stolen from him as the “Big Lie.” The judge ruled it did not meet the legal standard of defamation.

He has live cases pending cases against the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

The demolition of the East Wing of the White House is seen during construction in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 17. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a lawsuit to stop construction of the ballroom. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 12 (UPI) — The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a lawsuit against the President Donald Trump administration to block construction of a ballroom on White House grounds.

The suit claims the ballroom construction is unlawful and asks the court to stop further construction until the plans go through a review process, as required by law.

Former White House attorney under presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Greg Craig, is representing the Trust. Defendants in the suit include the president, the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the General Services Administration and their leaders. The lawsuit was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, not anyone else,” the filing said. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in. President Trump’s efforts to do so should be immediately halted, and work on the ballroom project should be paused until the defendants complete the required reviews — reviews that should have taken place before the defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the ballroom — and secure the necessary approvals.”

Trump initially said the project wouldn’t interfere with the building and would be “near it but not touching it.” But then the East Wing was demolished to make way for the ballroom project. The now-$300 million project is being funded by donors, Trump has said.

The National Trust said it sent a letter to the Park Service, the National Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts in October asking them to stop the demolition and begin review procedures. But it didn’t get a response.

“Yet it appears the site preparation and preliminary construction of the proposed new ballroom is proceeding without any review by either commission or by Congress, and without the necessary approvals,” the suit said. “By evading this required review, the defendants are depriving the public of its right to be informed and its opportunity to comment on the defendants’ proposed plans for the ballroom project.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in October that the president doesn’t need approval for demolition but only needs it for “vertical construction.”

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement Friday: “President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate, and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did.”