tosses

Writer Alex O’Keefe, whom police detained last month in a viral seating dispute on a New York City train, is off the hook for alleged disorderly conduct.

A New York City administrative judge dismissed a civil summons against former “The Bear” writer O’Keefe on Tuesday, ending its case against him. O’Keefe informed his Instagram followers that “the charges against me were dismissed” and “deemed by the judge facially insufficient.”

“That’s legal-ese for [‘BS’],” O’Keefe says in the video as he stands outside the courthouse. “They never had anything on me … they were trying to make an example of me.”

O’Keefe attorney Lindsay Lewis said in a Wednesday statement that the writer’s legal team “commends the Court for reaching the only just and correct result based on the law — a complete dismissal of the case.”

Last month, O’Keefe uploaded videos of the Sept. 18 incident to Instagram. He documented MTA police in New York placing him in handcuffs for alleged disorderly conduct. In the caption of his post, the speechwriter — who is Black — alleged that officials detained him on a train after an “old white woman” complained about how he was sitting. He claimed the woman took issue with the “one Black person on the train.”

The MTA Police Department confirmed it responded to a “report of a disorderly passenger” at the Fordham Metro-North station in the Bronx. A conductor reported that a 31-year-old passenger occupied two seats and “refused to remove his feet from one of the seats.”

Police accused O’Keefe of placing both his legs across an adjacent seat, violating the rail line’s rules. They also accused him of refusing police directions to exit the train onto the platform and to board a following train. O’Keefe delayed service “for several hundred other riders for six minutes,” police alleged, and was handcuffed and removed from the train.

In his Instagram post about the incident, O’Keefe alleged that a friend of the woman who scolded his manner of sitting told him, “You’re not the minority anymore.” He added that police “arrested” him without “even talking to the Karen who reported the one Black person on the train” and that only other Black passengers recorded the dispute.

Police refuted that and said O’Keefe “was not placed under arrest at any time” during the incident.

O’Keefe doubled down on his previous denials of wrongdoing in a statement shared Tuesday, writing, “I was harassed and detained for sitting while Black.

“Today, the court made a clear judgement: I did nothing illegal on September 18. Like millions of New Yorkers, I was going to work to earn a living and support my family,” he added. “Even though this absurd case was dismissed today, I will continue to defend the civil rights of every New Yorker. Every worker has a right to a safe commute.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.  — A Florida federal judge on Friday tossed out a $15-billion defamation lawsuit filed by President Trump against The New York Times.

U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday ruled that Trump’s 85-page lawsuit was overly long and full of “tedious and burdensome” language that had no bearing on the legal case.

“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” Merryday wrote in a four-page order. “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.”

The judge gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint that should not exceed 40 pages.

The lawsuit named four Times journalists and cited a book and three articles published within a two-month period before the last election.

The Times had said it was meritless and an attempt to discourage independent reporting. “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing,” spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said Friday.

Merryday noted that the lawsuit did not get to the first defamation count until page 80. The lawsuit delves into Trump’s work on “The Apprentice” TV show and an “extensive list” of Trump’s other media appearances.

“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” wrote Merryday, an appointment of former President George H.W. Bush. “Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.”

The lawsuit named a book and an article written by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig that focuses on Trump’s finances and his pre-presidency role in “The Apprentice.”

Trump said in the lawsuit that they “maliciously peddled the fact-free narrative” that television producer Mark Burnett turned Trump into a celebrity — “even though at and prior to the time of publications defendants knew that President Trump was already a mega-celebrity and an enormous success in business.”

The lawsuit also attacked claims the reporters made about Trump’s early business dealings and his father, Fred.

Trump also cited an article by Peter Baker last Oct. 20 headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment.” He also sued Michael S. Schmidt for a piece two days later featuring an interview with Trump’s first-term chief of staff, John Kelly, headlined “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”

Trump has also sued ABC News and CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” both of which were settled out of court by the news organizations’ parent companies. Trump also sued The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch in July after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan judge dismissed criminal charges Tuesday against a group of people who were accused of attempting to falsely certifying President Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in the battleground state, a major blow to prosecutors as similar cases in four other states have been muddied with setbacks.

District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons said in a court hearing that the 15 Republicans accused will not face trial. The case has dragged through the courts since Michigan Atty. Gen. Dana Nessel, a Democrat, announced the charges over two years ago.

Simmons said she saw no intent to commit fraud in the defendants’ actions. Whether they were “right, wrong or indifferent,” they “seriously believed” there were problems with the election, the judge said.

“I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress,” Simmons said.

Each member of the group, which included a few high profile members of the Republican Party in Michigan, faced eight charges of forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. The top felony charges carried a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

Supporters, friends and family crowded in the hallway outside the courtroom cheered when the judge said the cases would be dismissed. Defendants leaving the courtroom cried and hugged friends and family. One woman wept as she hugged another and said, “We did it.”

Investigators said the group met at the Michigan GOP headquarters in December of 2020 and signed a document falsely stating they were the state’s “duly elected and qualified electors.” President Joe Biden won Michigan by nearly 155,000 votes, a result confirmed by a GOP-led state Senate investigation in 2021.

Electors are part of the 538-member Electoral College that officially elects the president of the United States. In 48 states, electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote. In Nebraska and Maine, elector votes are awarded based on congressional district and statewide results.

One man accused in the Michigan case had the charges against him dropped after he agreed to cooperate with the state attorney general’s office in October 2023. The other 15 defendants pleaded not guilty and have maintained that their actions were not illegal.

Judge Simmons took nearly a year to say whether there was sufficient evidence to bring the cases to trial following a series of lengthy preliminary hearings.

Prosecutors in Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme. None of the cases have neared the trial stage and many have been bogged down by procedural and appellate delays.

In Nevada, the state attorney general revived a case against a group of allegedly fake electors last year, while a judge in Arizona ordered a similar case back to a grand jury in May. In Wisconsin last month, a judge declined to dismiss felony charges against three Trump allies connected to a plan to falsely cast electoral ballots for Trump even though Biden won the state in 2020.

The Georgia prosecution is essentially on hold while Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta, who brought the charges against President Trump and others appeals her removal from the case. Technically, Trump is still a defendant in the case, but as the sitting president, it is highly unlikely that any prosecution against him could proceed while he’s in office.

The effort to secure fake electors was central to the federal indictment against Trump that was abandoned earlier this year shortly before Trump took office for his second term.

Volmert writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge has rejected Newsmax’s lawsuit alleging Fox News violated U.S. antitrust laws by squeezing out rival conservative news networks.

The court’s decision came two days after the case was filed.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon said she would give Newsmax a do-over. The Boca Raton, Fla.-based network has until Thursday to refile its lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s media company and top-rated cable news network to comply with judicial style.

In her two-page ruling on Friday, Cannon said Newsmax’s lawyers inappropriately tried to build their case by stringing together allegations to compound their effect.

“We understand this is just a technical matter and our law firm is refiling,” Newsmax said in a statement.

Newsmax sued Fox News and its parent Fox Corp. on Wednesday, accusing Murdoch’s television company of anticompetitive behavior to maintain its “unlawful monopolization of the right-leaning pay TV news market.”

Lawyers for Newsmax alleged Fox used its market clout to discourage pay-TV distributors from carrying or promoting Newsmax and other rival conservative news outlets. Newsmax claimed Fox News resorts to intimidation campaigns, including by pressuring guests not to appear on Newsmax.

“But for Fox’s anticompetitive behavior, Newsmax would have achieved greater pay TV distribution, seen its audience and ratings grow sooner, gained earlier ‘critical mass’ for major advertisers and become, overall, a more valuable media property,” Newsmax said in its lawsuit.

Fox News scoffed at the allegations.

“Newsmax cannot sue their way out of their own competitive failures in the marketplace to chase headlines simply because they can’t attract viewers,” the company said in a statement.

Murdoch’s company declined further comment on Friday.

The Trump-appointed judge wrote that Newsmax’s lawsuit was structured as a “shotgun pleading” — a complaint that contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts.”

Should Newsmax try again, it must untangle its arguments.

“Each count must identify the particular legal basis for liability and contain specific factual allegations that support each cause of action within each count,” Cannon wrote.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order by the chief judge that stopped the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen granted a request by the judges to toss the case, saying to do otherwise “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” Cullen wrote. “That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”

The White House had no immediate comment.

Cullen was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2020. He serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the case because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s harsh response to judges who slow or stop its policies.

Cullen expressed skepticism of the lawsuit during a hearing in August. He questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue all the judges as a means of challenging the order.

Signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, the order prevents the Trump administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in Maryland district court. It blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The order says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

The Justice Department, which filed the suit in June, says the automatic pause violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws. The department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking Trump’s agenda, repeatedly accusing federal judges of improperly impeding his powers.

The lawsuit was an extraordinary legal maneuver, ratcheting up the administration’s fight with the federal judiciary.

Attorneys for the Maryland judges argued the lawsuit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the Trump administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” attorney Paul Clement said during the hearing. “There really is no precursor for this suit”

Clement is a prominent conservative lawyer who served as solicitor general under Republican President George W. Bush. He listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges said the government was simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

In an amended order pausing deportations, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

Attorneys for the Trump administration accused the Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, writing in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the Trump administration in March illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. In July, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against the judge.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

The court’s ruling delivers a major victory to the US president, who has rejected accusations he inflated his assets.

An appeals court in New York has thrown out a civil fraud penalty that would have cost United States President Donald Trump and his business associates nearly half a billion dollars, calling the fine “excessive”.

On Thursday, a five-judge panel in New York’s Appellate Division rendered its decision after weighing Trump’s appeal for nearly 11 months.

In its ruling, the panel cited the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from levying unduly harsh penalties on its citizens.

The case stems from a civil suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who argued that Trump had inflated his financial records in order to secure advantages with insurance companies, banks and other financial institutions.

In February 2024, a lower court had ordered Trump to pay $355m in penalties, an amount the appeals court called into question. That amount has since grown to about $515m due to accumulating interest.

“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” two of the panel’s judges, Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton, wrote in one opinion.

While the court did dismiss the penalty in its entirety, its judges were divided over the merits of the lower court’s ruling, finding that Trump and his co-defendants had misrepresented their wealth in “fraudulent ways”.

The judge who issued that initial decision, Arthur Engoron, a Democrat, explained in his initial decision that “the frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience”.

In his 92-page decision, Engoron expressed particular frustration over Trump’s refusal to answer questions before the court and his refusal to acknowledge the misrepresentations in his financial documents.

“Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin,” Engoron wrote.

“Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.”

Trump and his co-defendants — who include his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr, as well as other Trump Organization leaders — were dealt a combined financial penalty that currently totals to about $527m, with interest.

While Engoron’s ruling left the Trump Organization intact, it did bar Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr from serving in executive roles for two years.

July 2 (UPI) — Wisconsin’s Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a ruling that invalidated an 1849 state law banning nearly all abortions and said Wisconsin women will continue to have access to critical abortion-related health services.

The 4-3 ruling by the Democratic-controlled state supreme court upheld a December 2023 decision by Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper in Kaul v. Urmanski that says Wisconsin’s strict abortion law did not apply to voluntary abortions, but did to feticide.

Justice Rebecca Dallet argued in the court’s majority opinion that the state effectively repealed its own 176-year-old law when lawmakers passed additional laws that regulated abortion access in Wisconsin, which was backed up in the lawsuit by state Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Dallet said the case was about “giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions.”

But she added that the state’s legislature, “as the people’s representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future.

Then-Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, later appointed as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2001-2005 under former President George W. Bush, told UPI in 1990 that he would sign a bill that mandates minors seek parental consent for an abortion.

But Wednesday’s ruling by the state’s high court now ends statewide uncertainty over the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

However, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of its conservative minority, was critical of the court’s majority opinion.

On Wednesday, Bradley wrote that her colleagues erased “a law it does not like, making four lawyers sitting on the state’s highest court more powerful than the People’s representatives in the legislature.”

Notably, this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race saw national attention when then-White House DOGE adviser Elon Musk drew the ire of Kaul, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, after Musk directly got involved in a push to elect conservative Brad Schimel in the court race Musk said had the “destiny of humanity” at stake.

“Any remaining doubt over whether the majority’s decisions are motivated by the policy predilections of its members has been extinguished by its feeble attempt to justify a raw exercise of political power,” stated Bradley.

“The majority not only does violence to a single statute; it defies the People’s sovereignty,” she wrote.

June 9 (UPI) — A New York judge on Monday dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400M lawsuit against actress Blake Lively.

Federal Judge Lewis Liman of New York’s southern district accepted the motion to dismiss the multi-million-dollar counter lawsuit filed by Baldoni that alleged defamation and extortion. In addition, the judge, likewise, tossed out a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.

“The [parties in the suit known as the] Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged,” Liman wrote in his 132-page ruling.

“The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail,” the judge added. “Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.”

However, Liman noted that Baldoni, 41, will still have the legal option to amend his claims for breach of implied covenant and contract interference with a June 23 deadline.

The It Ends With Us director Baldoni was accused in December of sexual harassment by his co-star Lively, which Baldoni claimed was “categorically false.”

In January, Baldoni filed a $250 million libel lawsuit against the New York Times over an article that “falsely” detailed Lively’s allegations during filming.

Lively, 37, claimed in her California Civil Rights Department complaint filed Dec. 20 that the harassment damaged her business and caused her family, including husband actor Ryan Reynolds, “severe emotional distress” and after the suit alleged Reynolds called Baldoni a “sexual predator.”

On Monday, lawyers for Lively — Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb — called the court decision a “total victory and a complete vindication.”

“As we have said from day one, this $400 million lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it,” they said in the statement, adding they look forward to the “next round,” which will be to seek attorney fees, treble and punitive damages.

Discovery+ announced plans in March to air a docuseries in Britain this month called Baldoni vs. Lively: A Hollywood Feud.

Meanwhile, the trial for Baldoni and Lively, which was scheduled for March 26, was expected to see both names testify.