A Los Angeles judge on Friday denied a request from more than a dozen people who wanted to block or alter parts of a Netflix documentary about a wellness company known for “orgasmic meditation” over allegations that it may have included “misappropriated” sexually explicit material.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant said the group of 15 — described in a lawsuit filed late last month as people formerly affiliated with the company, OneTaste — offered no evidence that the film includes explicit material showing them.
Nor did they show that the film, “Orgasm Inc.,” could irreparably harm them, Chalfant said, according to a court order.
The order paves the way for the film’s release Saturday.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs declined to comment. A spokesman for Netflix didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did the film’s director, Sarah Gibson.
In a declaration filed Friday, Gibson said the film investigates “troubling allegations” about the company. Much of the archival video in the film is not sexual, but comes from OneTaste social events, lectures and promotional materials.
The film does not show any private sessions of orgasmic meditation, or OM, nor does it depict the plaintiffs — who are identified only as “Doe” in the complaint — engaged in the practice, Gibson said.
It also does not contain images of the plaintiffs’ genitalia or depict them engaging in any sexual act, she said in the declaration.
The complaint had asked for a temporary restraining order against Netflix that would have halted the distribution of the plaintiffs’ private, sexually explicit materials — or required the company to blur those images.
The complaint also alleged privacy violations and an intrusion into private affairs. The status of those allegations wasn’t immediately clear.
The suit was filed after a group of more than 400 people currently or formerly affiliated with OneTaste sent a petition to Netflix in September demanding “privacy and protection.”
“We were recently horrified to learn Netflix’s producers unlawfully purchased footage of us, and/or images of us, and/or audio of us with the intent to use it in a film for profit,” the petition said, adding: “Some of these courses were intimate for us and portions of the material might depict some of us in various stages of undress, as part of the OM practice or in other settings. In some cases, this includes extreme closeups of our genitals.”
The complaint alleged that a former OneTaste videographer “misappropriated” recordings intended for educational purposes and internal instruction.
The ex-videographer, Chris Kosley, is also named in the suit. In a text message Friday, he declined to comment on the allegation, citing a separate legal case involving OneTaste.
“However, I’m confident that when my arguments have been made, truth will prevail in that case and OneTaste’s actions will be seen for what they are: an attempt to silence my voice and to silence the voices of others with a valid an important story to share with the public,” Kosley said.
In a statement provided by a OneTaste spokesperson Friday, a woman who signed the petition said she was shocked that such a “blatant violation or privacy was so open and shut. And that a corporate media titan can shut down what I thought was an open and shut case.”
“Netflix has no right to violate our bodies or privacy for their profit,” she said. “We never consented to be in this film.”
OneTaste was founded in 2005 to promote what the company describes as a “desire-based life.”
A 2020 podcast series on the BBC described the company as an “orgasm cult.” A lengthy report in Bloomberg Businessweek described OneTaste as “a kind of prostitution ring — one that exploited trauma victims and others searching for healing.”
The company has pushed back against the characterizations, suing the BBC for defamation in a case that is ongoing and describing the Bloomberg depiction as “unrecognizable.”
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to block a subpoena for Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham to testify in front of an Atlanta grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
There were no public dissents from the order.
The South Carolina senator had filed an emergency request asking the justices to halt the testimony – currently scheduled for November 17 – while legal challenges play out.
Graham will now have to appear for testimony, although a lower court order leaves room for him to object to certain questions as they come up if there is a dispute about whether the question is off limits.
In the unsigned order, the justices agreed with the lower courts – noting that Graham could not be asked to talk specifically about issues related to his legislative role. The court also noted that should disputes arise about particular questions the Senator’s lawyers can still object to questions on a case by case basis.
“Accordingly,” the Supreme Court said, “a stay or injunction is not necessary to safeguard the Senator’s speech or debate clause immunity.”
Graham argued that he should not have to abide by the subpoena because his testimony is foreclosed by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause, which shields lawmakers from certain criminal or civil proceedings connected to their legislative duties.
Critics feared that if Graham were to prevail, it would embolden other members of Congress to make similar claims in an attempt to shield themselves from testifying. The clause reads that “for any Speech or Debate in either house” members of Congress “shall not be questioned in any other place.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett poses during a group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a request to block the Biden administration’s student loan debt relief program.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied the emergency application to block the program, which had been filed by a Wisconsin taxpayers’ group on Wednesday.
Barrett is responsible for such applications issued from cases in the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which includes Wisconsin. A notation of her denial on the Supreme Court’s docket does not indicate that she referred the application to the entire Supreme Court before she rejected the request.
The loan relief plan, which is set to begin taking effect this weekend, will cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for millions of borrowers.
More than 8 million individuals submitted applications for the program last weekend after the U.S. Department of Education launched a beta test.
The challenge to the plan came from the Brown County Taxpayers Association in Wisconsin, which had filed a federal lawsuit in that state as part of that effort.
Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed the suit, saying the group lacked legal standing to stall the plan pending the outcome of the case.
The group then appealed that ruling to the 7th Circuit. In its request Wednesday to Barrett, the group asked that she or the entire Supreme Court suspend implementation of the debt relief program pending the outcome of its appeal.
Dan Lennington, deputy counsel of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Inc., which acted as lawyers for the taxpapers’ group, in a statement said, “Of course, we are disappointed that the court denied us emergency relief.”
“But that does not make the program lawful,” Lennington said. “Student loan forgiveness will remain under review by the courts and could possibly still be paused as we advocated for this week.”
Oct 13 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former President Donald Trump’s bid to have an independent arbiter vet classified documents that were seized by the FBI from his Florida home as part of his legal battle against investigators probing his handling of sensitive government records.
The justices in a brief order denied Trump’s Oct. 4 emergency request to lift a lower court’s decision that prevented the arbiter from reviewing more than 100 documents marked as classified that were among the roughly 11,000 records seized at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach on Aug. 8.
There were no publicly noted dissents by any of the nine justices to the decision, which came two days after the U.S. Justice Department urged them to deny Trump’s request and keep the classified documents out of the hands of the arbiter, known as a special master.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
The court’s 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump, who left office in January 2021.
Federal officials obtained a court-approved warrant to search Trump’s residence in a Justice Department criminal investigation after suspecting that not all classified documents in his possession had been returned after his presidency ended.
Investigators searched for evidence of potential crimes related to unlawfully retaining national defense information and obstructing a federal investigation. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has called the investigation politically motivated.
Trump went to court on Aug. 22 in a bid to restrict Justice Department access to the documents as it pursues its criminal investigation.
Former U.S. president Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, U.S., September 17, 2022. REUTERS/Gaelen Morse/File Photo
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon last month agreed to Trump’s request to temporarily block the government from using the seized materials in its investigation until the special master determined if any could be deemed personal or subject to attorney-client confidentiality or executive privilege – a legal doctrine that shields some White House communications from disclosure – and thus off limits to investigators.
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, named retired U.S. Judge Raymond Dearie as the special master. Cannon later refused a Justice Department request to partially lift her order relating only to the documents bearing classified markings of confidential, secret or top secret, which the government argued was impeding an effort to mitigate national security risks from their possible unauthorized disclosure.
Cannon said she could not accept that the documents were indeed classified without review by Dearie.
The Justice Department appealed to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which then put on hold Cannon’s decisions related to the classified documents, an action that prevented Dearie from vetting them while letting the government resume its probe. The 11th Circuit noted the importance of limiting access to classified information and ensuring the department’s probe would not be harmed.
The 11th Circuit also rejected any suggestion that Trump had declassified the documents – as the former president has claimed – saying there was “no evidence” of such action and that the argument was a “red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal.”
The three statutes underpinning the search warrant used by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago make it a crime to mishandle government records, regardless of their classification status.
The department’s investigation also seeks to determine who accessed classified materials, whether they were compromised and if any remain unaccounted for.
Trump’s lawyers previously told the Supreme Court that Dearie should be able to vet the records and that the Justice Department has “attempted to criminalize a document management dispute and now vehemently objects to a transparent process that provides much-needed oversight.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Waukesha parade trial comes after 6 killed, dozens injured after Darrell Brooks accused of driving through those marching
ByABC7 Digital Team via
WAUKESHA, Wis. (WLS) — Opening statements are expected to get underway Thursday following delays in the Waukesha parade trial.
Darrell Brooks is asking a judge to adjourn the proceedings, saying he’s come down with COVID symptoms.
The man on trial for the Waukesha Christmas Parade attack says he has come down with COVID symptoms.
RELATED: Man accused of killing 6 in Waukesha holiday parade attack removed from court after outburst
Brooks is on trial for allegedly driving his SUV through the parade crowd last November killing six. The judge denied Brooks’ request to adjourn.
For the third day in a row, Brooks, who is representing himself was removed from the courtroom.
Last week the judge decided to allow Brooks to represent himself at trial, finding that he suffers from a personality disorder and faces an uphill fight against an experienced prosecutorial team but is mentally competent.
WAUKESHA, Wis. – Darrell Brooks requested an adjournment of his trial in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack Wednesday, Oct. 5, telling the court he believes he has COVID and needs to wait until at least Friday for test results to come back. Prosecutors said he’s heard on jail phone calls telling his mother he’s going to delay the trial. The judge agreed with the prosecution, calling Brooks’ COVID adjournment request “nothing more than a delay tactic.”
Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow scheduled Wednesday afternoon’s hearing to handle final housekeeping issues before the start of the Brooks trial. Opening statements are set for Thursday morning.
An hour in, none of the housekeeping issues had been addressed.
During his court appearance Wednesday afternoon, back in his jail attire because the jury was not present, Brooks sought an adjournment due to the Waukesha County Jail’s COVID-19 protocol.
“I’ve had people close to me who have passed away from COVID – I’m frightened,” Brooks told the court. In denying Brooks’ motion to adjourn, the judge said if he was truly concerned about his health and safety, he would take the COVID rapid test he was offered and refused.
Judge Dorow said she offered him the opportunity to wear a suit and tie, as he did Monday and Tuesday, but he declined.
As for the COVID adjournment request, the judge said she did not have any information regarding the COVID-19 protocol and that the jail had not provided her with specifics. Brooks told the judge he is fully vaccinated, but that he lost taste and was fatigued. He said he reported the loss of taste to the jail Tuesday night but said he’d been feeling bad “for a few days.” Brooks added he was seen by jail nurses and not allowed out of his cell until test results come back, which he said would not be until Friday. Brooks insisted the court had this information. Dorow said she had no other information on his COVID status, citing HIPAA.
The judge reiterated that Brooks would have to verify his status within the protocol himself.
Asked if he objected to the judge asking the jail administrator, Brooks said, “Absolutely not.” Administrator Angela Wollenhaupt, who oversees staff and inmate issues at the jail, took the witness stand. Wollenhaupt noted that she had not reviewed Brooks’ medical record before coming to court, and he had not signed a release to speak to the court about it.
She said if in COVID protocol, Brooks would remain in his current cell and have access to a conference room and phone. She said they would be able to “safely produce him for court.”
She added that Brooks made statements that prompted the medical department to follow up, and a COVID test was administered.
Darrell Brooks COVID adjournment request
Brooks refused to take a rapid test, seeking to delay the trial until Friday when his test results come back.
“Why would I need to take two tests for the same thing?” said Brooks. “If I’m taking a COVID test, why would I need to take another one?”
He later followed up with, “I still don’t have clarity on that, your Honor. I’m baffled.”
When asked if Brooks’ discovery materials were in his cell, the jail administrator said yes, and Brooks tried to object. Dorow said he was not able to testify and overruled his objection, giving him a final warning. After almost an hour Wednesday afternoon, Brooks was moved to the courtroom next door because of increased outbursts. Dorow said there were 10 interruptions.
Darrell Brooks objects from the courtroom next door.
The judge pointed out Brooks is not within six feet of anyone else in the courtroom. Brooks dropped his head and shook it while sighing.
Waukesha County District Attorney Susan Opper said she believes Brooks’ adjournment request is a delay tactic. Opper said Brooks is heard in recorded jail phone calls telling his mother he plans to delay the trial.
Opper added that even if Brooks was on COVID protocol, it would have zero impact on his ability to prepare for the case, noting he has all necessary materials in his cell.
Brooks asked why the recorded phone calls couldn’t be brought into court through a sworn affidavit. “How can that be a delay tactic?” he asked.
The defendant and the judge then began speaking over each other, with Dorow reminding Brooks he needed to abide by the court standards of conduct and Brooks again saying he did not recognize the name placed on the complaint against him. “That’s not who I am,” he told the court.
Before 4 p.m., Dorow denied Brooks’ request for a COVID adjournment.
Around 4 p.m., Dorow offered Brooks the opportunity to return to the main courtroom. Brooks said he never agreed to move to the adjacent courtroom. The judge took that as a refusal and Brooks remained in the other courtroom.
Brooks noted that he was very tired. The judge noted that the fatigue did not stop Brooks from objecting, interrupting and asking for an appeal.
Housekeeping matters discussed
As the housekeeping matters got underway, the court discussed whether the state should be allowed to ask Brooks, should he take the stand, about his prior convictions, dating back to 1999. The prosecutor noted 12, including three in Nevada.
The question would be: “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” The follow-up question would be: “How many times?”
Judge Dorow did not address this Wednesday.
When asked if he had a question on the use of criminal records, Brooks said he would have a better understanding once he could review things.
The judge said she would rule Thursday on the state’s request to reconsider showing victim witnesses. It was previously allowed, except for minors.
After 4:30 p.m., Dorow began laying out the procedure for objections in court, noting that if Brooks doesn’t follow civility procedure, he’ll be muted. Dorow said he can use his objection sign and she’ll ask for the basis of his objection.
“If at any time you object to every question, that is not acceptable,” Judge Dorow said to Brooks, noting statute does not permit harassment.
Dorow and Opper noted the possibility that Brooks could forfeit his right to cross-examine witnesses if he does not act civilly; Opper clarified that the state wants Brooks to be able to cross-examine each witness.
Brooks said he didn’t understand, and Dorow said she could not explain the law to him. She stressed that she explained the pros and cons of representing himself, and she told Brooks he intelligently made a deliberate decision to waive counsel while explaining she could not give him legal advice.
“You represent yourself at your own peril,” said Judge Dorow.
Brooks again said he didn’t understand, and Dorow said he was veering off-topic, again muting him.
Jury instructions discussed
The 68-page jury instruction document was discussed, and Dorow said she was adding a page with instructions regarding decorum and courtesy in the courtroom.
“My job includes that making sure Mr. Brooks’s rights are protected…that both sides can present the case in a coherent fashion…and that victims and witnesses are treated fairly,” said Dorow.
The jury instructions state that if Brooks should appear in the adjacent courtroom during the trial, that should not impact the jury’s verdict in any way.
Brooks said he didn’t accept or consent to the amended jury instructions as the paperwork was placed in front of him by a bailiff. He said he wants to draft a written jury instruction, and Dorow said he could submit that by Thursday morning for her review.
As jury instructions were discussed, Brooks raised his objection sign and rocked in his chair in the adjacent courtroom. The judge offered to allow Brooks to return to the main courtroom if he would abide by the decorum.
“So this is how it’s gonna be the whole trial,” said Brooks.
Dorow made a record that Brooks’ behavior was rude, disrespectful and an interference in the orderly administration of justice.
“I will not tolerate disruptive conduct that, from my perspective, is simply an attempt to delay,” said Dorow.
Brooks noted he’s describing himself as “pro per” and not “pro see,” as the court sees him in representing himself. He requested that be changed, and Dorow denied it. Brooks continued to push the judge on this issue, and she again muted him, saying she cannot provide legal advice.
When asked if he had any questions on the 69 pages of jury instructions, Brooks asked why the court could not address his to-be written jury instructions Wednesday afternoon.
Shortly thereafter, Judge Dorow approved the 69-page jury instruction packet. The judge said the instructions would be printed for Brooks to review Wednesday night. She said they would discuss some added language Thursday, along with Brooks’ written instructions, should he submit them. She noted that his written instructions would be statements of law provided to the jury.
When asked if he objected, Brooks said he did, adding that he didn’t understand why changes were being made to the jury instructions at this point. The judge said it’s standard protocol to finalize the jury instructions at this hearing.
Exhibits discussed
District Attorney Opper noted the state filed eight pages of 140 exhibits – a combination of videos, photos and documents. She noted the document was provided to Brooks, though he declined to accept it.
Opper said the state has some physical evidence she intends to use later in the trial. She noted some large poster board maps that were prepared. Opper asked specifically about photos and documents and whether they should print a copy for the jury to have later.
The prosecutor asked if all exhibits could be added to one thumb drive and that could be entered into the court record. Brooks held up his objection sign.
The judge wanted all parties to remain at their desk during opening statements. Opper asked if they could move around when Brooks is in the adjacent courtroom, and Dorow said no. She said they can stand up and present, as can Brooks. The judge noted she was taking steps to ensure the jury doesn’t see the restraints around Brooks’ ankles.
Brooks said most of his exhibits will be paperwork. Dorow said if he has something specific, he should let the state know, so they can make arrangements to assist in displaying it to a witness, if appropriate.
Brooks requests subpoenas
Brooks requested six subpoena forms “as soon as possible” on Tuesday, court filings obtained by FOX6 News show. Twenty-one subpoena forms were delivered to him at the jail Wednesday morning, according to online court records, and Judge Dorow in court said her staff would provide copies, as well.
Also on Wednesday, a crew from Court TV was working to set up a multi-camera system within Judge Dorow’s court to best capture the trial for broadcast. FOX6 News will stream the trial in its entirety on the following platforms:
16-member jury seated
On Tuesday, the court seated a 16-member jury that includes ten men and six women — all white. The jury selection process was completed around 6:30 p.m. The jury panel was ordered to return at 8:30 a.m. Thursday for opening statements.
Darrell Brooks trial, jury selection, peremptory strike process
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
Now that the jury is selected, FOX6 News can tell you the potential jurors were asked more than 100 questions, including:
Do you accept Brooks is innocent until proven guilty?
Do you have bias for or against Brooks because of his race?
Have you seen, heard or read any news coverage on the case?
Christmas parade attack
Prosecutors say Brooks drove a red SUV through the parade route on Nov. 21, 2021, killing six and injuring more than 60 others.
On Nov. 21, 2021, according to prosecutors, Brooks met up with his ex-girlfriend in Frame Park, the same woman he is accused of running over with his red SUV earlier in November 2021. She told police they argued in his SUV before he started driving, and he “was driving around with one hand and striking her in the face with his other hand.” She eventually got out and called her friends for help.
Waukesha parade attack victims identified
Soon after that, according to prosecutors, Brooks drove that red SUV through the parade route, killing Jackson Sparks, 8, Virginia Sorenson, 79, LeAnna Owen, 71, Tamara Durand, 52, Jane Kulich, 52 and Wilhelm Hospel, 81. More than 60 others were hurt.
Brooks was arrested the night of the attack, soon after telling a Waukesha resident that he was homeless and waiting for an Uber. The man was unaware of the events that had occurred and let Brooks into his home.
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX6 News app for iOS or Android
Brooks entered an insanity plea in June after initially pleading not guilty to the charges in February, a move that could have resulted in him being sentenced to a mental institution rather than prison if convicted. He later dropped the insanity plea on Sept. 9.
Darrell Brooks faces 76 charges, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide and 61 counts of reckless endangerment. Each homicide charge carries a mandatory life sentence.
A customer places an order September 24, 2022 at a McDonald’s Restaurant along the New York State Thruway in Hannacroix, New York.
Robert Nickelsberg | Getty Images News | Getty Images
A group representing McDonald’s owners said the company rejected its request to delay changes to franchising policies, including updated standards and adjustments to how the company evaluates potential new restaurant operators, according to a letter seen by CNBC.
The National Franchisee Leadership Alliance said in a letter to owners Wednesday that McDonald’s denied its request to make the changes in June 2023 instead of Jan. 1.
related investing news
Cooling demand means raising prices becomes a test of how well companies know their customers
The leadership group represents McDonald’s owners across the country. As of the end of last year, according to the company, there there were more than 2,400 franchise owners. Franchisees run some 95% of McDonald’s locations.
The company declined to comment on the changes or the NFLA’s letter and its request to delay the adjustments.
McDonald’s unveiled new policy changes during the summer, sparking tensions between some operators and the company. Several owners unhappy with these changes expressed a lack of confidence in the company’s CEO, Chris Kempczinski and its U.S. president, Joe Erlinger, in a poll taken by a separate group, the National Owners Association.
The NFLA is seeking more clarity and education from the company on what it calls “McDonald’s Values,” as it pushes to hold franchise owners accountable for how they represent the brand online and in person. McDonald’s says its values are: “Serve, Inclusion, Integrity, Community and Family,” and the update is meant to reflect how these should be incorporated into owner and operator standards, according to a previous document obtained by CNBC.
The new policies also call for evaluating potential new operators equally, instead of giving preferential treatment to spouses and children of current franchisees.
McDonald’s is also separating how it renews leases, which are given in 20-year terms, from assessments of whether owners can operate additional restaurants – meaning, a lease renewal would not automatically make an owner eligible to operate additional locations. In a previous message to owners about the changes that was viewed by CNBC, the company said: “This change is in keeping with the principle that receiving a new franchise term is earned, not given.”
The company has been actively working to recruit new and more diverse owners, underscored in a message to franchisees from Erlinger that was viewed by CNBC earlier this summer.
“We’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how we continue to attract and retain the industry’s best owner/operators – individuals who represent the diverse communities we serve, bring a growth mindset and focus on executional excellence, while cultivating a positive work environment for restaurant teams,” he said.
In December, McDonald’s pledged to recruit more franchisees from diverse backgrounds, committing $250 million over the next five years to help those candidates finance a franchise. The company has yet to reveal how its recruitment effort is going.
“Several of these internal changes in my opinion may further limit the marketplace, reduce demand and strain the financial capability for sales between owners beyond the external factors that presently exist today,” NFLA chair Mark Salebra wrote in the letter.
It goes on to underscore other challenges facing operators today including legislative changes at the state level, likely alluding to a newly signed law, A.B. 257 in California, which would regulate the fast food industry’s pay and conditions. The law was championed by the AFL-CIO, the biggest federation of unions in the United States, and condemned as “radical” by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business advocacy group.
McDonald’s is also rolling out a new grading system for restaurants in 2023.
Owners said they were concerned about alienating workers as employers fight to lure and retain employees. The letter said that given all of these factors, “a consideration to delay (not change or renegotiate) the implementation felt appropriate and warranted.” It added that the company has provided more than 20 documents on the changes and educational sessions are forthcoming for further clarity.
You’ve likely seen, one or twice or more often, the DirecTV commercial featuring Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott and members of the various Real Housewives shows. The commercial includes no team names or logos, which means that DirecTV cut a check for Prescott but not for his employer, the Dallas Cowboys.
Recently, you may have noticed a subtle change to the commercial. While watching last night’s games on both ESPN and Amazon (the commercial ran during both West Virginia-Virginia Tech and Steelers-Browns), my son pointed out that Dak’s jersey is now purple. It previously was blue.
“Your son has a good eye,” a league spokesman told PFT. “We asked DirecTV to change it and they did, which we appreciated.”
The blue jersey in the original commercial looked too much like the Cowboys’ blue “home” jersey, which the Cowboys rarely wear at home. However, the courtesy in color change stopped with the shirts. Other blues in the uniform worn by Dak’s generic team remain, such as the socks.
DirecTV is in the last year of its Sunday Ticket package with the NFL. DirecTV reportedly pays $1.5 billion per year for the rights to do so. That obviously wasn’t enough to get the NFL to give DirecTV a pass when it comes to the potential similarity of Dak’s fictional uniform to his real one.
A Brooklyn-based federal judge was selected on Thursday to serve as an independent arbiter to review the materials seized in the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home.
The special master will be Senior Judge Raymond Dearie, who was put forward as a possible candidate for the special master role by Trump, who had sued in court to obtain the review. The Justice Department also endorsed Dearie’s appointment.
US District Judge Aileen Cannon also rejected the Justice Department’s bid to resume its criminal investigation into classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago last month. The denial sets the stage for the department’s dispute with Trump over the search to move quickly to an appeals court and potentially the US Supreme Court.
An intelligence community review of the documents has been paused since last week when Cannon ordered the criminal investigation to stop for the moment. DOJ says the two reviews cannot be separated and plans to appeal.
The denial of the government’srequest was the latest example of Cannon, nominated by Trump in 2020, showing extreme skepticism to the Justice Department’s handling of records it says should be in the government’s hands because they own them.
Cannon gave the special master a deadline of November 30 to finish his review of potentially privileged documents.
The schedule delays the review’s ending untilafter the midterm congressional elections – essentially guaranteeing the Mar-a-Lago investigation will move slowly for the next two months, unless a higher court steps in. The appeals process could mean the fight over the documents goes on into the 2024 presidential election cycle.
Dearie sits on the district court for the Eastern District of Brooklyn, where he has taken senior status – meaning his workload has been lightened significantly as he nears the end of his time on the federal bench.
He was appointed as a judge by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and was for a time the chief judge of the Brooklyn-based district court. He also served a seven-year term, concluding in 2019, on the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
In his role as a FISA judge, Dearie was one of the judges who approved one of the Justice Department’s request to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page as part of the federal inquiry into Russia 2016 election interference.
The department’s process for securing FISA warrants for Page was riddled with errors and sloppiness, a DOJ inspector general review later found. The IG’s review pointed to omissions and mistakes in the FBI’s court filings supporting the FISA applications, including in filings submitted to Dearie.
Trump has railed over how the FISA warrants against Page were obtained, making his recommendation of Dearie to review the Mar-a-Lago search notable. Legal observers across the ideological spectrum, including vocal Trump critics, also backed the choice.
Cannon on Thursday also rejected several other requests the Justice Department made about how the special master review should proceed. She shoved off the Justice Department’s argument about the national security risks that would come with pausing the criminal investigation into the classified documents – in a break with how judges usually view such claims by the government.
However, she also seemed to create a vague and undefined loophole for the Justice Department to take some steps in the criminal investigation if those steps were necessary and inextricable from the assessment that the intelligence community on the national security risks around disclosure of the documents.
That possible wiggle room aside, her order – if left intact by higher courts – stands to slow down the criminal investigation by at least several weeks.
In her ruling, Cannon said she was unconvinced that pausing the criminal investigation’s review of the documents would cause irreparable harm.
The department argued that the intelligence community’s assessment of national security risks – which Cannon previously said could go forward – was being impeded by the hold she had put on the criminal probe’s use of the documents.
“First, there has been no actual suggestion by the Government of any identifiable emergency or imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property. Instead, and unfortunately, the unwarranted disclosures that float in the background have been leaks to the media after the underlying seizure,” she wrote.
She also rejected the argument the department had made that the intelligence community assessment could not be decoupled from the criminal probe.
While it may be “easier” Cannon said, “for the Government’s criminal investigative work to proceed in tandem with the Security Assessments,” the Justice Department had not convinced her that the intelligence community’s assessment was being impeded by it.
Pointing to examples that prosecutors had offered of how the national security assessment would rely on the criminal probe’s work, Cannon said that the prosecutors “do not firmly maintain that the described processes are inextricably intertwined, and instead rely heavily on hypothetical scenarios and generalized explanations that do not establish irreparable injury.”
Still, while she rebuffed the department’s claims that the two reviews were inseparable, she seemed to acknowledge that there were situations in which the intelligence community assessment might rely on investigative activity happening in the criminal probe, and she vaguely seemed to give the Justice Department wiggle room to take those steps.
Cannon wrote that “to the extent that the Security Assessments truly are, in fact, inextricable from criminal investigative use of the seized materials, the Court makes clear Order does not enjoin the Government from taking actions necessary for the Security Assessment.”
She did not spell out what sort of criminal investigative activity would be acceptable for that purpose, saying only in a footnote she would trust the government to decide when the tasks of the intelligence review and criminal probe were truly “inextricable.”
Denying a DOJ request that the special master view conclude by mid-October, Cannon set a November 30 deadline for the process – putting it on timeline closer to the 90 days the Trump team proposed be given to the review.
Cannon is also allowing Trump’s lawyers to review – in a highly controlled setting – the documents marked as classified. The Justice Department had wanted those documents excluded from the special master process entirely. In another rebuff to DOJ, the judge is also instructing the special master to review all of the documents that were seized,.
The judge however sided with the DOJ in how the special master is compensated, ordering that Trump pay the costs, rather than split it 50-50 with Justice Department, as Trump had proposed.
Trump filed the lawsuit seeking the special master two weeks after the Justice Department executed the search on his Florida residence and resort. Prosecutors are investigating at least three potential crimes: violations of the Espionage Act, illegal handling of government records and obstruction of justice.
During the search, according to court filings, investigators seized more than 100 documents marked as classified, which were obtained after Trump’s representatives were served a subpoena in May demanding they return to the government all such documents. When the FBI traveled to Mar-a-Lago in June to collect the documents, one of his lawyers signed a certification asserting the subpoena had been complied with.
Trump, in his filings in the special master case, argued that his constitutional rights had teen trampled upon with the August 8 search, though Cannon herself had previously said she did not agree that the judicially authorized search amounted to a “callous disregard” of the former President’s rights.
According to her order on September 5 initially granting Trump’s request for a special master review, Cannon decided it was necessary to bolster public trust in the search and because Trump, as a former president, faced increased risks of reputational harm if an indictment was wrongfully brought against him.
Trump claimed on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday that he declassified the government records that were taken to Mar-a-Lago, but that’s not an argument that he’s made in any legal setting.
Cannon’s order on Thursday also raised doubts all the documents with classification markings were actually classified.
“The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” she said, referring to the Justice Department’s assertions that the documents are presumably classified and that Trump could not possibly have a possessory interest in any of them.
This story has been updated with additional details.
A statement from the state attorney’s office cited newly discovered evidence.
“After a nearly year-long investigation reviewing the facts of this case, Syed deserves a new trial where he is adequately represented and the latest evidence can be presented,” Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby said in the statement.
Syed is serving a life sentence after he was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment in February 2000 for the slaying of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. He has maintained his innocence and has been appealing his convictions for years.
“As stewards of the court, we are obligated to uphold confidence in the integrity of convictions and do our part to correct when this standard has been comprised,” Mosby said. “We have spoken with the family of Ms. Hae Min Lee and (they) fully understand that the person responsible for this heinous crime must be held accountable.”
The state will request that Syed be released on his own recognizance pending the investigation if the motion to vacate his conviction is granted.
“We believe that keeping Mr. Syed detained as we continue to investigate the case with everything that we know now, when we do not have confidence in results of the first trial, would be unjust,” Mosby said.
The re-investigation revealed evidence “regarding the possible involvement of two alternative suspects other than Syed,” the statement said.
“The two suspects may be involved individually or may be involved together,” the statement said.
Adnan and Lee were seniors at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County in January 1999 when she disappeared. Her strangled body was discovered in a city forest three weeks later.
Mosby said prosecutors are “not asserting, at this time, that Mr. Syed is innocent” but that the state “lacks confidence in the integrity of the conviction” and that Syed should get a new trial.
Syed and prosecutors in March filed a joint motion for post-conviction DNA testing, saying that since the crime occurred more than two decades ago, “DNA testing has changed and improved drastically.”
The March motion asked that the victim’s clothing be tested for touch DNA, which was not available at the time of trial. Items now being tested were not previously tested in 2018 — when the Baltimore City Police Lab tested various items for DNA — with the exception of the victim’s fingernail clippings, Mosby’s statement said.
Mosby said the motion to vacate was filed along with Sentencing Review Unit (SRU) Chief Becky Feldman. Syed was a juvenile when convicted.
The suspects were known persons at the time of the original investigation “and were not properly ruled out nor disclosed to the defense,” according to Mosby’s statement.
The state is not disclosing the names of the suspects but said that, according to the trial file, one of them said, “He would make her [Ms. Lee] disappear. He would kill her.”
The investigation also revealed that one suspect was convicted of attacking a woman in her vehicle, according to the statement. The second suspect was convicted of engaging in serial rape and sexual assault, the statement said.
Some of the information was available at the time of the trial, the statement said, and some came to light later. It is not clear when these assaults took place.
Lee’s car was located “directly behind the house of one of the suspect’s family members,” the statement said.
Attorneys for Syed brought the case to the attention of the SRU in April of 2021.
Syed’s attorneys “identified significant reliability issues regarding the most critical pieces of evidence at trial,” Mosby’s statement said.
In the 2019 HBO docuseries “The Case Against Adnan Syed,” an attorney for Syed said his client’s DNA was not found on any of the 12 samples retrieved from the victim’s body and car. That testing was not part of the official investigation by authorities. HBO, like CNN, is a unit of Warner Bros. Discovery.
At trial, prosecutors relied on testimony from a friend, Jay Wilds, who said he helped Syed dig a hole for Lee’s body. To corroborate his account, prosecutors presented cell phone records and expert witness testimony to place Syed at the site where Lee was buried.
CNN’s Jenn Selva and Steve Almasy contributed to this report.
