Tag: Legal

As Trump rallies in New Hampshire, legal woes play in real time

[ad_1]

For Trump, it’s barely a blip. The former president’s polling lead over his 2024 Republican rivals has grown as his legal morass deepens. A recurring joke he made again Thursday about being served a subpoena if he so much as flies over a Democratic-leaning state drew laughs and applause from those attending.
Trump supporters at his campaign rally in downtown Manchester were unfazed by the latest developments in his legal woes, accusing Democrats of weaponizing the judicial system against the former president and dismissing as more noise the civil defamation lawsuit in which Trump is accused of rape.
“It’s just a lot of distraction,” said Bert Sooner, a 60-year-old Republican and Trump supporter from Gilmanton, N.H.
“If anything,” Trump’s legal troubles “just seem to propel him,” Sooner added.
Trump returned to New Hampshire on Thursday for the first time since his legal drama deepened and since Biden launched his reelection campaign.
The former president made no direct mention of the lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, a magazine columnist who alleges Trump sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in the 1990s, that began Tuesday in Manhattan federal court. Trump has denied Carroll’s account, saying the episode “never happened.” He was admonished by the judge overseeing the proceedings on Wednesday over a social media post in which he called the lawsuit “a made up SCAM.”
Instead, he used a speech on economic policy to hurl insults at Biden — including slapping the “crooked” label he’s long affixed to Hillary Clinton’s name to Biden instead. Trump repeatedly attacked Biden, calling him a “hopeless person” and a “threat to democracy” who “doesn’t have a clue.” And he touted his record on the economy, saying that he left Biden with “a booming economy” but that the president “blew it to shreds.”
Ammar Moussa, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, pushed back immediately.

“Trump’s lies won’t change the fact he holds the worst jobs record of any president since the Great Depression and rigged the economy for the ultra-wealthy and biggest corporations,” Moussa said in a statement. “Trump’s stewardship of the economy was an abject disaster, in stark contrast to the over 12 million jobs the Biden-Harris administration has helped deliver for America in just two years.”
Trump also laid into his potential Republican rivals, citing polling that shows him with double-digit leads to rib Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — “Ron DeSanctus” — former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, whose name drew immediate and loud boos from the crowd in his home state. A Fox News poll out Wednesday showed Trump with a 32-point lead over DeSantis.
Trump leaned on his polling leads to revive his threats to skip a presidential primary debate. The former president and his advisers have privately raised concerns about the debate slated for August, saying it’s too far in advance of the first nominating contests, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
“Nixon and Reagan and Bush … no, they didn’t debate in the primaries,” Trump said on Thursday. “Seriously, you look at the boards … and you’re looking at these numbers. Why would you do that?”
“But I do look forward to the debate with Joe — Crooked Joe,” he added.
Trump’s legal problems extend beyond the two that bubbled up behind the scenes on Thursday. The former president faces 34 felony charges in New York related to an alleged scheme to bury allegations of extramarital affairs ahead of the 2016 presidential election. And on Monday, the Atlanta-area district attorney, Fani Willis, indicated that more charges might be on the horizon for Trump this summer in a case related to efforts by him and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state.
But in New Hampshire, the former president did not back down.
“I won a second time by far more votes, but it was a rigged election,” he told the crowd to cheers, calling for tighter restrictions on voting, including all-paper ballots, voter ID laws and strictly same-day voting.
“I don’t even care if you help me campaign — you don’t have to help me,” he told the crowd. “I just want help on making sure the vote is cast and counted fairly.”
More concerned about border security and the economy than Trump’s legal troubles, rally-goers who in some cases drove five hours to see the former president erupted at his claims about the 2020 election, unburdened by concerns about what could be contained in the former vice president’s ongoing testimony.
“It doesn’t play at all,” New Hampshire state Rep. John Leavitt, a Republican who endorsed Trump on Thursday and joined him onstage, said of the various investigations and court proceedings surrounding Trump. “It’s in the past.”
Clad in their bright red “Make America Great Again” baseball caps and draped in American flags and denim jackets with Trump’s face plastered across them, voter after voter brushed aside the various legal proceedings against Trump as the latest in a long line of attacks that haven’t stuck.
“I think it’s all B.S.,” said Christine Smith, a Republican from Derry, N.H.
Trump hasn’t held a campaign rally in New Hampshire since 2020 and hasn’t been in the state since late January, when he addressed GOP insiders at the party’s state committee meeting.
On Thursday, he packed The Armory function hall at the downtown DoubleTree hotel to its 750-person capacity, according to security, rallying hundreds of his stalwarts in the same room where DeSantis wowed Republican activists just two weeks ago with a burst of unexpected retail politicking after headlining a party fundraising dinner. Trump aides said the choice of location was a coincidence.
Even in a smaller venue than Trump supporters in this state are accustomed to — the former president typically favors the arena down the street — his supporters were enraptured by his return. They cheered and jeered in all the right places of his speech, which stretched over an hour and a half. Even as the crowd thinned slightly toward the end, dozens of people rushed the stage barriers when Trump began to work the rope line, signing hats and saluting his fans.
Jeffrey Duran, a Republican wearing a black T-shirt with a fake Trump mugshot on it and a hat with the former president’s John Hancock scrawled across the rim, stood toward the back of the fawning crowd and blasted the legal proceedings against Trump as “political persecution.”
“The justice system is being weaponized and used against the American people. If they can do it to him, silence the [former] president, they could do it to anybody. It’s totally un-American,” said Duran, who drove up from New York City to attend the rally. “It backfires on them, on the people who are pointing the fingers at him.”
Lisa Kashinsky reported from Manchester, and Kelly Garrity from Washington
[ad_2]
#Trump #rallies #Hampshire #legal #woes #play #real #time
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 28, 2023
Roger Waters wins legal battle to gig in Frankfurt amid antisemitism row

[ad_1]
Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd frontman, has won his legal battle to perform a concert in Frankfurt after attempts to ban the event amid accusations of antisemitism.
Magistrates acting on behalf of the German city had instructed the venue two months ago to cancel the concert on 28 May, accusing Waters of being “one of the most widely known antisemites in the world”. Waters, who has always denied accusations of antisemitism, took legal action against the decision.
Frankfurt’s administrative court has now declared his right to go ahead with the event. While acknowledging that aspects of his show were “tasteless” and obviously lent on symbolism inspired by the Nazi regime, it cited artistic freedom among its main reasons for the decision.
The city has the right to appeal against the ruling.
City authorities in Frankfurt and elsewhere in Germany had objected to the concert on the grounds that a previous tour had featured as part of the stage show a balloon shaped like a pig depicting the Star of David and various company logos.
Part of their criticism related to the location of the concert, the Festhalle, in which, during the November pogroms of 1938, more than 3,000 Jewish men from Frankfurt and surrounding areas were rounded up, abused and later deported to concentration camps where many of them were murdered.
However, the court said that despite the Waters show making use of “symbolism manifestly based on that of the National Socialist regime” – the tastelessness of which it said was exacerbated by the choice of the Festhalle as the venue due to its historical background – the concert should be “viewed as a work of art” and that there were not sufficient grounds on which to justify banning Waters from performing. “It is not for the court to pass judgment on this,” a spokesperson told German media.
The most crucial point, according to the court, was that the musician’s performance “did not glorify or relativise the crimes of the Nazis or identify with Nazi racist ideology”, and nor was there any evidence that Waters used propaganda material in his show, the spokesperson added.

Criticism of the decision came from the International Auschwitz Committee, which called it “deplorable”. Christoph Heubner, the committee’s vice-president, said: “It’s not only Jewish survivors of German concentration and death camps who are left sad, bewildered and increasingly disillusioned.”
A “cause of great concern” for survivors and their families was what he called an “encroachment of antisemitism from various directions” in society.
Heubner said the court’s declaration – that to hold the concert in the Festhalle was not an offence to the dignity of the Jewish men rounded up there – was “a renewed attack on the dignity of these people and the memories of their families”.
Josef Schuster, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said he was “baffled” by the court’s decision “that a display of symbols based on National Socialism should have no legal consequences”.
In Germany, there are strict rules banning displays of Nazi memorabilia and symbols such as the swastika.
Waters has repeatedly denied accusations of antisemitism and claimed his disdain is towards Israel, not Judaism, accusing Israel of “abusing the term antisemitism to intimidate people like me into silence”.
He defended his use of the pig symbol, saying it “represents Israel and its policies and is legitimately subject to any and all forms of non-violent protest”. He said the balloon also featured other symbols of organisations he was against, such as the crucifix and the logos of Mercedes, McDonald’s and Shell Oil.
[ad_2]
#Roger #Waters #wins #legal #battle #gig #Frankfurt #antisemitism #row
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

April 25, 2023
Hope to see legal stamp on rainbow marriages: Parents of LGBTQ+ children

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A group of over 400 parents has written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, heading a bench hearing the pleas seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriage, urging that their LGBTQIA++ wards be granted the right to “marriage equality”.
The letter by Sweekar-The Rainbow Parents’ assumes significance it comes when a five-judge constitution bench headed by the CJI is hearing a batch of petitions seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage for the fourth day.
“We desire to see our children and children-in-law find final legal acceptance for their relationship under the Special Marriage Act in our country. We are certain that a nation as big as ours which respects its diversity and stands for the value of exclusion, will open its legal gate of marriage equality to our children too.

“We are growing old. Some of us will touch 80 soon, we hope that we will get to see the legal stamp on the rainbow marriage of our children in our lifetime,” the group said in its letter.
Sweekar-The Rainbow Parents’ is a group formed by the parents of Indian LGBTQIA++ ((lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and ally) wards with the aim of supporting each other to accept one’s child fully and be happy as a family.
“We are appealing to you to consider marriage equality,” the letter said.
It said from knowing about gender and sexuality, to understanding the lives of our children, to finally accepting their sexuality and their loved ones- the parents have gone through the whole “gamut of emotions”.
“We empathise with those who are opposing marriage equality, because some of us were there too. It took us education, debate and patience with our LIGTQIA++ children to realise that their lives, their feelings and their desires are valid. Similarly, we hope that those who oppose marriage equality will come around too. We have faith in the people of India, the Constitution and the democracy of our nation,” it said.

It referred to the apex court judgement of 2018 by which it decriminalised consensual gay sex.
The judgement ensured LGBTQIA++ people are treated with dignity and acceptance.
“Society is a changing and evolving phenomenon. Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, the judgement by the Supreme Court created a ripple effect on society and has helped,” it said.
[ad_2]
#Hope #legal #stamp #rainbow #marriages #Parents #LGBTQ #children
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 25, 2023
BJP supporter offers free legal aid to Atiq’s killers

[ad_1]
Shahjahanpur: A BJP supporter in Shahjahanpur has offered to provide free legal support to the three men who killed gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf Ahmed in Prayagraj last week.
Ragini Singh, who runs a local social group, Hinduism Art and Culture Foundation, said: “These boys have displayed tremendous courage in eliminating the terrorists and helped our society. Since they belong to poor backgrounds, we will give them every possible legal aid through our foundation.”
When queried if she was justifying Atiq’s murder, she said: “It can never be the right approach but I am also against the kind of activities that Atiq was involved in.”

[ad_2]
#BJP #supporter #offers #free #legal #aid #Atiqs #killers
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 21, 2023
In Dominion v. Fox News, a legal test with echoes of Watergate

[ad_1]

Dominion, which makes voting machines, is accusing the conservative network of knowingly spreading disinformation about its products in the days after the 2020 election to appease an audience hungry for conspiracy theories. It was a craven bid for profit, Dominion says, and the myth it fueled ultimately led to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
That Fox’s allegations about Dominion were dead false has already been decided — they were, according to Judge Eric Davis, who is presiding over the case in Delaware Superior Court. What Dominion must prove now is a tougher legal challenge. The company will put Fox’s key decision-makers on the stand and ask 12 jurors to assess their state of mind in November and December 2020.
“It isn’t enough to show that Fox made a conscious decision to amplify election denialism generally in its coverage,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a former newspaper reporter who is now a First Amendment expert at the University of Utah. “Dominion has to show that the people who were responsible for creating (or platforming) the false statements about Dominion had knowledge that those statements were false. It’s about connecting the dots.”
After the 2020 election, Dominion’s suit contents, Fox News viewers were abandoning it for fringe outlets like Newsmax that were willing to indulge the most dangerous and deluded claims about why Donald Trump lost. Initially, Fox had actually stood out from the MAGA pack by suggesting the incumbent president was doomed when its Decision Desk called Arizona for Joe Biden. But the network soon changed course, the lawsuit says, embracing falsehoods about Dominion that left the company’s brand in tatters and its employees fearing for their lives.
Payoffs to Georgia officials. Corporate ties to the Hugo Chavez regime. Shady remote operators switching votes to push Biden over the top.
It is “CRYSTAL clear” that those allegations were false, Davis declared in a pre-trial ruling last month. So the jury won’t decide that question. But that’s far from the end of the case.
Libel suits are notoriously difficult to win in the United States, thanks to the New York Times v. Sullivan decision of 1964, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it wasn’t enough for a public figure — in this case, Dominion — to show a news organization published something false about them to win a defamation case. Instead, accusers have to show “actual malice”: a legal term meaning that the outlet either knowingly published a falsehood or published one with reckless disregard for the truth. It’s an inherently subjective question that focuses on what the publisher actually believed.
What’s remarkable about the Dominion case is that, thanks to incredibly juicy pre-trial discovery unearthing caches of messages among Fox employees, it’s already fairly clear that many of them at the very least had their doubts about what their network was peddling.

There were Tucker Carlson’s candid characterizations of “Stop the Steal” attorney-in-chief Sidney Powell, whom he labeled a liar — an “unguided missile” who was “dangerous as hell” and even tantamount to “poison.”
There was a Lou Dobbs Tonight producer who, in January 2021, called Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani “so full of shit” — weeks after Laura Ingraham suggested the ex-NYC mayor was “such an idiot” and Sean Hannity labeled him “an insane person.”
And there was a senior vice president of programming for Fox Business, the network that aired Dobbs’ adamantly anti-Dominion show, referring to Stop the Steal cheerleader and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell as being “on the crazy train with no brakes.”
And much more. As far as defamation plaintiffs’ attorneys are concerned, this is the stuff dreams are made of.
“It’s hard to get evidence to prove that someone in the media knew something was false. What’s so unusual in this case is that there’s all this evidence,” said Noah Feldman, a Harvard legal historian.
In a statement, a Fox spokesperson said, “Dominion’s lawsuit is a political crusade in search of a financial windfall, but the real cost would be cherished First Amendment rights. While Dominion has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines, FOX News remains steadfast in protecting the rights of a free press, given a verdict for Dominion and its private equity owners would have grave consequences for the entire journalism profession.”
Reports of a possible last-minute settlement emerged around the same time that Davis announced a 24-hour delay in the trial late Sunday, pushing the end of jury selection into Tuesday morning. (Opening arguments are expected shortly after the jury is seated.) Among the outlets dangling an 11th-hour resolution was the Wall Street Journal, a crown jewel in Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. Murdoch himself may be called to testify in the trial.
To Andersen Jones, the Utah law professor — who remarked that “this whole litigation is one really interesting season of Succession” — the late settlement scramble was not exactly shocking.
But, she said, Dominion has “made clear that a piece of its litigation goal is public-facing: that it wants Fox to be required to have public accountability for leaning into election denialism.” A trial is probably the best way to make that happen.
In other words, unlike Nixon, who was able to avoid a House impeachment and a Senate trial by resigning, Fox may have just missed out on its last chance to steer out of the courtroom.
[ad_2]
#Dominion #Fox #News #legal #test #echoes #Watergate
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 18, 2023
DMK serves legal notice to TN BJP chief Annamalai, seeks Rs 500 crore compensation

[ad_1]
Chennai: Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK has served a legal notice to BJP state President K. Annamalai over his allegations in the ‘DMK files’ on corruption charges against its leaders, asking him to withdraw his remarks or to pay Rs 500 crore as compensation.
DMK Organising Secretary, R.S. Bharathi, in the legal notice, said that the charges raised by the BJP state President were false and fake and made intentionally against the DMK leadership including Chief Minister M.K. Stalin.
Bharathi also termed the allegations made by the BJP President in the video as engineered and baseless and also a misinterpretation of facts.

He said that the statements made by the BJP leader were baseless, scandalous, malicious and defamatory and was made to the sole intention of tarnishing the reputation of the DMK in public eye.
The DMK, in the legal notice, also said that Annamalai, in his 1 hour, 2 minutes and 15 seconds press conference, said that the DMK had looted people’s money in an incomparable level and that it far exceeds that of Robert Clive and termed such statements are prima facie defamatory and baseless.
It said that it want the BJP leader to tender unconditional public apology for his speech and allegations made on April 14, 2023 and the video titled ‘DMK Files’ by publishing the same in any national English newspaper and regional Tamil newspaper and regional TV channels as well as on the social media page of the BJP state President or else pay a compensation of Rs 500 crore as damages.
Subscribe us on

[ad_2]
#DMK #serves #legal #notice #BJP #chief #Annamalai #seeks #crore #compensation
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 16, 2023
Hyderabad: NALSAR and IIIT-H roundtable on AI and legal process held

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University and IIIT-Hyderabad together held a roundtable meeting on Saturday deliberating on the possibility of the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Legal and Judicial system in India.
The confluence session of law firms, policy think tanks, NALSAR faculty, IIITH faculty and startups deliberated on the use-cases, various AI problems, its challenges, and potential solution possibilities.
The discussions revolved around four central themes – AI as a supporting tool in the practice of law, to adhere to due process of law, should AI practice law? and AI in delivering judgements.

The roundtable was chaired by NALSAR vice chancellor, Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao, and director of IIIT-H, Prof PJ Narayanan. Panellists included professors from IIIT-H, NALSAR and IIT Kanpur, law leaders from Samvad Partners, policy and community groups OpenNyAI and CDPP, and a city-based startup subtl.ai.
The panel identified AI use-cases in legal research, document and content discovery process, contract drafting and review activities. AI and Natural language processing (NLP) play a crucial role in building language processing tools in understanding the substance and implications of keywords searches and contract language. The deliberations will be detailed in a white paper to be published shortly.
Prof Rao said, “Academic interactions between IIIT-H and NALSAR should lead to academic and research collaborations educating lawyers and technologists together. I strongly believe that technology will enhance justice for everybody but would not replace or substitute human jurisprudence”.
Suggesting that lawyers should learn program development, learn about AI/ML, data science, the vice chancellor advocated small courses for lawyers in document review, judgement review and contract analysis.
Prof Narayanan said, “It is good to see the AI Tech world and people from law coming together.” He said that it has become possible for AI systems to help significantly in the legal process but warned about over-reliance on AI systems cautioning about biases inherent in these systems.

[ad_2]
#Hyderabad #NALSAR #IIITH #roundtable #legal #process #held
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 15, 2023
In Bragg v. Jordan, a familiar legal strategy emerges

[ad_1]

The lawsuit echoes legal arguments advanced in 2016 and 2017 in another subpoena fight on a hot-button issue. At the time, New York’s attorney general, Democrat Eric Schneiderman, was investigating whether Exxon Mobil misled investors about the risks of climate change. A GOP-controlled House panel accused Schneiderman of having a political agenda and served subpoenas seeking documents from the probe. Bragg was a senior official in Schneiderman’s office, as was Leslie Dubeck, who was then counsel to the attorney general and is now Bragg’s general counsel.
Congressional interference with state and local prosecutors is unusual and raises delicate questions about the balance of power between Congress and the states. So Schneiderman’s office resisted.
Dubeck was the architect of Schneiderman’s approach. She led the attorney general’s refusal to comply, and she prepared to either sue the House committee or defend the attorney general’s office if the committee took the matter to court. The panel’s investigation, she wrote at the time, “oversteps the boundaries imposed by federalism” and violates New York’s sovereignty.
The conflict ultimately fizzled when the subpoenas lapsed, but Bragg and Dubeck have now revived the strategy.
“They know the cards that the House Republicans have to play in this situation,” Eric Soufer, who was a spokesman for Schneiderman during the Exxon case, said of Bragg and Dubeck.
Bragg’s lawsuit replicates many of the arguments that Dubeck made in the Exxon matter. The lawsuit says the Pomerantz subpoena violates “basic principles of federalism and common sense” and accuses the House GOP of infringing on Bragg’s authority and New York’s sovereign interests.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, declined on Tuesday to issue an immediate order blocking the subpoena, and she scheduled an initial hearing for next Wednesday.
The House GOP’s probe of Bragg’s investigation is led by Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.). The Pomerantz subpoena is the first one they have issued.

Though Bragg’s colleagues have said the first-term Democrat doesn’t have much of a taste for political warfare, his effort to combat the House inquiry received a warm reception from those interested in seeing the district attorney defend the institution.
“The office should not capitulate to people with special interests,” said Joan Vollero, who handled communications and intergovernmental affairs for Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr. “I think, ironically, the House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are playing the same game of politics that they’ve accused the office of playing.”
Congressional Republicans have criticized Bragg’s investigation of the former president as evidence of his political bias, arguing that the district attorney’s pursuit of Trump stands in contrast to his liberal-leaning criminal justice policies for minor offenses. In advance of Trump’s indictment, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy warned that charges against the former president would be “an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump.”
Another irony in the case is that Bragg is borrowing some of the same arguments that Trump himself often used to resist congressional subpoenas when he was president. Trump frequently argued that Democrats’ probes into his finances were meant to harass him for political gain rather than promote a legitimate legislative purpose.
Bragg is now taking a similar position about the House GOP inquiry. His lawsuit repeatedly cites a Supreme Court decision in a Trump subpoena fight, Trump v. Mazars, which suggested that congressional subpoenas against another branch of government can violate the separation of powers if they have an improper purpose.
From an optics perspective, Soufer said, it is wise of Bragg to counterpunch. “If you let them politicize it the way they want to,” he said, “you’re going to lose in the court of public opinion.”
Both sides are launching increasingly aggressive public appeals. On Monday, Jordan’s committee is planning to hold a “field hearing” in Manhattan on Bragg’s “pro-crime, anti-victim policies.” A spokeswoman for Bragg has called the event “a political stunt” and has highlighted crime statistics showing a decline in murders, shootings, burglaries and robberies.
[ad_2]
#Bragg #Jordan #familiar #legal #strategy #emerges
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 13, 2023
Rutgers president won’t rule out legal action to block strike

[ad_1]

Negotiations between labor and Rutgers management remain underway, with both parties still negotiating at the governor’s office. In a union update Monday evening from Trenton, Rutgers AAUP-AFT President Rebecca Givan said the union did not receive or exchange any offers.
“The governor briefly told us he was unhappy we were here because it meant we were on strike and also happy we were here because it meant we want to work to get a contract,” Givan said from a conference room in the Statehouse.
Rutgers AAUP-BHSNJ President Catherine Monteleone said during the update that the “right people” were not present to negotiate with her respective union, although that’s expected to be fixed by Tuesday.
Bryan Sacks, vice president of the Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union, PTLFC-AAUP-AFT, said the “speed of this process is being accelerated” with the involvement of the governor’s office.
The strike encompasses Rutgers’ New Brunswick, Newark and Camden campuses, impacting approximately 67,000 students. The strike involved three unions: the Rutgers AAUP-AFT, which represents full-time faculty, graduate workers, postdoctoral associates, and Educational Opportunity Fund counselors; the Rutgers PTLFC-AAUP-AFT, which represents part-time lecturers; and AAUP-BHSNJ, which represents workers at Rutgers’ health sciences schools. There are approximately 9,000 striking workers.
Holloway also alleged in the Monday evening email that protestors entered and disrupted a class where there was a “critical exam” that was underway. A university spokesperson did not respond to questions for more details on the incident.
The unions wrote a response Tuesday morning which did not directly address the allegation but said that “[O]ur picket lines have been and will continue to be a peaceful, nonviolent expression of our determination to make a better Rutgers for our students and workers.”
[ad_2]
#Rutgers #president #wont #rule #legal #action #block #strike
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 11, 2023
Blue states are buying up abortion medication amid legal uncertainty

[ad_1]
California contracted with ANI Pharmaceuticals through the state’s drug affordability initiative to pay a little over $100,000 for the first 250,000 doses on hand, with an option to purchase more at the same price of around 43 cents per pill, according to Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary Julia Spiegel. Pharmacies who cannot find the drug on their own can request some from the state’s supply.
The details have been shared with other states who may want to take advantage of the same deal. “We wanted to be very mindful about not creating any kind of run on the market or uncertainty in other states,” Spiegel said.
Newsom is not the only Democratic governor buying abortion medication in bulk. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey also announced Monday that her state would be purchasing 15,000 doses of mifepristone through the state university system. Last week, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced his state had purchased 30,000 doses of mifepristone through the correctional system and 10,000 doses through the university system.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Saturday told CNN she would push legislation that would require insurance companies to cover misoprostol. “We’re trying to figure out all the different ways we can get ahead of this,” she said.
Newsom and fellow Democrats have long proclaimed California to be a “reproductive freedom state,” launching a website to connect abortion seekers with services, appropriating money to help people with the costs of getting an abortion and teaming up with other states to secure abortion access.
Misoprostol works by causing contractions, so the uterus expels any products of conception and passes a pregnancy. It’s usually taken 24-48 hours after mifepristone, a drug that blocks the hormone progesterone and terminates a pregnancy.
Mifepristone was the subject of two federal court rulings on Friday that could complicate patients’ access. A judge in Texas ruled that the FDA’s 20-year-old approval of the drug should be blocked — a decision the Justice Department immediately vowed to appeal. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said the Biden administration may simply ignore the decision. But on the same day, a federal judge in Washington ruled in a separate case against blocking mifepristone.
Misoprostol can also be used by itself to end a pregnancy, which could provide a backstop if mifepristone suddenly becomes unobtainable.

“Given the uncertainty and fear with the ongoing litigation and conflicting court opinions, it’s hard enough for those in the weeds of it to follow what’s happening,” Speigel said. “We purchased this stockpile to ensure Californians know that they have ongoing access to medication abortion no matter what is happening in the courts.”
[ad_2]
#Blue #states #buying #abortion #medication #legal #uncertainty
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 11, 2023