Read the Indictment here:
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/08/Trump-indictment.pdf
The Doctor of Common Sense
Read the Indictment here:
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/08/Trump-indictment.pdf
The truth really does hurt.
Three of Lizzo’s former dancers are suing the “Good as Hell” performer, as well as Big Grrrl Big Touring and Shirlene Quigley, for allegedly subjecting them to endure weight-shaming, sexually denigrating behavior and pressuring them to participate in disturbing sex shows.
Plaintiffs Arianna Davis and Crystal Williams claim in the lawsuit filed Tuesday and obtained by Page Six that they were eventually fired while the third plaintiff, Noelle Rodriguez, resigned over Lizzo’s “stunning” behavior.
While on a concert trip with the Grammy Award-winning artist to Amsterdam in February 2023, the plaintiffs claim Lizzo invited them for a night out on the town — which ended in the city’s red light district.
The area is known for its sex theaters, sex shops and clubs and bars where nudity is on full display.
The lawsuit states, “… things quickly got out of hand. Lizzo began inviting cast members to take turns touching the nude performers, catching dildos launched from the performers’ vaginas, and eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.”
The suit also claims Lizzo allegedly “pressured” and “goaded” Davis into touching one nude performer’s breasts.
The plaintiffs claim that, just a month later, Lizzo, 35, deceived them once again into attending a nude show, thereby “robbing them of the choice not to participate,” the documents state.
Davis also claims in the lawsuit that at one point, she had no choice but to “soil herself” on stage during an “excruciating” re-audition, “fearing the repercussions” of excusing herself to go to the restroom.
Eventually, Lizzo allegedly fired Davis “on the spot” after learning Davis had recorded one of their meetings even though it was in order to have “a copy of the notes” the artist provided.
Rodriguez resigned shortly thereafter out of solidarity with Davis and the “disrespect” Lizzo allegedly showed her.
The lawsuit claims she “feared that Lizzo intended to hit her and would have done so if one of the other dancers had not intervened.”
The plaintiffs are suing for general and special damages, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
“The stunning nature of how Lizzo and her management team treated their performers seems to go against everything Lizzo stands for publicly, while privately she weight-shames her dancers and demeans them in ways that are … absolutely demoralizing,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Ron Zambrano, said in a statement.
Reps for Lizzo didn’t immediately return Page Six’s requests for comment. Page Six has also reached out to the dancers for further comment.
https://pagesix.com/2023/08/01/lizzo-sued-by-dancers-for-allegedly-forcing-them-to-watch-sex-shows/?_gl=1*bf730z*_ga*ODc2OTQzNTIxLjE2OTAyODg3ODk.*_ga_0DZ7LHF5PZ*MTY5MDkxMjg5MS43LjEuMTY5MDkxMzA4Ny4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.125097738.1016645679.1690821957-876943521.1690288789
In an unprecedented move that has left many shaking their heads in disbelief, New York City has opted to hand over a staggering $13 million to more than 1,000 individuals.
Who are these fortunate recipients, you might ask?
They are protesters who, in the tumultuous aftermath of George Floyd’s death in 2020, found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
This monumental payout, resulting from a civil rights lawsuit settlement that is poised to make history, has sparked an outcry, with critics condemning the prioritization of compensating individuals who took part in mass unrest over addressing the myriad other issues the city faces.
But how has this situation come to pass?
And what does this say about New York City’s stance on the civil disobedience that shook the nation?
More details below:
For those who followed the wave of Black Lives Matter protests, you’ll recall that they were not without their share of violence and destruction.
Fires were started, objects thrown, windows smashed, buildings damaged – the repercussions of this civil unrest echoed across the nation, causing billions of dollars in damages and leading to mass arrests.
In this landmark case, are we setting a precedent for financially rewarding individuals involved in such protests?
What about those protesters whose actions crossed the line into violence and destruction – will they, too, receive a piece of this multi-million dollar settlement?
The lawsuit’s stipulations draw a somewhat murky line on this.
Fox News was one of the first to break the story:
New York City will give more than $13 million to more than 1,000 protesters arrested or interacting with police during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following a civil rights lawsuit settlement filed in Manhattan federal court Wednesday.
Experts said the settlement, which allows the city to avoid a trial, would be among the most expensive payouts ever for mass arrests. It still needs to be approved by a judge before it is finalized.
The lawsuit focused on 18 protests that erupted in New York City in the week following George Floyd’s death in May. According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, eligible persons can receive $9,950 in compensation.
Protests and riots following the 2020 killing of Floyd resulted in at least 18 deaths, $350 million worth of property damage in the Minneapolis area, and nearly $2 billion nationwide. About 10,000 people were arrested in the span of a few days.
Several other cities across the U.S. are negotiating their own settlements concerning officers’ handling of protesters who spilled into the streets, with some causing fires, throwing objects, breaking windows and damaging buildings.
Protesters arrested in connection with violence — those arrested on charges including trespassing, property destruction, assaulting an officer, arson or weapons possession — will be excluded from the settlement. Those seen on video blocking police from making arrests may also be ineligible.
The lawsuit named former Mayor Bill de Blasio and retired NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea, as well as other police leaders, as defendants. Under the settlement agreement, neither the city nor the NYPD is required to admit any wrongdoing.
New York City, long celebrated as the epitome of urban dynamism and diversity, appears to have taken an unnerving turn into a realm where the traditional roles of law enforcement and lawbreakers are being dramatically flipped.
At the helm of this seemingly bizarre twist is Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who seems intent on bringing the hammer down not on the city’s notorious law-breakers but on its public protectors.
Concurrently, Mayor Eric Adams’ administration has approved a multi-million dollar payout to Black Lives Matter protesters who were in physical confrontations with the police.
It’s a strange turn of events where those who break the law appear to be shielded and even rewarded, while the ones tasked with upholding it are punished.
But what does this mean for the ordinary New Yorker?
Can they feel safe in a city that appears to be operating in an alternate universe?
The details of recent incidents involving law enforcement in New York City make for alarming reading.
One case involves an NYPD officer who was charged for an incident at an Apple store where he threw a single punch that led to no injuries.
On what basis was this considered a criminal act worthy of prosecution by Bragg?
Fortunately, the editorial board at the New York Post still has some common sense and is calling out NYC for having its priorities backwards:
What a topsy-turvy world Gotham has become.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is now prosecuting a cop who tried to stop a serial shoplifter — while Mayor Eric Adams’ team has agreed to pay Black Lives Matter protesters $13 million for fighting police.
It’s just the latest turn in a series of madcap moves where officials rush to defend — and even reward — law-breakers, while punishing victims and those who seek to protect the public.
Can any New Yorker feel safe in a world like that?
On Wednesday, Bragg indicted Manhattan NYPD officer Salvatore Provenzano for punching an unruly man he was escorting out of an Upper West Side Apple Store two years ago.
The incident involved just one punch, which resulted in absolutely no injuries, yet DA Bragg somehow saw fit to press charges against the officer.
This follows on the heels of Bragg’s indictments of other New Yorkers who were forced to defend themselves against street madmen:
* Last year, Bragg sought to bring a murder charge against bodega worker Jose Alba, even though surveillance video showed Alba was attacked first and sought to defend himself. Bragg later backed down under pressure.
* In May, Daniel Penny was arraigned on manslaughter charges involving the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who was threatening subway riders.
* Last month, straphanger Jordan Williams was charged with stabbing an unhinged ex-con who harassed passengers and punched his girlfriend aboard a J train, though a grand jury found that he acted in self-defense.
* And just this month, Bragg charged Scotty Enoe, a CVS worker, with stabbing a serial shoplifter to death during a fight inside a Midtown Manhattan store.
If you live in NYC and have to pay the BLM rioters with your hard-earned tax money, we feel sorry for you.
NYC Awards Record $13M to BLM Rioters in Settlement for Being Arrested During George Floyd Protests
Sleepwalking might just get you off.
A Manhattan jury Friday found Nick Liu, 27, not guilty of molesting his roommate’s bikini-model girlfriend after his lawyer Dan Ollen argued that he was sleepwalking at the time.
“Not guilty,” read the forewoman in Manhattan Criminal Court on one count each of misdemeanor forcible touching and third-degree sex abuse.
Liu’s mother, Lisa Philips, burst into sobs of relief. As Liu left the courtroom, accompanied by his girlfriend, his parents and sister, he said, “I’m very happy to have my life back.”
The Georgetown graduate got into hot water after a night of heavy drinking Sept. 11, 2015. Early the next morning, he sleepwalked into his roommate Shane Payne’s bedroom in the StuyTown pad they once shared.
Payne’s horrified girlfriend awoke to find Liu kissing her neck and putting his fingers inside her, she told jurors. The brunette bodybuilder, who has posed for Hooter’s bikini calendar, yelled “Stop! Stop!” as she shoved the 155-pound intruder off of her.
During her weepy testimony, she insisted that Liu was fully conscious when he attacked her.
But the mild-mannered defendant told jurors he has suffered from sleepwalking since he was a young child. He said he fell asleep that morning and his next memory was of “someone jostling me quite aggressively.” He was distraught when he realized it was his pal’s girlfriend.
The out-of-work investment analyst ran back into his bedroom and started hyperventilating. “I was breathing quite fast, I just felt horrible,” he said.
His girlfriend of 5 years, Alexandra Berg, testified about his sleep disturbances. She said that he grabs her breasts and vagina about twice a month in his sleep.
“The first few times it happened, I didn’t know he was asleep,” she said. “He woke up during it, and you could see his eyes going from unconscious to confused.”
http://nypost.com/2017/06/09/man-found-not-guilty-after-blaming-sleepwalking-for-sex-attack/
Vizio, one of the world’s biggest makers of Smart TVs, is paying $2.2 million to settle charges that it collected viewing habits from 11 million devices without the knowledge or consent of the people watching them.
According to a complaint filed Monday by the US Federal Trade Commission, Internet-connected TVs from Vizio contained ACR—short for automated content recognition—software. Without asking for permission, the ACR code captured second-by-second information about the video the TVs displayed. The software collected other personal information and transmitted it, along with the viewing data, to servers controlled by the manufacturer. Vizio then sold the data to unnamed third-parties for purposes of audience measurement, analysis, and tracking.
“For all of these uses, Defendants provide highly specific, second-by-second information about television viewing,” FTC lawyers wrote in Monday’s complaint. “Each line of a report provides viewing information about a single television. In a securities filing, Vizio states that its data analytics program, for example, ‘provides highly specific viewing behavior data on a massive scale with great accuracy, which can be used to generate intelligent insights for advertisers and media content providers.'”
In an e-mailed statement, Vizio officials wrote: “The ACR program never paired viewing data with personally identifiable information such as name or contact information, and the Commission did not allege or contend otherwise. Instead, as the Complaint notes, the practices challenged by the government related only to the use of viewing data in the ‘aggregate’ to create summary reports measuring viewing audiences or behaviors.”
The tracking started in February 2014 on both new TVs and previously sold devices that didn’t originally ship with ACR software installed. The software periodically appended IP addresses to the collected data and also made it possible for more detailed personal information—including age, sex, income, marital status, household size, education level, home ownership, and home values—to be associated. The collection occurred under a setting that was described as a “Smart Interactivity” feature that “enables program offers and suggestions.” The menu never informed users that the feature also transmitted viewing habits or other personal information. The complaint offered these additional technical details:
Through the ACR software, Vizio’s televisions transmit information about what a consumer is watching on a second-by-second basis. Defendants’ ACR software captures information about a selection of pixels on the screen and sends that data to Vizio servers, where it is uniquely matched to a database of publicly available television, movie, and commercial content. Defendants collect viewing data from cable or broadband service providers, set-top boxes, external streaming devices, DVD players, and over-the-air broadcasts. Defendants have stated that the ACR software captures up to 100 billion data points each day from more than 10 million VIZIO televisions. Defendants store this data indefinitely.
Defendants’ ACR software also periodically collects other information about the television, including IP address, wired and wireless MAC addresses, WiFi signal strength, nearby WiFi access points, and other items.
Big Brother is watching
The allegations are only the latest to raise troubling privacy concerns about Internet-connected TVs and other so-called Internet-of-things devices. In late 2015, security researchers found that Vizio TVs failed to properly validate the HTTPS certificates of servers they connected to when transmitting viewing-habit data. That made it trivial for anyone who had the ability to monitor and control the Internet traffic passing between the TV and the Vizio servers to impersonate the servers and view or tamper with the transmitted data. Smart TVs manufactured by LG have also been caught collecting potentially sensitive data, including a list of shows being watched, the names of files contained on connected USB drives, and the names of files shared on home or office networks.
Under the terms of the settlement, Vizio will pay $1.5 million to the FTC and $700,000 to the New Jersey Division of Consumer affairs. The settlement also requires Vizio to delete all data collected before March 1, 2016. Additionally, Vizio has agreed to prominently disclose and obtain express consent for all future data collection. The FTC has more details about the case here and here.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/vizio-smart-tvs-tracked-viewers-around-the-clock-without-consent/