Facebook Messages Lead to Sexual Assault Charge in 2013 Case - The New York Times

Shannon Keeler spent years pressing the authorities to file charges in an assault she said had happened when she was a student at Gettysburg College. The break came last year in a series of online messages.

A woman said she spent years trying to get the authorities to investigate a 2013 rape allegation, but a break in the case came only after she found a series of Facebook messages last year that had been sent to her by the man she said had attacked her.

“So I raped you,” one of the messages said.

The woman, Shannon Keeler, showed those messages to the authorities in Adams County, Pa., where she had been a student at Gettysburg College at the time of the reported attack. For Ms. Keeler, 26, the messages were just the latest in a series of leads that her lawyer said she had shared with investigators, including the names and accounts of witnesses.

On Wednesday, the Adams County district attorney, Brian R. Sinnett, said his office had obtained an arrest warrant for Ian Thomas Cleary, 28, of Saratoga, Calif., who he said had been charged with sexual assault.

Mr. Sinnett said that he would make no further statements until Mr. Cleary was taken into custody. “Efforts are being made to locate the defendant,” he said.

In a statement issued by the office of Ms. Keeler’s lawyer, Laura L. Dunn, Ms. Keeler said, “While I am moved to tears by this result, which I have waited for over seven years, I am mindful that this moment came because I went public with my story, which no survivor should have to do in order to obtain justice.” Through her lawyer, Ms. Keeler declined to comment further.

According to an affidavit of probable cause, Ms. Keeler reported a sexual assault to the Gettysburg Police Department on the night of Dec. 15, 2013, after she and some friends went to a party on the Gettysburg College campus to celebrate the end of finals.

Ms. Keeler told the police that Mr. Cleary, who was also a student at the college, had followed her and a friend from the party to her dorm room. The friend who escorted her home said that Mr. Cleary had offered $20 to leave him alone with Ms. Keeler. The friend told Mr. Cleary “to go away” and he did, the affidavit said.

About 10 minutes after her friend left, Ms. Keeler told the police, she heard a knock on her door and opened it without looking through the peephole, according to the affidavit. Mr. Cleary then walked into the apartment and began to kiss Ms. Keeler and then had sex with her without her consent, according to the affidavit.

Afterward, he apologized and fled, and Ms. Keeler texted her friend, “OMG please Help me,” the affidavit says.

In an interview with The Associated Press last month, Ms. Keeler said that the authorities had told her when she reported the assault that it was difficult to prosecute cases when the victim had been drinking. She also said that she learned last year that the rape kit from the police investigation was destroyed after the case was initially closed.

Gettysburg College ended its investigation after Mr. Cleary withdrew from the school, The A.P. reported. The college confirmed on Wednesday that Mr. Cleary was enrolled there from August 2011 until January 2014.

“It has bothered me over the years that I was never able to do anything,” Ms. Keeler told The A.P.

Then, in May 2020, Ms. Keeler discovered messages that Mr. Cleary had sent to her through Facebook in December 2019, according to the affidavit.

“I need to hear your voice,” one said. “I need to know if I did it or not.”

“So I raped you,” another message said.

“I’ll never do it to anyone ever again.”

Ms. Keeler showed the messages to the authorities, according to the affidavit and her lawyer.

The police obtained a search warrant for the Facebook account and matched it to Mr. Cleary through a cellphone number, according to the affidavit.

It was not immediately clear if Mr. Cleary had a lawyer. A voice mail message left with a cellphone associated with Mr. Cleary was not returned.

In a statement, Gettysburg College said it applauded “Shannon’s bravery and persistence to bring her story to light, and by doing so, shining a light on the challenges that exist for all victims of sexual assault in pursuing these cases criminally.”

Ms. Dunn thanked the Gettysburg police for following up on the Facebook messages.

“It is sadly rare for law enforcement to believe survivors and tenaciously take up their cases for investigation,” she said in the statement.

Jesus Jiménez contributed reporting.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Facebook Messages Lead to Sexual Assault Charge in 2013 Case - The New York Times )
https://ift.tt/3h3yr7H
Case

Actor Allison Mack Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison For NXIVM Case - NPR

Enlarge this image

Allison Mack leaving a court appearance in 2019. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A federal judge has sentenced Allison Mack to 3 years in prison, along with a $20,000 fine, for her involvement in the NXIVM case.

Allison Mack has been sentenced to 3 years in prison for her role in the Nxivm case. Also a $20,000 fine.

— US Attorney EDNY (@EDNYnews) June 30, 2021

Mack was one of the lead deputies and recruiters for NXIVM — the cult group that masqueraded itself as a self-help organization. The group's leader, Keith Raniere, was sentenced to 120 years in prison in October for racketeering and sex trafficking charges.

According to recently released documents, federal prosecutors asked the judge for a more lenient sentencing on Mack's behalf, saying she was cooperative in the case against Rainere. Notably, Mack provided the government with a recording of the ceremony in which women were branded with Raniere's initials.

"Although Mack could have provided even more substantial assistance had she made the decision to cooperate earlier, Mack provided significant, detailed and highly corroborated information which assisted the government in its prosecution," wrote acting United States Attorney Jacquelyn M. Kasulis.

"While the government did not call Mack to testify at any trial or hearing, she met with the government numerous times at the government's request in order to prepare for potential trial testimony and was available to testify at Raniere's trial if requested to do so."

As an actor, Mack was best known for her role on the WB show Smallville. During Raniere's trial, a woman only identified as Nicole testified that she herself was an aspiring actor when Mack convinced her to join NXIVM as a "slave" under the guise of mentorship, promising that joining the group would help "fix" how she "was feeling." But in order to do so, she had to provide "collateral," including a sex tape and a letter falsely claiming her father sexually abused her. Nicole went on to testify that Mack orchestrated abusive sexual encounters with Raniere.

Another woman, known as Jay, testified that Mack told her that she needed to have seduce Raniere as a way of healing her trauma from previous sexual abuse.

In April 2019, Mack pleaded guilty to the racketeering charges brought against her for her involvement in the NXIVM case.

In a letter to the court, Mack wrote "I am sorry to those of you that I brought into Nxivm. I am sorry I ever exposed you to the nefarious and emotionally abusive schemes of a twisted man. I am sorry that I encouraged you to use your resources to participate in something that was ultimately so ugly."

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Actor Allison Mack Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison For NXIVM Case - NPR )
https://ift.tt/3xejSnG
Case

How to Save the Case Against Facebook - Slate

The effort to crack down on the power of Facebook, and Big Tech in general, suffered a loss on Monday when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg dismissed the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust complaint against the social network. (He also tossed a multistate suit led by New York against Facebook, mainly on the grounds that they waited too long to pursue their claims.) Boasberg ruled that the FTC’s claims failed on factual and legal grounds. Although his ruling allows the FTC to refile its suit, the decision was immediately seen as significantly hampering the agency’s chances of unwinding Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp and changing its business practices. But this isn’t the deathblow it looks like. The FTC still has ample authority to pursue its lawsuit and attack Facebook’s monopolistic conduct. Indeed, the dismissal gives the FTC an opportunity to reframe and broaden its case against Facebook.

In its December 2020 lawsuit, the FTC alleged that Facebook improperly maintained its monopoly in personal social networking services. The FTC complaint focused on two sets of practices. First, Facebook protected its monopoly by acquiring emerging rivals Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively. These services were growing rapidly on mobile devices, which is where Facebook was vulnerable to challenge at the time. Second, Facebook restricted access to application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow apps and service to be interoperable with Facebook’s platform. Specifically, Facebook declined to share APIs with apps and services that competed with Facebook’s “core functionality” or supported rival social networks.

Boasberg granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss on Monday, citing multiple deficiencies in the FTC’s complaint. Two aspects of his order deserve special attention. First, the judge ruled that the FTC did not present enough factual allegations to show that Facebook has monopoly power in the personal social networking services market, which is necessary for the FTC’s monopolization suit to succeed. The judge wrote that the FTC’s failure to explain how it computed Facebook’s “60%-plus” market share made its complaint “too speculative and conclusory to go forward.” Second, the judge ruled that Facebook has a general right not to share APIs with other firms, including competitors, and held that Facebook’s refusal to share APIs is illegal only if the FTC satisfies a restrictive three-part test. According to Boasberg, the FTC had to show that Facebook terminated a “preexisting and presumably profitable course of dealing between the monopolist and the rival,” already offered APIs to other similarly situated firms, and showed “a willingness to forsake short-term profits to achieve an anti-competitive end.”

The judge’s decision is problematic. First, determining market share is fact-intensive. It is typically not something resolved on the pleadings. Parties are given the opportunity to further develop and refine market shares through judicial discovery. So Boasberg’s decision to dismiss was premature and wrong at the early stage of the litigation when he should have assumed that facts alleged in the complaint are true. Second, the judge applied an extremely restrictive interpretation of refusal-to-deal law: When does a monopolist have to do business with its rivals? He said almost never, ruling that Facebook’s API sharing policy and practices are legal by relying on pro-monopoly decisions from other lower courts and ignoring or reading older Supreme Court precedents narrowly.

Despite the loss on Monday, the FTC has viable paths forward in its case against Facebook. Boasberg only dismissed the FTC’s complaint, not its case, and allowed the commission to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

The FTC, however, has another compelling option. It could file an administrative complaint and litigate the case in house at the FTC, instead of in federal court.

Why does the forum matter? In his decision, Boasberg purported to apply current legal standards under the Sherman Antitrust Act. His legal reasoning was, at least in part, rooted in case law and judicial hostility to monopolization lawsuits. The Supreme Court has narrowed the substantive anti-monopoly provisions of the Sherman Act in recent times.

The Federal Trade Commission has changed significantly since the inauguration of President Biden.

If the FTC initiates administrative litigation, it can avoid this body of monopoly-friendly case law and rely on the wider substantive scope of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on “unfair methods of competition.” Congress established the FTC in 1914 to address and transcend judicial limitations on the Sherman Act, and so the commission has broader statutory authority in front of its administrative law judge. The Supreme Court stated that, in interpreting unfair methods of competition, the FTC can function as a “court of equity” and challenge conduct that not only “violate[s] the Sherman Act and the other antitrust laws, but also practices that the Commission determines are against public policy for other reasons.” As Boasberg noted, the FTC has more extensive remedial power to prevent Facebook’s unfair practices going forward if it chooses administrative litigation instead of proceeding in federal court.

The FTC has changed significantly since the inauguration of President Biden. The commission that filed the suit in December featured a Republican majority. Today, it has a Democratic majority under newly installed Chair Lina Khan. It has already signaled a shift in policy. Importantly, on Thursday, the FTC is poised to restore its full unfair methods of competition authority and withdraw a 2015 policy statement that narrowly defined this power.

With three like-minded Democrats on the five-member Commission, the FTC has a chance to refine and broaden the lawsuit against Facebook and use it to announce new restrictions on monopolists. It should address the factual deficiencies identified in Boasberg’s order by explaining how it computed the “60%+” market share it presented in its complaint and continue its effort to undo Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. But the FTC could go further and articulate a more expansive theory under the FTC Act. Under antitrust law, monopolists are subject to special rules that do not apply to nonmonopolists. Applying this principle, the FTC could hold that Facebook and other dominant firms engage in an unfair method of competition when they refuse to deal with rivals, for instance by not sharing APIs, as a means of maintaining their dominance or extending it into new markets.

The FTC could also target the surveillance advertising of Facebook (and countless others) through the new administrative lawsuit. Boasberg noted that “although Facebook’s data-collection and -use practices have been subject to increasing scrutiny, they are not the subject of this action.” In a dissent from a 2019 FTC settlement with Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Commissioner Rohit Chopra wrote that Facebook’s basic business model is built on large-scale and ongoing privacy invasions—targeting advertising based on tracking our activities online and increasingly offline too. The FTC could also use this case as a vehicle for curtailing the surveillance-advertising model of Facebook, Google, and many other digital firms.

Monday’s dismissal of its complaint against Facebook is an opportunity for the FTC. The judge may have even done the FTC a favor. Instead of refiling a surgical antitrust suit against Facebook, the FTC could use its broad statutory power to announce rules of fair competition for monopolists and rein in the surveillance advertising that has come to define everyday life.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( How to Save the Case Against Facebook - Slate )
https://ift.tt/3jvrjT6
Case

Bill Cosby released from prison after sex assault conviction overturned by PA Supreme Court - USA TODAY

Trump Organization expects to be charged Thursday in Manhattan criminal case - CNBC

Signage is seen outside of The Trump Building in New York City, New York, U.S., June 28, 2021.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

The Trump Organization has been told to expect that criminal charges will be filed by Manhattan prosecutors against the company belonging to former President Donald Trump as early as Thursday afternoon, NBC News reported Wednesday.

It is not yet clear whether any other people, particularly Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, also will be charged Thursday. Trump himself is not expected to be charged Thursday.

NBC reported that two representatives from the Trump Organization said they were told the charges were imminent. One person said the charges are expected around 2 p.m. Thursday.

The Manhattan district attorney's office has been investigating the Trump Organization for several years in connection with multiple issues.

Recently, the DA's office has focused the probe on fringe benefits awarded by the company to Weisselberg and one of his sons, who works for the company, and on whether taxes were properly paid for those benefits, which have included apartments.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that both the company and Weisselberg would be charged Thursday.

Weisselberg's lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Weisselberg's former daughter-in-law, Jennifer Weisselberg, has been cooperating with the DA's investigation.

Any charges filed Thursday or later in the week are not expected to be the end of the case. Vance's office is continuing to investigate allegations that the Trump Organization misstated the value of various real estate properties for financial benefit.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing by his company.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

• Biden’s infrastructure plan would cut U.S. debt and slightly increase economic growth, Wharton study finds
• Black Lives Matter leaders met with Biden officials – and they’re disappointed with police reform talks
• Several longtime Kamala Harris associates shut out as VP’s chief of staff keeps tight control over access

A spokesman for DA Cyrus Vance Jr. has repeatedly declined to comment on the probe or any timing of possible charges.

Ronald Fischetti, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, and spokesmen for the company did not immediately respond to requests from CNBC seeking comment.

If the Trump Organization is convicted of a crime, the company could face fines or restrictions on its conduct going forward.

Fischetti told CNBC last week, "In my more than 50 years of practice, never before have I seen the District Attorney's Office target a company over employee compensation or fringe benefits."

"The IRS would not, and has not, brought a case like this," the lawyer said. "Even the financial institutions responsible for causing the 2008 financial crises, the worst financial crisis since the great depression, were not prosecuted."

But Fischetti last week also confirmed the likelihood of criminal charges against the company.

"It looks like they are going to come down with charges against the company and that is completely outrageous," Fischetti told NBC News at the time.

"They could not get Allen Weisselberg to cooperate and tell them what they wanted to hear and that's why they are going forward with these charges and they could not get him to cooperate because he would not say that Donald Trump had knowledge or any information that he may have been not deducting properly the use of cars or an apartment."

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Trump Organization expects to be charged Thursday in Manhattan criminal case - CNBC )
https://ift.tt/3AdW30S
Case

Actor Allison Mack gets 3 years in NXIVM sex-slave case - ABC News

“Smallville” actor Allison Mack was sentenced to three years in prison for her role in the scandal-ridden, cult-like NXIVM group

By TOM HAYS Associated Press

June 30, 2021, 6:12 PM

• 4 min read

NEW YORK -- TV actor Allison Mack, who played a key role in the scandal-ridden, cult-like group NXIVM, was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday on charges she manipulated women into becoming sex slaves for the group’s spiritual leader.

Mack — best known for her role as a young Superman’s close friend on the series “Smallville” — had previously pleaded guilty to the charges and began cooperating against NXIVM leader Keith Raniere. Prosecutors credited her with helping them mount evidence showing how Raniere created a secret society of brainwashed women who were branded with his initials.

At her sentencing in Brooklyn federal court, Mack renounced the self-improvement guru.

“I made choices I will forever regret,” she said, also telling the judge she was filled with “remorse and guilt.”

“I am sorry to those of you that I brought into NXIVM," she wrote in a letter filed with the court last week. "I am sorry I ever exposed you to the nefarious and emotionally abusive schemes of a twisted man.”

She reiterated her apologies to the victims in court on Wednesday: “From the deepest part of my heart and soul, I am sorry.”

Mack wept at times while reading her statement to the court. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis told her he believed her apology was sincere, but said she deserved a serious sentence for using her celebrity to groom victims as “a willing and proactive ally” and “essential accomplice to Raniere's monstrous crimes.”

Under advisory sentencing guidelines, Mack had faced between 14 and 17 1/2 years behind bars, but her defense team argued in court papers that probation or a sentence to home confinement was more appropriate. Prosecutors had agreed that any prison term should be below the guidelines range because of her cooperation.

“The NXIVM saga and the story of Ms. Mack’s descent have been a tragedy for all involved. But that need not, and should not, be the end of the story for Allison Mack,” her lawyers wrote in court papers.

A victim, Jessica Joan, rejected Mack's apologies, telling the judge the actor deserved no mercy.

“She can blame Keith all she wants but she is a monster cut from the same cloth,” Joan said in court on Wednesday. “Allison Mack is a predator and an evil human being.”

Mack, 38, was once part of the inner circle of Raniere, whose group attracted millionaires and actors among its adherents. Prosecutors said she became a “master” for “slaves” she ordered “to perform labor, take nude photographs, and in some cases, to engage in sex acts with Raniere.”

As authorities closed in on Raniere, he fled to Mexico with Mack and others to try to reconstitute the group there. He was arrested and sent to the United States in March 2018; Mack was arrested a few days later.

“Ms. Mack now understands that this was the best thing that could have happened to her at that time,” the defense papers said.

Mack provided information to prosecutors about how Raniere, now 60, encouraged “the use of demeaning and derogatory language, including racial slurs, to humiliate ‘slaves,’” the government papers said. More importantly, she provided a recording of a conversation she had with Raniere about the branding, they added.

The branding should involve “a vulnerable position type of a thing” with “hands probably above the head being held, almost like being tied down, like sacrificial, whatever,” Raniere told her. The women, he added, “should say, 'Please brand me. It would be an honor.' Or something like that.”

Raniere was sentenced last year to 120 years in prison for his conviction on sex-trafficking charges. A 41-year-old heir to the Seagram's fortune, Clare Bronfman, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison in September for her role as Raniere's unwavering benefactor.

Mack was allowed to remain out on bail in home confinement until surrendering to prison on Sept. 29. She left the courthouse on Wednesday without speaking to reporters.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Actor Allison Mack gets 3 years in NXIVM sex-slave case - ABC News )
https://ift.tt/3A8CnM9
Case

Russia opens case against Google for breaching personal data law - Reuters

MOSCOW, June 30 (Reuters) - Russia has opened an administrative case against Google for not storing the personal data of Russian users in databases on Russian territory, a move that could see the tech giant fined, communications regulator Roskomnadzor said on Wednesday.

Roskomnadzor said it was also waiting for Facebook (FB.O) and Twitter (TWTR.N) to respond to a demand that they localise similar data by July 1 or face fines, part Moscow's wider efforts to exert greater control over Big Tech. read more

Russia has imposed a punitive slowdown on Twitter since March over a failure to delete content Moscow deems illegal and is considering legislation that would force foreign technology companies to open offices in Russia or face penalties such as advertising bans. read more

President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday Russia was not planning to block any foreign social media sites, but that he hoped Russian social networks would provide opportunities for creative and talented people to thrive.

"We don't intend to block anyone, we want to work with them, but there are problems, which lie in the fact that they send us away when they do not comply with our demands and Russian law," Putin said during a live question and answer session broadcast by state television.

Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It could be fined up to 6 million roubles ($82,060) for failing to comply, Roskomnadzor said.

Such administrative cases are usually heard in a Moscow district court.

About 600 foreign companies have localised data in Russia, a list that Roskomnadzor previously said includes Apple, Samsung and PayPal.

Microsoft's LinkedIn is blocked in Russia after a court found it breached the data-storage rule, passed in 2015, which required all data about Russian citizens to be stored within the country.

($1 = 73.1175 roubles)

Reporting by Maria Kiselyova, Anastasia Teterevleva, Oksana Kobzeva and Alexander Marrow; Editing by Mark Potter

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Russia opens case against Google for breaching personal data law - Reuters )
https://ift.tt/3qDbMCd
Case

Twisting case follows 1921 shootout with railroad detectives in Jamestown, ND - Park Rapids Enterprise

Late that afternoon, gunfire erupted on the north edge of Jamestown resulting in the deaths of three men.

According to newspaper reports, railroad detectives William Wyant and Henry Kearns were acting on a tip that three transients were planning to rob a boxcar in Jamestown.

Or maybe the men had robbed a train in Bismarck or the bank in Tuttle. All were listed in the newspapers as possible reasons the railroad detectives approached the three men as they camped along the railroad tracks near Jamestown.

Information provided by the detectives describes a brief and intense exchange of gunfire.

"They saw three men standing there with their hands in their side coat pockets," wrote the Bismarck Tribune in its May 9, 1921, edition. "... Which one of you men has the gun.' In reply, the man pulled a gun from his pocket and fired at the officers."

All three of the transients received serious wounds while the two railroad detectives were uninjured.

The identities of the three transients are at best murky. With no DNA testing or databases of fingerprints or photographs, no definitive identifications could be made.

Fred Johnson, one of the three transients, received two bullet wounds through the body and one in the arm. One of the bullets struck in the rear of the shoulder "indicating he was turned when shot," reported the newspapers.

Johnson lived long enough to describe the shooting and say he was from Valley City where he had a brother who farmed. No brother could be located and officials were unable to connect him to the Valley City area to verify his identity.

James Harley was 22, according to a doctor who had previously treated him. Papers found on his person gave the name J. Carlson and his address book contained a number of people living in Chicago. He died about midnight on the day of the shooting without regaining consciousness. In later legal proceedings, the name Joseph Rhadecky was used to refer to him as well.

Walter Harrison received a bullet wound to the skull and died in a Jamestown hospital 12 days after the shooting. Doctors had performed surgery to remove bone fragments from his brain. He did regain consciousness but was never able to communicate the circumstances of the shooting.

His identity was established by a union card, although local union officials were not able to confirm it after contacting other union chapters.

While the railroad detectives and their supervisors claimed the shooting was justified, railroad detectives Wyant and Kearns were held in the Stutsman County Jail pending a coroner's inquest.

The May 12, 1921, edition of The Jamestown Alert carried a headline that proclaimed the two detectives had "felonious killed" the two transients that had already died by that time.

A coroner's jury consisting of three members of the public, all men in this case, heard testimony from witnesses questioned by the coroner and prosecuting attorneys. There was no defense attorney to question witnesses.

It took the jury just 30 minutes to reach the verdict that the shooting had been a crime.

According to the newspaper accounts, coroner's inquests were often held in a doctor's office or at a funeral home. This proceeding was held at the Stutsman County Courthouse with more than 100 people attending.

On June 2, 1921, The Jamestown Alert reported that a preliminary hearing held in Jamestown had resulted in Wyant and Kearns being bound over for a jury trial on murder charges.

During the preliminary hearing, O.J. Seiler, a Jamestown resident, testified he was one of the first members of the public to arrive at the scene of the shooting and there were no guns near the bodies of the transients.

Another Jamestown resident, identified only as Mr. Holcomb, testified that he had asked Johnson who had shot him which evoked an outburst in the again packed Stutsman County Courthouse.

"Johnson said in reply to the question as to who shot him, 'The fat man," wrote The Jamestown Alert in its coverage of the preliminary hearing. The Alert then reported members of the public in the courtroom audience said "The railroad bull."

The final act of this crime drama did not play out in Jamestown.

The trial was moved to Grand Forks and the trial of Wyant and Kearns for the murder of Fred Johnson convened there in November.

The testimony made by the Jamestown residents at the preliminary hearing was not allowed.

The jury deliberated two hours before returning a not guilty verdict in the case. Following the verdict, Louis Tellner, Stutsman County state's attorney who had prosecuted the case, moved to dismiss the charges related to Harrison and Rhadecky because "the facts attendant upon their deaths being identical as in the case of Johnson."

Fred Johnson lies buried in McGinnis Cemetery on the north edge of Jamestown probably within a mile of where he was killed. The final resting place of Harrison and Rhadecky is unknown.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Twisting case follows 1921 shootout with railroad detectives in Jamestown, ND - Park Rapids Enterprise )
https://ift.tt/36143EK
Case

MT Supco rejects GOP attempt to dismiss subpoena case - KTVH

HELENA — A unanimous Montana Supreme Court Tuesday rejected legislative Republicans’ attempt to dismiss a case that could define lawmakers’ power to obtain internal court documents, saying it’s still a case of “great public interest.”

“The matter at hand is one of serious public interest, is likely to reoccur and is in need of a ruling to guide public officers in the performance of their duties,” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the court.

Just last week, Republicans withdrew subpoenas they had issued in April, that sought and obtained some internal court documents that they alleged might show judicial bias against GOP-passed laws before the court.

The Supreme Court had blocked the subpoenas and prevented release of further documents, while it decided their legality.

Republicans said the withdrawal made the issue moot and asked to dismiss the case – but the high court rejected that request Tuesday.

The court now will decide the scope of the Legislature’s subpoena power, which GOP lawmakers used in April to obtain thousands of emails from the court without its permission or review.

Republican state Sen. Greg Hertz of Polson, who's chairing a special committee created by GOP leadership to investigate the judiciary, said Tuesday's ruling by the court is "another unprecedented move by ruling on a non-existent subpoena."

"The court continues to deepen its massive conflict of interest in this case by once again abandoning normal procedure," he continued, in a statement. "All the Legislature has asked for from the court is access to public records from public officials."

GOP leaders and the state party have steadily escalated their political battle against the high court and the judiciary, appointing the special committee and sending out mailers criticizing the Supreme Court as unethical.

The battle began in the wake of a new law giving GOP Gov. Greg Gianforte more power to fill state judicial vacancies, enacted in February by Republican majorities. Some judges had opposed the effort, including McGrath.

Republicans alleged the high court, which was considering a challenge to the law, could be biased against the new law, and used the subpoenas to acquire court emails on the subject.

Yet earlier this month, the Supreme Court upheld the judicial-appointment law that began the controversy. In a special concurring opinion, Justice Jim Rice blasted both the Legislature and Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen for their actions in the case, saying they had shown contempt for the court and threatened its legitimacy.

In asking to dismiss the case, Republicans said last week they still intended to investigate the judiciary, but that they’re willing to negotiate with high court over the release of some documents.

But In Tuesday’s order, the Supreme Court had few kind words for the Legislature or its counsel (the attorney general's office), saying “the history of this litigation has given us reason to be skeptical of the representations by the Legislature and its counsel.”

It noted that the Legislature obtained thousands of Supreme Court emails, without any procedural protections for privacy concerns, and rejected attempts by Supreme Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin’s attorney to resolve the dispute.

It also said the Legislature has not committed to not issuing additional subpoenas, if the Supreme Court were to drop the case and not rule on the subpoenas’ legality.

“The Legislature has failed to bear its `heavy burden’ of persuading this court that it will not simply reissue the same subpoena … should it be dissatisfied with the results of its efforts to obtain the sought-after materials without litigation,” McGrath wrote.

State District Court Judge Don Harris of Billings sat in for Rice on Tuesday’s order.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( MT Supco rejects GOP attempt to dismiss subpoena case - KTVH )
https://ift.tt/2TiQspz
Case

Supreme Court Backs Pipeline in Case on New Jersey Land Seizures - The New York Times

By a 5-to-4 vote, the court said the federal government could delegate its power to condemn state property to a private company.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for a pipeline to transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, ruling that PennEast Pipeline Company, the project’s developer, may exercise the federal government’s power of eminent domain to condemn land owned by New Jersey.

The vote was 5 to 4. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the government was entitled to delegate its power of eminent domain to private parties even where state property is at issue.

“We are asked to decide whether the federal government can constitutionally confer on pipeline companies the authority to condemn necessary rights of way in which a state has an interest,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “We hold that it can.”

Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the chief justice’s majority opinion.

Under the Natural Gas Act, a federal law, the federal government can authorize private companies to use its eminent domain power in at least some circumstances. PennEast obtained federal approval for its proposed 116-mile pipeline, to run from Luzerne County in Pennsylvania to Mercer County in New Jersey, and federal officials gave it the power to condemn property along the route.

New Jersey, which has ownership interest in many of the parcels of land the company sought to condemn, objected, saying that the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which generally forbids private parties from suing states in federal court, banned the company’s efforts.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, agreed with New Jersey’s position, ruling that the federal law did not authorize private parties to take state property.

There is, Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote for the panel, “deep doubt that the United States can delegate its exemption from state sovereign immunity to private parties.” But he said there was no need to resolve the question, as the Natural Gas Act had not delegated such a power to private companies.

“If Congress had intended to delegate the federal government’s exemption from sovereign immunity,” he wrote, “it would certainly have spoken much more clearly.”

In the Supreme Court, PennEast argued that the Third Circuit’s decision would, if affirmed, have broad consequences.

“The decision below not only is wrong but poses an obvious threat to pipeline development,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “It provides a road map for converting state lands — including the beds of rivers forming state boundaries — into barriers to pipeline development.”

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that there was a long history of eminent domain actions against state property rooted in federal power.

“Over the course of the nation’s history, the federal government and its delegatees have exercised the eminent domain power to give effect to that vision, connecting our country through turnpikes, bridges and railroads — and more recently pipelines, telecommunications infrastructure and electric transmission facilities,” he wrote. “And we have repeatedly upheld these exercises of the federal eminent domain power — whether by the government or a private corporation, whether through an upfront taking or a direct condemnation proceeding, and whether against private property or state-owned land.”

In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett responded that Congress was powerless to allow private suits against states under its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

“Congress cannot enable a private party like PennEast to institute a condemnation action against a nonconsenting state like New Jersey,” she wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Neil M. Gorsuch joined Justice Barrett’s dissent in the case, PennEast Pipeline Company v. New Jersey, No. 19-1039.

Justice Barrett said the federal government had other ways to achieve its goals. “In fact,” she wrote, “there is an obvious option that the court barely acknowledges: The United States can take state land itself.”

“The eminent domain power belongs to the United States, not to PennEast,” she wrote, “and the United States is free to take New Jersey’s property.”

Anthony Cox, the chairman of PennEast’s board of managers, welcomed the court’s ruling.

“This decision is about more than just the PennEast project,” he said in a statement. “It protects consumers who rely on infrastructure projects — found to be in the public benefit after thorough scientific and environmental reviews — from being denied access to much-needed energy by narrow state political interests.”

Gurbir S. Grewal, New Jersey’s attorney general, said he was disappointed but would continue to oppose the project.

“Our fight is far from over,” he wrote on Twitter. “I’m proud to continue standing up for our residents and championing environmental protection. I urge the feds to take another look at this harmful proposal.”

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Supreme Court Backs Pipeline in Case on New Jersey Land Seizures - The New York Times )
https://ift.tt/2TlWOob
Case

Home prices surged in April at a 'truly extraordinary' rate, S&P Case-Shiller says - CNBC

Home prices in April saw an annual gain of 14.6% in April, up from a 13.3% increase in March, according to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller National Home Price Index.

Among larger cities covered by the index, the 10-city composite was up 14.4% year over year, from 12.9% the previous month. The 20-city composite was 14.9% higher, up from 13.4% in March.

Phoenix, San Diego and Seattle reported the highest year-over-year gains. All were up more than 20% from the year before.  

"April's performance was truly extraordinary. The 14.6% gain in the National Composite is literally the highest reading in more than 30 years of S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller data," said Craig Lazzara, managing director and global head of index investment strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

Not only did home prices rise in all 20 cities, but the price gains accelerated in all as well and were in the top quartile of performance historically.

Five cities – Charlotte, North Carolina, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver and Seattle – saw their largest annual gains ever.

"We have previously suggested that the strength in the U.S. housing market is being driven in part by reaction to the COVID pandemic, as potential buyers move from urban apartments to suburban homes. April's data continue to be consistent with this hypothesis," added Lazzara.

Price gains have been expanding for the last 11 months, as buyer demand continues to outstrip supply. The inventory of homes for sale rose slightly in May compared with April, but was still 21% lower than May 2020, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Home sales have been falling for the past few months, due both to low supply, especially at the entry level of the market, and very high prices. Single-family housing starts have also slipped, as homebuilders try to keep up with a heavy backlog of demand amid high prices for land, labor and materials.

There has been growing talk of a price bubble in the housing market, but the fundamentals of today's market say otherwise.

"Although home price growth is reaching new highs, the risk of price declines has fallen far below pre-pandemic and summer 2006 levels, when homes prices last peaked. This is likely because favorable mortgage rates and income growth continue to keep the ratio of mortgage payments to monthly household income much lower today," said Selma Hepp, deputy chief economist at CoreLogic.

"Consequently, elevated buyer demand, coupled with lacking for-sale inventories, will continue putting pressure on prices — which are likely to remain at double-digit increases through the third quarter of 2021," she added.

There is, however, a growing divide between the haves and have-nots in housing.

Sales activity is gaining dramatically on the higher end of the market but falling on the low end as more buyers are priced out. Some blame the Federal Reserve for keeping mortgage rates artificially low, through its bond-buying program. Record low rates last year helped juice the homebuying boom, but those rates, now slightly higher, cannot offset the huge price gains.

"So much for the Fed's all-inclusive monetary policy where lower income people now can't afford housing," wrote Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group. 

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Home prices surged in April at a 'truly extraordinary' rate, S&P Case-Shiller says - CNBC )
https://ift.tt/3hg8Uar
Case

Case update: Arkansas COVID-19 cases increase by 276 Monday, active cases back over 3000 - Fayetteville Flyer

---

The Arkansas Department of Health announced that COVID-19 cases in Arkansas increased by 276 on Monday.

Hospitalizations decreased by 11, bringing the total number of Arkansans hospitalized to 314. There are 63 patients on ventilators, down two from the day prior.

The state also announced three new deaths, bringing the total number of deaths in the state as a result of the pandemic to 5,897.

Cases were also high over the weekend, with 392 cases recorded on Saturday, and 298 new cases reported on Sunday.

There are currently 3,169 cases of COVID-19 considered active in the state, which includes those that have tested positive by both PCR and antigen testing methods. This number is again on the rise after dropping to below 1,600 on June 7. The ADH dashboard currently lists 163 active cases in Washington County and 177 in Benton County.

There were 1,250 PCR tests and 115 antigen tests announced Monday.

The new cases bring the total cumulative count in Arkansas to 348,220 since the pandemic began.

The state announced that 1,454 additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered, bringing the total number of doses given by the state to 2,119,728. The state lists 219,546 as partially immunized, and 987,162 individuals as fully immunized.

Arkansas continues to lag behind the rest of the country in vaccinations. According to the NY Times, Arkansas is ranked 48th among 50 states with just 34% of the population fully vaccinated.

The state is also third worst among states in new cases per-capita over the last 7 days according to the NY Times. Cases in the state are up 61% over the last 14 days, and only Nevada has fared worse among states in that category over that time period.

By comparison, Vermont - who has fully vaccinated 75% of its population - is only reporting about 5 new cases per day, or less than 1 person for every 100,000 residents. Case counts for that state continue to decline, and have fallen 31% over the last 14 days according to the New York Times.

All Arkansans ages 12 and older are currently eligible for a vaccine.

Those who need assistance locating a vaccine can call 1-800-985-6030.

The top counties for new cases on Monday were Pulaski (73), Jefferson (25) and Saline (20).

---

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Case update: Arkansas COVID-19 cases increase by 276 Monday, active cases back over 3000 - Fayetteville Flyer )
https://ift.tt/2U707Q6
Case

U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Weld County appeal in ADA case - coloradopolitics.com

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up an appeal from Weld County, after the federal appellate court based in Colorado narrowly ruled against the jurisdiction last year in an employment discrimination case.

The High Court's decision on Monday puts Laurie Exby-Stolley on track to receive a new trial for her claim that Weld County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate her when she was a county health inspector. In a rare all-judges hearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, a 7-6 decision found that a trial court erred by instructing the jury that Weld County had to have taken an adverse action against Exby-Stolley, like firing her or demoting her, for her to have an ADA claim.

The appellate court's majority noted that the phrase "adverse employment action" does not appear in the landmark disability rights law.

"The entire concept of requiring an adverse employment action to succeed on any type of discrimination [claim] has never been endorsed by SCOTUS and many circuits are now deciding it is not a viable or correct doctrine," said Jason Wesoky, an attorney at Darling Milligan who represents Exby-Stolley.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Weld County argued that circuit courts of appeals were closely split around the country over whether an employer merely failing to accommodate someone's disability gives rise to a claim, or if there must be something more.

The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for a disabled worker so that they may enjoy the same benefits as a non-disabled employee. Discrimination that affects an employee's "terms, conditions, and privileges of employment" is prohibited. That phrase is "shorthand," the county said, for an adverse employment action.

"Talking about issues related to how to help an individual with a disability succeed in their chosen career should be part of an ongoing conversation between the employer and employee that begins as soon as there is an apparent need for such a discussion to take place," said David Monroe, director of legal services for Disability Law Colorado. "To wait until the employer elects to take an adverse action, such as firing or demoting an employee, is not consistent with either the letter or the spirit of the ADA."

The 10th Circuit's majority sided with Exby-Stolley, deciding it would water down the protections of the ADA if county's interpretation prevailed.

"We likewise cannot accept the proposition that the ADA — which by its plain terms affirmatively imposes on employers a reasonable-accommodation obligation — should be construed in a manner that does not permit the statute to effectively ensure that all qualified disabled employees actually receive such an accommodation, but instead only such disabled employees that have also suffered an adverse employment action," wrote Judge Jerome A. Holmes in the court's October 28 opinion.

A county spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wesoky said his client has attempted to resolve the case with Weld County, to no avail.

"Should Laurie prevail, the citizens would be right to hold their leaders accountable for sticking the citizens with hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more than a million dollars, in fees and damages," he said.

Exby-Stolley was a county health inspector, but broke her right arm on the job in 2009. She took longer to perform inspections and required the use of assistive devices due to her injury. It was disputed how much the county accommodated her disability and whether it forced her out of the job, but a jury decided she had not proven she experienced an adverse employment action, as the judge had instructed them to consider.

The 10th Circuit ordered a new trial without the judge's instruction.

Jesse Fishman of HKM Employment Attorneys in Denver said she believed the 10th Circuit adequately clarified the failure-to-accommodate law with its recent decision.

"It was great that the 10th Circuit addressed this issue, as it is important to both employers and employees to have a clear understanding of employee rights — this helps employers understand how to sustain their businesses while not violating employee rights," Fishman said.

The case is Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Weld County appeal in ADA case - coloradopolitics.com )
https://ift.tt/3qx6UyA
Case

The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Crumbles - The New York Times

A federal judge delivered a major blow to those trying to shrink Big Tech.

Want the DealBook newsletter delivered directly to your inbox each day? Sign up here.

Facebook had a good day in court.Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Where a judge says Facebook isn’t a monopoly: in the law

In a major blow to attempts to shrink the power of Big Tech, a federal judge yesterday threw out two antitrust lawsuits brought against Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission and more than 40 states. The judge, James Boasberg, said the federal suit failed to provide enough facts to back claims that Facebook had a monopoly over “personal social networking.” He said the states had waited too long to bring their case, which centers on deals made in 2012 and 2014. The F.T.C. has 30 days to refile its case.

The 53-page ruling is worth a read, given the current debate on what is or isn’t a monopoly. In case you don’t have time, we pulled some of the most telling passages, which provide a clear picture of the hurdles the government has to clear if it wants to take on Big Tech in the future.

The judge said the government failed to establish exactly what Facebook’s market was:

“The market-definition inquiry in this case is somewhat unusual because, unlike familiar consumer goods like tobacco or office supplies, there is no obvious or universally agreed-upon definition of just what a personal social networking service is.”

This is key, the judge said, because the F.T.C.’s case accuses Facebook of shutting out competitors from its market:

“The FTC must do two things here. First, it must provide a definition of PSN [personal social networking] services. Second, it must further explain whether and why other, non-PSN services available to the public either are or are not reasonably interchangeable substitutes with PSN services.”

Most importantly, the judge said the government needed to show not just that Facebook is large, but that its size grants it extra-special power over the market:

“The FTC alleges only that Facebook has ‘maintained a dominant share of the U.S. personal social networking market (in excess of 60%)’ since 2011, and ‘no other social network of comparable scale exists in the United States.’ That is it. These allegations — which do not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook’s market share at any point over the past ten years — ultimately fall short of plausibly establishing that Facebook holds market power.”

The ruling is a blow to the antitrust movement that is gaining momentum in Washington. The biggest takeaway from the case is this: The monopoly case against one of Big Tech’s key players is out of step with the law as currently written. What needs to be established is whether what Facebook is doing, as defined by the law and rulings in other cases, is illegal. The answer seems to be no.

The judge’s ruling also added evidence for those who say the law is not up to the task of keeping Big Tech in check. Legislative efforts took a step forward last week when the House Judiciary Committee advanced six bills that would overhaul antitrust laws, with the goal of reining in tech giants. But this also puts Lina Khan, the Big Tech critic who now chairs the F.T.C., in a tricky spot. If the F.T.C. amends and refiles its case against Facebook, Khan would need to balance arguments that Facebook is violating law as it currently stands with support for efforts, as she has backed in the past, for Congress to introduce new legal tools.

In related news, the jump in Facebook’s stock after the ruling sent its market value above $1 trillion for the first time; the White House is reportedly drafting an executive order on antitrust enforcement; and all this antitrust scrutiny is generating a boom in demand for lawyers steeped in competition law.

HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING

Banks prepare to shower their shareholders with cash. Wall Street giants yesterday announced plans to raise their dividends and share buybacks, after they cleared the latest Fed stress tests. (Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, for instance, will double their dividends.) Critics of the stress tests worry that they allowed banks to reduce their cash buffers too aggressively, leaving them unprepared for the next crisis.

The latest on the Florida tower’s collapse. The president of the building’s condo association warned in April that the tower urgently needed $15 million to repair visible damage in areas like the garage, The Wall Street Journal reported. The confirmed death count rose to 11 as rescue crews confronted hazardous conditions.

Medicare may restrict access to a pricey Alzheimer’s drug. The government may be forced to limit who can receive Biogen’s Aduhelm, which was controversially approved by the F.D.A. and costs $56,000 a year. Experts said that high demand for the drug could blow out Medicare’s budget.

The N.C.A.A. moves to let student athletes profit off their fame. Players should be allowed to earn money from activities like autograph signings, endorsements and social media, a committee of the college sports association said. It follows pressure from several states and a Supreme Court ruling; a vote by the group’s board is set for tomorrow.

The Trump Organization makes a last-ditch effort to fend off criminal charges. Lawyers for the Trump family’s company met yesterday with Manhattan prosecutors who are investigating allegations of financial misconduct by a top executive. The virtual meeting signals that criminal charges may be near.

Welcome to the perk-filled, post-pandemic office space

Many office landlords and developers came through the pandemic in better shape than expected. But their fortunes may change as leases begin to expire and remote working becomes more widespread. As a result, worried Manhattan office landlords are offering cheaper rent and swanky amenities, The Times’s Kate Kelly and Peter Eavis report.

Office landlords largely weathered the pandemic because tenants could not break their leases. In fact, the Bloomberg index that tracks the average return of all commercial real estate debt rose 8 percent last year. The index is down a bit so far this year, suggesting that confidence that the commercial real estate market will continue to do well after the pandemic is less strong.

The big worry now: A third of leases in big buildings in Manhattan are set to expire over the next three years, according to real estate services firm CBRE. As deals come up for renegotiation, some large companies, which grew comfortable with letting employees work from home during the pandemic, are indicating that they will need significantly less space.

• “It’s a slow-moving train wreck,” said Dan Alpert, a managing partner of financial firm Westwood Capital.

That means more perks for tenants. Expect to see fancier, roomier spaces when you return to the office. Landlords say most buildings have upgraded their air-ventilation systems and opened large-capacity elevators for all tenants to allow for social distance. Some are going even further, like the private, 600-square-foot “speakeasy” that Blackstone and RXR Realty added to one office building on Manhattan’s Far West Side.

Manhattan’s most famous developer, the former president Donald Trump, is also taking action, DealBook has learned. Rents at Trump’s 40 Wall Street fell by $5 million in 2020, according to a recent financial filing by the publicly traded mortgage trust that holds a loan on the property. The Trump Organization is offering concessions on a “case-by-case basis” in order to retain tenants of the 1.2 million square foot downtown office tower, according to a report from Wells Fargo, which services Trump’s loan on the building. In order to sign new tenants, the company is offering flexible move-in dates, with the ability to delay rent until the space is occupied. A representative from the Trump Organization did not return multiple requests for comment.

---

“Parachute Pants and Central Bank Money”

— The title of a speech by Randal Quarles, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, on the rush to research and develop central bank digital currencies. He expressed skepticism about a digital version of the dollar built with similar technology to cryptocurrencies, likening it to fads like parachute pants in the 1980s.

---

What you think about charity and taxes

Last week, we wrote about taxes and philanthropy after Warren Buffett, in announcing billions more in donations, said it was “fitting” for Congress to revisit the tax policy for charitable donations from time to time. This was especially true for those who get “imaginative” with their giving, Buffett said, suggesting that charitable deductions serve primarily as a tax shield for some wealthy donors.

We asked whether you thought the tax treatment of philanthropy should change, and if so, how. Here is a selection of reader responses, edited for length and clarity:

• “We could reduce the tax-free amount we can give to an individual charity, still leaving it possible to give a lot to a large number of charities. This would allow smaller individual gifts to seed charities and reduce abuses by large fortunes. This could even be on a sliding scale, like a progressive income tax.” — Gerry Milliken in Cottonwood, Ariz.

• “It is up to the majority of taxpayers to choose the public services that will enhance opportunities for everyone, not just for the lucky few to be served by the charitable whims of benefactors.” — Nadia Alexan in Montreal, Canada

• “As a former fund-raiser, I have strong feelings on the subject. First, limit tax deductions for college athletics to $5,000 per year. Second, legislate minimum payouts of 5 percent for donor-advised funds. (Expenses such as salaries and travel should not count toward the 5 percent rule.) Third, there should be a deduction for contributions for taxpayers who file standard deduction forms.” — Sheldon Caplis in Baltimore, Md.

THE SPEED READ

Deals

• In I.P.O. news: The British private equity firm Bridgepoint, the language-learning app Duolingo and the airline Republic Airways all filed to go public. (FT, CNBC, Bloomberg)

• In SPAC news: The investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners and the online payment company Payoneer have begun trading publicly after completing their mergers with blank-check funds. (Bloomberg, Reuters)

Politics and policy

• The embattled vaping company Juul will pay $40 million to settle an investigation by North Carolina into allegations of deceptive marketing practices. (NYT)

• President Biden has inherited a decades-old trade fight that hasn’t gone away: a dispute over the high cost of Canadian lumber. (NYT)

Tech

• Amazon is reportedly facing a big wave of executive departures as Andy Jassy prepares to become C.E.O. next week. (Insider)

• Tyi McCray, Pinterest’s diversity chief, who was hired after former employees accused the company of gender and racial discrimination, has left after less than a year. (Protocol)

Best of the rest

• California’s Central Valley is America’s most fertile farmland — but it faces a crippling drought and the consequences of years of water overuse. (NYT)

• This is how thieves stole $40 million in copper, told in cartoon form. (Bloomberg)

• “A Woman’s Guide to Making the Most of Social Security” (NYT)

We’d like your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Crumbles - The New York Times )
https://ift.tt/3y9oL1l
Case