|
Evidence against a Norfolk, Nebraska, mother and her teen in a case alleging an illegal abortion is opening a new digital front in the national battle over abortion.  Evidence against a Norfolk, Nebraska, mother and her teen in a case alleging an illegal abortion is opening a new digital front in the national battle over abortion. Police allege in court documents that Celeste Burgess, then 17 years old, told police in April that she had suffered a miscarriage in a bathtub at her home. She said she and her mom buried the stillborn, the documents show. Investigators seeking a search warrant said they later learned that the mother, Jessica Burgess, had bought the oral medication online to end her daughter’s pregnancy. That information was gathered in part from private Facebook messages the Burgesses exchanged. Criminal charges against the two brought by the Madison County Attorney’s Office are among the first nationally to use Facebook data subpoenaed by police against a woman seeking an abortion. After the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in June, national abortion-rights advocates argued that law enforcement agencies might use technology to track and prosecute women seeking abortions. A Meta spokesman told Forbes that the search warrant they received in June, before the Roe reversal, did not mention abortion. Meta is the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. Madison County Attorney Joe Smith told the Lincoln Journal Star that this was the first time in his 32 years as a prosecutor that he had filed such charges in an abortion-related case. He told the Nebraska Examiner on Wednesday he had little choice but to file charges, based on what investigators found. Police say the abortion occurred later than allowed under Nebraska law. The teen took the medication when she was more than 29 weeks pregnant, authorities allege. Under Nebraska law, abortions are legal up to 20 weeks. Abortion pills are typically used within 11 weeks of conception. State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha said Tuesday that Nebraska, like a number of other states, is “prosecuting people for their pregnancy outcomes.” She said the Norfolk daughter and her mother need “help and support … not prosecution.” “True justice would mean ensuring that people have all the resources and the support they need to make decisions about whether they want to have a family, when they have a family, and how to support the families they have with dignity,” Hunt said. “How did we fail this young woman? That is a bigger question that we need to ask ourselves as a culture.” Abortion opponents said questions about data privacy are a distraction from a possible crime. They said Tuesday that Nebraska’s abortion restrictions are working as intended. Sandy Danek, president of Nebraska Right to Life, applauded police and prosecutors for enforcing the 20-week ban. Nothing, she said, will “remedy the tragedy of this event, where a baby has died and a mother is left with the wounds of abortion.” “Nebraskans should be appalled (by) the lack of dignity given to this baby’s body. All Nebraskans deserve a respectful burial,” Danek said. “We hope the authorities will further investigate the source of the chemical cocktail used to kill this preborn child.” Celeste, who is now 18, is being charged as an adult with removing, concealing or abandoning a human body, which is a felony, and with concealing the death of another person and false reporting, which are misdemeanors. Her mother has been charged with three felonies: performing an abortion after 20 weeks; performing an abortion as a non-doctor; and removing, concealing or abandoning a human body. She also faces two misdemeanors: concealing a death and false reporting. Police allege in court documents that both mother and daughter knew a drug being ordered online was intended to cause a miscarriage. The mother said she could not remember the name of the drug or what website she had ordered it from online. Here is what the documents say Celeste and her mother wrote to each other on Facebook Messenger in April. The exchange has been edited for brevity: Jessica: It came 2day Celeste: Just the one or both Jessica: Both Jessica: What I ordered last month Celeste: Are we starting it today? Jessica: We can if u want the one will stop the hormones Celeste: OK Jessica: Ya the 1 pill stops the hormones an rhen (sic) u gotta wait 24 HR 2 take the other Celeste: OK Celeste: Remember we burn the evidence Jessica: Yep The Burgesses showed police where the fetus was buried, just outside of Norfolk. Authorities said in court documents that they recovered a fetus with evidence of “thermal injuries.” Both women have pleaded not guilty. The mother, in a financial statement she made when applying for a public defender, said she lost her job because of what happened. Local abortion rights advocates have been trying to help her hire a private lawyer. Abortion is legal in 27 states, ranging from until 15 weeks in Florida to being legal throughout pregnancy in Colorado and three other states. A dozen states, including Minnesota, allow abortions until fetal viability. Nebraska allows abortions up to 20 weeks. Abortion is illegal or soon to be illegal in 16 states, including Oklahoma and South Dakota. U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., author of Nebraska’s 20-week ban, said the law recognizes late-term abortion as “especially cruel and inhumane.” Flood said he has “always supported commonsense restrictions on abortion.” He also has said he would support an outright ban on abortion in Nebraska and federally. His opponent in November’s general election, State Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks of Lincoln, worked with other Democrats this year to filibuster Republicans’ effort to pass a full ban. She had no immediate comment on the Madison County case.
0 Comments
The United States is in the midst of a completely avoidable human rights crisis. Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, the country has been thrown into a state of legal chaos regarding abortion access; states are racing to either enact draconian restrictions or create protections for abortion care.  On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos were “children” under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. While this was a decision about in vitro fertilization (IVF), Alabama’s recognition of embryos as persons is simply a logical extension of the anti-abortion movement’s long-time commitment to the notion of fetal personhood, an idea now animating the post-Dobbs criminalization of reproductive care. A number of state legislatures have already granted personhood status to fertilized eggs or unborn children in utero at any stage of development. Consistent with the anti-abortion movement’s goal of a nationwide recognition of fetal personhood, the criminalization of abortion is a tool for preventing abortions from ever occurring. In our new article, Bodies of Evidence: The Criminalization of Abortion and Surveillance of Women in a Post-Dobbs World, we explore: how ban states are criminalizing abortion; the way medication abortion is disrupting abortion bans; the threat of prosecution faced by women who self-manage abortions with medication; and the ways modern surveillance technologies enable law enforcement investigations of abortion crimes. The criminalization of abortion is one of several strategies endorsed by the anti-abortion movement and adopted in states attempting to enforce abortion bans and defend them against circumvention by medication abortion. Medication abortion, a two-pill regimen involving mifepristone and misoprostol, is approved by the FDA for terminating a pregnancy up to 10 weeks. While the FDA approved the use of mifepristone in 2000, the revolutionary promise of medication abortion—where a woman can receive the medication in the mail, then safely self-manage an abortion in the privacy of her own home—was not realized until the FDA permanently lifted the in-person dispensing requirement in 2021. Not surprisingly, research from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that medication abortion now accounts for 63% of abortions in the United States, up from 53% in 2020. Because of medication abortion, pregnant people living in states that ban or severely restrict abortions have access to a form of abortion care that was not available pre-Roe. Today, pills can be moved across state lines, doctors in abortion-protective states can offer telehealth care to women in ban states, and organizations like Aid Access can mail abortion medication from overseas. It is no longer necessary for all women in ban states to travel out of state to access abortion care. The anti-abortion movement is, of course, aware of the ways in which medication abortion can thwart abortion bans and is attacking the problem on a number of fronts. In one response to this threat, a group of anti-abortion doctors brought a lawsuit challenging both the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and subsequent actions in 2016 and 2021 to improve access to and availability of the drug. The goal of the lawsuit is to remove mifepristone from the U.S. market, a result that would drastically reduce access to medication abortion for all women in the United States, regardless of the state in which they live. The Fifth Circuit granted partial relief to the doctors, landing the case in front of the Supreme Court after the government’s petition for writ of certiorari was granted. The Court heard oral arguments on March 26. While it is unwise to predict how the Court will rule on any case, a majority of justices during the oral argument seemed to express some skepticism that the doctors who brought the suit had the necessary legal standing to seek the requested relief. The Court could thus dispose of the case without ever reaching its merits. Even if the challenge to the FDA’s treatment of mifepristone is unsuccessful, however, the case presented an opportunity for the plaintiffs to bring attention to another of the movement’s strategies—one that was raised on three separate occasions during the oral argument by Justices Alito and Thomas. This strategy concerns the Comstock Act, a federal obscenity law from 1873, virtually dormant but still on the books, that criminalizes the mailing of “[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.” A literal interpretation of this law would, at a minimum, make the mailing of any kind of abortifacient unlawful, essentially resulting in a nationwide ban on medication abortion. While the Department of Justice under the Biden administration interprets the Comstock Act narrowly, the Justice Department under a Trump administration is free to reject that interpretation. To achieve a nationwide abortion ban, the anti-abortion movement doesn’t need Congress or even the courts—it only needs Donald Trump to be elected. And while Congress could certainly repeal the Comstock Act, that is not an outcome anyone should expect in the near future. As the anti-abortion movement pursues these strategies, another more familiar tactic for preventing women from self-managing abortion with medication is also available: the prosecution of women and those that may assist them. Although providers have historically been the primary targets of abortion laws, women have been investigated and prosecuted for pregnancy-related conduct and a variety of pregnancy outcomes, even during the Roe era. And, in 2016, when candidate Donald Trump was asked whether he thought women who sought an illegal abortion should face criminal punishment, he answered in the affirmative—“there has to be some sort of punishment.” Some state officials, politicians, and movement leaders claim that no one intends to prosecute pregnant women for abortion crimes. Others, emboldened by the demise of Roe, have suggested that criminal punishment of pregnant women who seek or obtain abortions is logical, morally justifiable, and required to end abortion. As we explore in our article, a number of current states’ laws—including personhood laws—provide prosecutors with the tools to investigate and prosecute women who self-manage abortion using medication and those that assist them. The decision whether to do so will generally turn on a prosecutor’s interpretation of these laws, many of which do not explicitly exempt women from prosecution, and his or her exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Georgia, for example, has passed a personhood law. Its “Living Infants Fairness and Equality” Act (LIFE Act) bans abortion after six weeks, a time at which most women don’t even know they are pregnant, and states that “[i]t shall be the policy of the state of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural persons.” It defines “natural person” as “any human being, including an unborn child,” and defines “unborn child” as “a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.” By including “unborn child” in the definition of natural person, the LIFE Act raises the possibility that a woman who obtains or self-manages an abortion after six weeks could be charged with murder. In Georgia, a person commits murder “when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.” No exemptions from prosecution are provided in the LIFE Act. While our article identifies some ambiguity surrounding whether a woman having or self-managing an abortion could be prosecuted for murder under Georgia’s LIFE Act, Douglas County District Attorney Ryan Leonard previously indicated that women in Georgia “should prepare for the possibility that they could be criminally prosecuted for having an abortion. . . . If you look at it from a purely legal standpoint, if you take the life of another human being, it’s murder.” This prosecutor’s statement is an example of a threat of prosecution, where a public official purposefully wields fear and uncertainty to enforce an abortion ban. Meanwhile, an April 1 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court enabled a six-week abortion ban to take effect by May 1, replacing the current law, which bans abortion after 15 weeks. In Florida, “[a]ny person who willfully performs, or actively participates in, a termination of pregnancy in violation” of the law before or during viability “commits a felony of the third degree, punishable” by a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years and fines. There is no exemption for pregnant women. The broad “any person” language subjects women who self-manage abortion through medication to the threat of investigation and prosecution.1 Recognizing this possibility, Florida legislators proposed H.B.111 in October 2023, a bill that explicitly exempts pregnant women from prosecution for terminating their pregnancies: “This paragraph does not apply to the pregnant woman who terminates the pregnancy.” The bill died in subcommittee in March of this year. Florida’s six-week ban features the same broad language prohibiting “any person” from engaging in the proscribed conduct. Accordingly, women will continue to be at risk of investigation and prosecution under the new law. There were 84,052 abortions in Florida last year, an increase of 2,000 abortions from 2022. More than 7,000 of those women came to Florida from other states. With the imposition of the six-week ban, the use of medication abortion will undoubtedly spike. Women continue to have abortions even when they are illegal. Georgia and Florida are just two examples of states with laws that subject women to the threat of prosecution for self-managing abortions. There are also a range of laws “related to fetal remains, child abuse, felony assault or assault of an unborn child, practicing medicine without a license, or homicide and murder” that don’t even mention or outlaw abortion, but which have been used to investigate and prosecute people for conduct related to the alleged termination of their own pregnancies, even while Roe was the law of the land. In the post-Dobbs world, prosecutors who choose to investigate women for self-managing abortions have an array of modern surveillance technologies at their disposal. In our article, we present three hypothetical scenarios involving law enforcement investigations of a single mom, a college student, and a high school student based on alleged self-managed abortions. In each of the scenarios, we attempt to illustrate what is possible based on current law and technology. We are not suggesting that these exact scenarios have occurred or will occur. But aspects of these fact patterns are consistent with cases described in If/When/How’s 2023 report documenting the ways in which women were investigated and prosecuted for conduct pertaining to self-managed abortions between 2000 and 2020, prior to the fall of Roe. Whether abortion laws target providers, aiders and abettors, or women themselves, the criminalization of abortion necessarily involves the surveillance of women. Women’s bodies are often the so-called scene of the crime, and their personal data will, more likely than not, be evidence of the crime. The modern digital environment only amplifies the scope and harm of that surveillance. Communications with friends and family, internet searches, websites visited, purchases made, data shared with mobile apps, location, and other data generated in the course of everyday life become evidence that can be used in prosecutions against women and those that assist them in obtaining abortions. We offer no single, silver bullet solution for the threat of surveillance and prosecution women face in a post-Dobbs world. But there are some intermediate measures that can mitigate this threat. As our research demonstrates, state laws criminalizing abortion are, on the whole, a confusing morass. They often do not unambiguously preclude the prosecution of women. Confusing statutory language coupled with the unpredictability of prosecutorial discretion creates uncertainty—which in turn curtails women’s liberty, compromises their privacy interests, and puts their health at risk. State legislators, especially those who claim that there is no intention to prosecute women, should ensure that laws clearly and explicitly exempt women from prosecution. Another avenue that holds some promise for disrupting the threat is specifically tied to the state of Delaware, where many big platforms and technology companies are incorporated. Delaware, we argue, should join California and Washington in passing a data shield law that includes provisions specifically designed to prevent companies from turning over data sought by law enforcement organizations from ban states that are investigating abortion crimes. Such a shield law could provide one significant hurdle to law enforcement attempts to investigate and prosecute women who have abortions and those that assist them. As the chosen state of incorporation for many tech companies holding data relevant to the investigation of abortion crimes, Delaware has a unique opportunity to engage in threat mitigation. After an extensive investigation of conditions for children in five secure facilities operated by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that TJJD violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),1 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday said a wide-ranging investigation of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department found widespread instances of systemic physical and mental abuse and violations of children’s civil and constitutional rights. The announcement came on the heels of a scathing report issued after officials investigated conditions at five TJJD facilities: the Evins Regional Juvenile Center in Edinburg; the Gainesville State School in Gainesville; the Giddings State School in Giddings; the McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility in Mart and the Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex in Brownwood. “TJJD engaged in a pattern of abuse, deprivation of essential services and disability related discrimination that seriously harms children and undermines their rehabilitation – all in violation of their rights under the Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” said Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, during a press call with reporters. The facilities failed to protect children in their care from harm and sexual abuse, the report contends. It found that investigations by the Office of Inspector General showed “a pervasive atmosphere of sexual abuse, grooming, and lack of staff accountability and training at TJJD” and that some of the minors subject to abuse were previous victims of similar behavior. The report lists several examples of the alleged misconduct, including a staff member engaging in oral sex with a child in the shower, others having “overtly sexual conversations” with children and another sending nude photos of herself to a child at one of the units. The investigation also found that a lack of staff supervision led to sexual victimization and misconduct among the children themselves. “Children should be safe in these facilities. Sexual misconduct undermines any treatment and rehabilitation of the children, many of whom have already been victims of sexual abuse and victims of trafficking,” said U.S. Attorney Alamdar Hamdani of the Southern District of Texas. “Making all of this worse, the children in these facilities … do not receive the mental health services they need.” The report also highlights how pepper spray was often used as a first resort, without decontamination procedures in place. “TJJD staff often use far more pepper spray, and deploy it far more frequently, than necessary to meet the threat posed,” the report states. In one example, a child called Emily reportedly made threats at school. Staff responded by taunting her and swearing at her, eventually daring her “to do something in response.” “Ultimately, the staff tells Emily to ‘shut up,’ pepper sprays her, and then says, ‘That’s what’s up, ho,’” the investigation found. Another child was reportedly pepper sprayed while being escorted to a unit in handcuffs. Some children in the facilities were also exposed to excessive force and restraint techniques that led to injury. “TJJD staff use more physical force than necessary, including restraints that can restrict a child’s ability to breathe. Additionally, TJJD’s limited supervisory review of uses of physical force undermines staff accountability,” the report states. A former staff member at Ron Jackson was charged with official oppression in February after surveillance video showed “him lift a child up and slam him to the floor, causing a laceration above the child’s eye and a concussion.” In June 2022, two former staff members at the Evins unit were criminally charged after one slammed a child’s head into a pillar and knocked him unconscious. “The boy allegedly was handcuffed with his hands and arms behind his back throughout this ordeal,” the report states, adding that another staff member reportedly turned off his camera during the ordeal and then dragged the child to another unit. The federal investigation also found children were kept in isolation for longer periods than necessary, which can exacerbate their mental illness and lead to thoughts of suicide. Clarke said the probes into the five facilities began in 2021 after the department received a complaint from two advocacy groups about the conditions inside. The department also consulted public records and news reports, and state officials worked with the federal government during the investigations. “We met with state officials today, we have provided them our report and we look forward to immediately turning to the reforms necessary to address the very severe and significant violations outlined in the report,” Clarke said. Thursday afternoon the TJJD released a statement in response to the report and said that officials are always working to improve the agency’s operations and services to those in their care and to Texas. “We have a zero-tolerance policy toward abuse and neglect and have always fully rejected any abusive behaviors at our campuses,” the statement continued. “Thanks to the investment in TJJD by the 88th Texas Legislature and support from the Governor’s Office, we have already made several recent significant improvements in our staffing, mental health care and educational programs.”  It’s 1791. French colonizers, mirroring their British and Spanish counterparts, have invaded North America and the Caribbean, touting liberty and equality while simultaneously slaughtering Indigenous civilizations and mass-enslaving Africans. The colony of Saint-Domingue, a hellish island network of 800 plantations built on the backs of Black slaves, holds special status as the world’s foremost sugar producer, generating immense wealth for the French crown. Just west of the Dominican Republic, she is home to nearly half a million enslaved people—the largest enslaved population in any colony in the Americas. While the French Revolution preaches the same hypocritical stories the U.S. founding fathers are pushing, slaves of Saint-Domingue conspire to claim liberty for themselves. On August 21, 1791, a coordinated rebellion erupts in the northern part of the colony. Enslaved Africans rise up in the night, attacking plantations and killing white owners and their families. This desperate act of self-determination sparks what we know today as the Haitian Revolution, a brutal 12-year conflict that culminated in the establishment of the first Black republic ever: Haiti. Many heroes emerged during the Haitian Revolution, including the iconic Toussaint Louverture, but most accounts overlook Lieutenant Sanité Bélair, a decorated warrior who was born free (affranchi) in L’Artibonite and led the Haitian resistance in the western region of Saint-Domingue. Known as “the Tigress” for her ferocity, Sanité saw the brutality inflicted upon her homeland and took up arms. She ignited rebellions across L’Artibonite, turning the tide against French domination and forcing the colonizers to flee. Napoleon Bonaparte saw the threat of the Tigress, and caught and executed Sanité in 1802. But her sacrifice had already ignited a movement. The Haitian people wanted freedom—and not the false version preached by the French or American revolutions. Haiti resisted and became the first Black republic on January 1, 1804. “This means in essence that, unless a federal appeals court reverses Judge Brown’s decision—and we are admittedly only at the end of one phase of the likely three-phase judicial process as appeals are next—the FTC’s noncompete rule will not take effect on Sept. 4,"  A ruling by a federal judge in Texas striking down the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements in the workplace has set the stage for a court battle that is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.
The ruling, handed down shortly before the FTC ban was slated to go into effect on Sept. 4, restores the status quo for noncompete clauses, with any current noncompete agreements remaining in effect. U.S. District Judge Ada E. Brown of the Northern District of Texas ruled that the proposed ban on noncompete agreements is “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeds the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority. Brown’s ruling bars enforcement of the FTC rule nationwide. Brown issued her ruling in a suit by Ryan, a Dallas tax services provider, which sought to overturn the FTC ban on noncompete agreements. Ryan is represented in the case by a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher team led by Allyson Ho and Eugene Scalia, a former U.S. Secretary of Labor, along with lawyers from The Fillmore Law Firm in Fort Worth, Texas. Other plaintiffs in that suit include Business Roundtable, Texas Association of Business and the Longview Chamber of Commerce, represented by Sullivan & Cromwell and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. And a long list of parties has joined as amicus curiae, including the Partnership for New York City, represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell; the Society for Human Resource Management, represented by Seyfarth Shaw; and the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors Inc., the Consumer Technology Association and others, represented by Epstein, Becker & Green. Ryan Chairman and CEO G. Brint Ryan said his company had prevailed “in protecting the very foundation of innovation that drives our economy from the overreach of the FTC in its misguided mission to invalidate millions of employment contracts. Noncompetes serve as a cornerstone of mutual trust between employer and employee.” FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said in a statement, “We are disappointed by Judge Brown’s decision and will keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation and depress wages. We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today’s decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions.” The FTC’s final rule barring noncompete agreements in almost all circumstances, which was issued in April, was promoted as a way to increase entrepreneurship and result in higher earnings for workers. The Texas case is one of three challenging the FTC noncompete ban. In another such case, ATS Tree Services v. Federal Trade Commission, U.S. District Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to stay implementation of the noncompete ban in a suit by a tree-trimming company last month. And on Aug. 14, in Properties of the Villages v. Federal Trade Commission, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan granted an injunction against enforcement that applied only to the plaintiff in the case. Corrigan wrote that the FTC rule “cannot stand because it is subject to the major questions doctrine.” He added that “The major questions doctrine is the name recently given to a long-standing principle governing the interpretation of statutes conferring power on administrative agencies. The principle is this: when an agency claims to have the power to issue rules of extraordinary … economic and political significance, it must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims.” It’s no surprise that Brown came out against the FTC noncompete rule, but those watching the case were wondering if she would issue an injunction limited to the petitioning parties, as opposed to a broad, nationwide injunction, said Mark S. Goldstein, a labor and employment lawyer at Reed Smith in New York. Brown’s latest ruling is “in contrast to her July 3 ruling that preliminarily enjoined the rule but only applied to the petitioning parties, not nationwide,” said Goldstein. “This means in essence that, unless a federal appeals court reverses Judge Brown’s decision—and we are admittedly only at the end of one phase of the likely three-phase judicial process, as appeals are next—the FTC’s noncompete rule will not take effect on Sept. 4.” A narrow injunction from Brown “had the potential to cause some chaos between the preliminary junction decisions from Texas, Florida on the one hand and Pennsylvania on the other hand. So this allays that concern that the rule would potentially take an effect on Sept. 4 and later be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Goldstein. Based on the proceedings to date, he added, the challenge to the FTC noncompete ban in future proceedings in a court of appeals could go in any of several directions. He noted that the Texas judge found the FTC rules arbitrary and capricious, while the Florida judge said the rules violate the major questions doctrine. “So you have these two different theories playing out, and which one will will come up is yet to be seen,” he said. The plaintiff alleged five causes of action, including RICO, through what he characterized as the “Binance crypto-wash enterprise.”  Attorneys have sued Binance in a federal district court in Newark after a variety of cryptocurrencies valued at $30 million was stolen from their client and allegedly laundered through the global company’s exchange. Jose Ceide, a partner at Salazar Law in Miami, specializes in cryptocurrency litigation and is not involved in the underlying case between the plaintiff, David Gonzalez, and the defendant, BAM Trading Services Inc., which operates Binance.US and shares common majority ownership with the holding company that operates the Binance.com platform. Ceide said one of the biggest challenges in these systemic cases is proving the location of the digital assets because hackers employ various methods, such as using “crypto mixer services” or “old-school money laundering services on the dark web,” to obfuscate the identities of the people who transfer the currency. “Once they steal the currency from a wallet or an exchange, they don’t put it in another spot and then leave it there,” Ceide said. “It is taken to another platform, moved across blockchains and multiple exchanges in rapid succession, and if there is a transaction, it occurs after that. It is very difficult and almost impossible to track.” Eric James Warner and Robert A. Tandy, solo practitioners based in New Jersey who represent Gonzalez, and the defendants did not respond to a request for comment. Binance, founded in 2017, allows its customers to make highly leveraged bets on more than 300 crypto assets, and at its peak in early 2023, processed tens of billions of dollars in trades each day. However, because of restrictions on Binance operating in the U.S., BAM was founded in 2019 to cater to U.S. customers. Still, Binance remains highly popular with U.S. customers, and the plaintiff claimed in the lawsuit that it encouraged its customers to use a virtual private network to bypass the restrictions. VPNs scrambled the IP address, so it appeared that the user was in a different area of the world. In addition, the plaintiff asserted that Binance and BAM’s finances were closely intermingled. The plaintiff claimed in the lawsuit that lax internal regulations allowed Binance to act as a depository for digital assets stolen from U.S. citizens, such as his 41 billion units of Shiba Inu, 90 trillion units of Hokkaidu, and trillions of units of additional cryptocurrencies. The plaintiff alleged in the lawsuit that at some point, hackers deposited his crypto with the defendants; however, Binance refused to acquiesce to his repeated demands, spanning over one year, that the company return them to him. Now, the case is pending before U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti of the District of New Jersey. And in the 53-page complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Binance engaged in conversion, aiding and abetting conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act through what he characterized as the “Binance crypto-wash enterprise.” “As a result of defendants’ illegal scheme and conspiracy, plaintiff had crypto taken from him as a result of hacks, ransomware, or theft and laundered at Binance.com,” the plaintiff claimed. “But for defendants’ scheme, plaintiff would not have had their crypto stolen and then laundered at Binance.com so that the crypto was no longer traceable on the blockchain.”  Under siege from his own party, Republican Georgia School Superintendent Richard Woods announced Wednesday that he will include AP African American Studies in the state catalog, assuring it will earn state funding and students who take it will qualify for a grade-point average boost in their HOPE Scholarship calculation.
His stand that the course violated the state’s 2022 divisive concepts law had met with widespread criticism and the pressure on him to reverse his decision was mounting. News of Woods’ change of heart delighted educators. “Advocacy works,” said former Georgia Teacher of the Year Tracey Nance. “I keep telling students, parents and educators it’s policy, not politics. It’s neither a red issue nor a blue issue, it’s a kid issue. Trust kids, and trust teachers.” “I am appreciative of the bipartisan, multiracial coalition of state and local leaders, school officials, parents, students and journalists who voiced opposition to Superintendent Woods’ ill conceived notion that teaching AP African American history would violate state law,” said DeKalb CEO and historian Michael Thurmond. “Proud to be a Georgian.” Here is Woods’ statement in full: Over the past several weeks, I have sought guidance and clarity regarding the extent to which Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and dual enrollment courses within the K-12 school system intersect with O.C.G.A. § 20-1-11, the divisive concepts legislation. Late yesterday afternoon, the sponsor of this legislation shared with my office a response letter he received from the Attorney General’s Office. This communication from the Attorney General’s Office completed the clarification process surrounding the adoption and instructional expectation for all AP, IB, and dual enrollment courses and curriculum. It has been determined that this law shall not restrict local school systems from adopting any AP, IB, or dual enrollment course. Each such course will be exempted from the provisions of the divisive concepts legislation, so long as these courses are implemented “in a professionally and academically appropriate manner and without espousing personal political beliefs.” Thus, any such course developed by its controlling entity will be automatically adopted within the state-approved course catalog. It will not have to receive a recommendation from either the State School Superintendent of Georgia or the Georgia State Board of Education. It will also not require a vote to approve or deny adoption into the state-approved course catalog. As I have said, I will follow the law. In compliance with this opinion, the AP African American Studies course will be added to the state-funded course catalog effective immediately. In light of this exemption, the following disclaimer will be added to all AP courses in the state course catalog: Advanced Placement (AP) courses and their instructional frameworks and curriculum are solely owned and endorsed by the College Board. The contents of these courses have not been reviewed or approved by the Georgia Department of Education. As with any curriculum, school districts should use a process for reviewing, approving, and adopting AP courses and instructional frameworks that engages students, parents, educators, and community stakeholders. Curricula and training should abide by state and local policies, including House Bill 1084 — which requires that the curriculum of exempted AP courses be implemented in a professionally and academically appropriate manner and without espousing personal political beliefs.” |
HISTORY
September 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.