In a significant legal development, a New York judge has approved a motion that could lead to the dismissal of a high-profile business records case against President-elect Donald Trump, Breitbart reported.Justice Juan Merchan's decision to allow Trump's legal team to seek dismissal marks a pivotal moment in the Manhattan business records case.
Last Tuesday, attorneys for Donald Trump filed a request to dismiss the Manhattan business records case. By Friday, Justice Juan Merchan had granted the request, allowing the motion to be officially filed by December 2.
This legal maneuver postpones the previously scheduled sentencing, which was set for November 26, highlighting a potentially lengthy legal process ahead.
Response Deadline Set For Manhattan DA
Following the approval to file for a motion to dismiss, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, has been given until December 9 to respond. This response will be crucial in determining the next steps in the case.
The decision to delay sentencing was influenced by broader legal considerations, including upcoming decisions by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Trump’s legal team, led by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, has been strategic in their legal maneuvers, suggesting a December 20 deadline for their motion. This timeline aligns with the expected DOJ decisions regarding two federal cases against Trump, which are anticipated to be dismissed by December 2.
White House Communications Director Weighs In
Steven Cheung, the incoming White House Communications Director, made a strong statement regarding the case, describing the judge’s decision as a “decisive win” for Trump.
“In a decisive win for President Trump, the hoax Manhattan Case is now fully stayed and sentencing is adjourned,” Cheung announced, emphasizing the political victory for Trump.
Prosecutors Seek to Freeze Sentencing
In a notable twist, prosecutors have requested to freeze the sentencing for the duration of Trump’s presidency, suggesting that any potential sentencing should wait until he leaves office.
This approach indicates a cautious strategy by the Manhattan DA’s office, possibly aiming to avoid legal conflicts during Trump’s presidency. The prosecutors' motion reflects an anticipation of political and legal complexities surrounding the case, given Trump’s return to the presidency.
Legal Analysts Predict Challenges Ahead
Legal expert Ken Klukowski provided insights into the potential legal battles ahead. He speculated that freezing the case could lead to significant judicial challenges.
“It’s not surprising that Bragg is asking for the case to be frozen for four years, and that’s exactly the potential trap that we’ve previously explained on these pages,” Klukowski remarked.
He warned that such a move might lead to a humiliating reversal for Justice Merchan if not handled carefully, potentially bringing the case into federal or higher state courts.
The fallout from the many claims that the 2020 election was rigged has continued to keep corporate lawyers busy, including ones at Fox News.
According to The Washington Times, Fox attorneys recently asked a judge to toss a shareholder lawsuit that was launched after they said profits plummeted in the wake of the 2020 election after some of the network's reporters continued the narrative that the election was stolen.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the network turned a "blind eye" to the potential liability of some of the network's reporters who made claims or insinuations that the election was rigged or stolen from Donald Trump.
The plaintiffs, according to the outlet, include "Five New York City public employee pension funds, along with Oregon’s public employee retirement fund."
What's going on?
Some of the network's reporters suggested at the time that there was truth to conspiracies regarding the rigging of voting systems deployed by Smartmatic USA and Dominion Voting Systems.
Smartmatic is still suing Fox News for defamation, and the company recently settled a defamation lawsuit with One America News Network over similar claims.
Fox News settled a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems last year for a staggering sum of $787 million, causing complete chaos at the cable news network.
“The Murdochs could have minimized future monetary exposure, but they chose not to,” Joel Friedlander, an attorney for the institutional shareholders, said.
The Washington Times noted:
Instead, he argued, they engaged in “bad-faith decision making” with other defendants in a profit-driven effort to retain viewers and remain in Trump’s good graces.
The attorney added, "Decisions were made at the highest level to promote pro-Trump conspiracy theories without editorial control."
Arguing for dismissal
Fox attorneys argue that the lawsuit should be thrown out "because the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit without first demanding that the Fox Corp. board take action, as required under Delaware law."
While Fox News dominates the cable news world, it's clear that they're attempting to avoid another massive payout, on top of what might happen with the outcome of the Smartmatic USA case.
Only time will tell if the judge will toss it or let it play out.
The Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned the conviction of Jussie Smollett, the disgraced actor who fabricated a hate crime against himself to win public sympathy and smear Trump supporters.
The long and winding saga began in 2019, when Smollett claimed that he was attacked outside his Chicago apartment by Trump supporters who threw a noose on his neck, shouting "this is MAGA country!"
The Jussie Smollett hoax
A police investigation found that Smollett fabricated the attack by hiring two Nigerian men to impersonate his assailants.
Smollett was initially charged with filing a false police report, but the charges were soon dropped by Cook County prosecutor Kim Foxx, who was accused of showing favoritism.
Foxx infamously said she had "recused" herself over contacts with Smollett's family, before revealing her "recusal" was only informal, and she did not remove her office from the case.
She later agreed to dismiss charges, reaching a deal that allowed Smollett to serve 16 hours of community service and forfeit his $10,000 bond.
The decision led to outrage, with then-Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel calling it a "whitewash of justice." An independent investigation by prosecutor Dan Webb led to charges being filed a second time, and Smollett was found guilty on five counts of disorderly conduct in December 2021.
The actor was sentenced to 150 days in jail but served only six before he was freed pending his appeal.
Supreme Court's ruling
In its ruling to toss the conviction, the Supreme Court said that Smollett's constitutional rights against double jeopardy were violated when charges were filed against him a second time.
The court emphasized that it is not making a determination on Smollett's innocence.
“We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust,” Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote in the decision.
“Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the state was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied.”
In the wake of the court's ruling, Smollett and Foxx have cried vindication - as Foxx accuses Webb of seeking an unjust outcome through "legal machinations."
"What they were doing in going to the court to re-prosecute someone because you didn’t like the outcome would have set a horrendous precedent, in which anyone could come in and undermine the work of a prosecutor’s office,” Foxx said.
If the case had been handled correctly the first time, justice might have been served. Instead, what we're now left with is a mockery of justice.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A New York trial court judge, Juan Merchan, has decided to allow President-elect Donald Trump's lawyers file a motion to dismiss Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's lawfare case against the former, and future, president.
The case is one of multiple legal wars launched against Trump by Democrats between his non-consecutive terms as president. They involved a wide range of allegations, some on shaky grounds at best, and most are in various stages of disappearing at this point.
It was Bragg who took claims of business reporting errors that would have been misdemeanors had they been brought before the statute of limitations expired. But Bragg claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of another, unnamed, crime, so Trump still could be charged. Then Merchan told the jury their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
A leftist Manhattan jury returned guilty verdicts to 34 counts, and the case was awaiting a sentencing as a preliminary to an appeal.
Now, however, Fox News is reporting Merchan, whose daughter was working for Democrats, raising funds off of the decisions her father was making in the courtroom against Trump, has allowed Trump's lawyers to file a motion to dismiss the charges.
"Merchan said Trump attorneys have until December 2 to file their motion for dismissal. Merchan said Bragg has until December 9 to respond," the report explained.
The judge also agreed to hold off on any further action regarding sentencing, which had been scheduled for Nov. 26 but now is "adjourned."
Steven Cheung, the incoming communications director for Trump's second White House, told Fox News Digital the ruling is a "decisive win" for Trump.
"In a decisive win for President Trump, the hoax Manhattan Case is now fully stayed and sentencing is adjourned," Cheung said. "President Trump won a landslide victory as the American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases."
The dismissal plan had been put before the judge by Todd Blanche, Trump defense lawyer and now nominee for deputy attorney general, who said, "On November 5, 2024, the Nation's People issued a mandate that supersedes the political motivations of DANY's 'People.' This case must be immediately dismissed."
Fox reported he cited the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice to call for a dismissal of the case.
Bragg, meanwhile, has suggested putting the case on hold so that he could resurrect it years from now when Trump no longer is president, a move that would presume Bragg's own re-election.
Analysts suggested that Bragg actually wants the case to be looming over Trump for the duration of his presidency, which a trial judge's decision to hold off sentencing and keep the case alive could do.
Merchan last week ordered the cancelation of all deadlines in the case.
Donald Trump's lawyers have asked the judge in his New York criminal case for an "immediate dismissal" in light of his resounding re-election victory.
The request comes after Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg (D) asked for a pause in the sentencing until Trump's second term in office expires in 2029.
In a letter to Judge Merchan, lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove argued that the Constitution forbids Bragg from interfering with the functions of a "popularly elected president."
"Immediate dismissal of this case is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interest of justice, in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power following President Trump's overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential election," the lawyers wrote.
Trump asks for dismissal
In their letter to Merchan, Trump's lawyers noted that the Justice Department has already moved to drop its two federal cases against Trump, who cannot be prosecuted as a sitting president. The same principle applies to Trump as a president-elect, his lawyers said.
The case must be thrown out to preserve the orderly transfer of power and Trump's ability to govern "fearlessly," his lawyers argued.
"The Constitution forbids ‘plac[ing] into the hands of a single prosecutor and grand jury the practical power to interfere with the ability of a popularly elected President to carry out his constitutional functions,'” Bove and Blanche wrote.
Trump's team asked Merchan to let them file a motion for dismissal on December 20. The judge has already paused Trump's Nov. 26 sentencing.
"On November 5, 2024, the Nation’s People issued a mandate that supersedes the political motivations of DANY’s ‘People,’" Blanche wrote. "This case must be immediately dismissed."
Bragg not giving up
In the wake of Trump's re-election, even Bragg's star witness, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, has said it's time to let the case go.
But Bragg isn't giving up. The leftist prosecutor has asked Merchan to delay the sentencing until 2029 - suggesting Bragg is prepared to wait out Trump's presidency and seek to jail him when he returns to being a private citizen, at the age of 82.
At its core, the argument from Trump's legal team is simple: the people have effectively exonerated Trump by re-electing him. They knew that Trump was a "convicted felon" and they chose to send him to the White House anyway, with a resounding mandate.
For Bragg to now attempt to overturn that mandate is completely unacceptable - indeed, it's an attack on our constitutional system.
It is time for Merchan to face reality and end this witch hunt once and for all.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Firebrand former to future Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who was nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to be the nation's attorney general and was expected to take a hammer to the weaponized processes the Department of Justice implemented under Joe Biden, has withdrawn his name from that nomination.
Gaetz said, "I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback – and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General. Trump's DOJ must be in place and ready on Day 1.
"I remain fully committed to see that Donald J. Trump is the most successful President in history. I will forever be honored that President Trump nominated me to lead the Department of Justice and I'm certain he will Save America."
Trump responded, "I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General. He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect. Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!"
Gaetz repeatedly has called out the weaponization of the Department of Justice, FBI and others federal arms of government, for their lawfare and other attacks on President Trump.
He also had been targeted by the government bureaucracies, when allegations of his involvement in an affair with an underage girl appeared. The DOJ eventually closed that case without charges, but that did not stop leftists, Democrats, and those in the media from reusing them to assault Gaetz.
Only a day earlier the House Ethics Committee deadlocked, and therefore could not release its own report into those allegations made against Gaetz.
The committee technically has no jurisdiction over Gaetz, either, as he resigned from the House when he was nominated by Trump.
Several Republican senators had joined the Democrat opposition to Trump's appointees, expressing doubt whether Gaetz could pass a vote.
However, he already was re-elected to the term that starts in January, and he will return to the House as a lawmaker.
The Daily Mail reported the salacious allegations against Gaetz were in no way stopping, citing claims from CNN that it has testimony from a woman who reported sexual encounters with Gaetz in 2017 when she was 17.
The witness reportedly was the same who earlier told DOJ investigators about her claims in the investigation in which they determined the witnesses against Gaetz were unreliable.
Gaetz has denied those claims, saying they are "invented."
WND had reported only hours earlier that as part of the media's attacks on Gaetz, one "The View" entertainer was left making a statement that clearly made her unhappy.
On Wednesday, the entertainer, Sunny Hostin of "The View," took over from another show entertainer, Whoopi Goldberg.
"I do have a legal note. Thank you, Whoopi," Hostin said on air. Then there was a long pause while, reports explain, she had "an unpleasant look on her face."
"Matt Gaetz has long denied all allegations, calling the claims, quote, 'invented,' and saying in a statement to ABC News that 'this false smear following a three-year criminal investigation should be viewed with great skepticism. The DOJ investigation was closed with no charges being brought."
The gossip that had engulfed the show's airtime had focused on previous claims made to, and dismissed by, the DOJ that Gaetz was involved with an underage girl.
One "View" entertainer claimed that investigators allegedly talked about how when Gaetz found out the girl was underage, he "stopped having sex with her."
The Washington Examiner said, "Hostin's legal note comes as The View hosts have regularly made critical remarks about Trump's Cabinet choices, especially Gaetz, whom the president-elect nominated for attorney general. Meanwhile, Gaetz is embroiled in controversy surrounding serious allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with an underage woman."
Gaetz has been picked by Trump, in fact, for a specific purpose. The president-elect said, "Few issues in America are more important than ending the partisan Weaponization of our Justice System. Matt will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans' badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department."
And WND has reported on the hair-pulling rage that the left already has exhibited to the Gaetz nomination.
But it was Vice President-elect JD Vance who took the left's argument and turned it around.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal program in which Drug Enforcement Administration agents unconstitutionally demanded to search travelers' luggage, without any probable cause a crime had been committed, has been suspended after the scheme was caught on video.
It is the Institute for Justice, which is fighting on behalf of victims of the program, that confirmed the government's abrupt flip-flop.
The institute confirmed, "Today, the Department of Justice suspended the Drug Enforcement Administration's controversial practice of having agents intercept travelers, interrogate them, and insist on searching their bags in what the agency calls 'consensual encounters.'"
The encounters are anything but consensual, as the video reveals one agent insisting that he is "the government" and can confiscate a traveler's backpack and take it away – to some unknown location – for a search.
The victim in this case explained on video that he was very concerned that the agent would take the backpack, and then plant evidence in it.
The institute said the suspension "comes on the heels of an Office of the Inspector General report, also issued today, that criticizes the practice and refers to the shocking footage of one traveler's experience, which the Institute for Justice (IJ) released on YouTube in July."
"Today's OIG report confirms what we've been saying for years about predatory DEA practices at airports, and the allegations in our nationwide class-action lawsuit against DEA over these abuses," said IJ lawyer Dan Alban.
"We welcome DOJ's suspension of this program as a first step, but policy directives can be changed at any time, under this or future administrations. We call on Congress to pass the FAIR Act to permanently reform federal civil forfeiture laws to end the profit incentive, close the equitable sharing loophole, and guarantee every property owner receives their day in court by ending so-called administrative forfeitures."
The institute said it currently is suing the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration over the airport seizure and confiscation programs they operate.
The case is on behalf of several travelers and a class of people who have had their property seized, and it currently is in the discovery phase gathering evidence.
The IG report cited the evidence that the DEA was refusing to comply with even its policies on consensual encounters at airports.
That failure, the IG confirmed, was creating "potentially significant operational and legal risks."
Among the failings was that the DEA operatives were refusing to complete required documentation about their actions, and had failed to obtain the proper training.
The OG continued with criticism of DEA's "absence of critical controls, such as adequate policies, guidance, training, and data collection," because that creates "substantial risks" that officers "will conduct these activities improperly, impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of innocent travelers."
The IG noted that when the report was given to a deputy attorney general, a directive was issued to the DEA to halt its practices.
Further, the IG noted that concerns about complaints about such activities date back decades.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – The International Criminal Court (ICC) took the unprecedented legal step Thursday of issuing arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. This is the first time it has ever issued such warrants against leaders of a democratic country.
Under the terms of the warrants, Netanyahu and Gallant risk arrest if they travel to any of the more than 120 countries that are members of the court.
The court did not release the content of the full warrants, although an ICC statement said it "found reasonable grounds to believe" from Oct. 8, 2023, until May 20, 2024, at least, Netanyahu and Gallant "each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts" as well as "the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population."
Both Netanyahu and Gallant are accused of a laundry list of alleged crimes, much of which seems to stem from the nature of the war, with Hamas being not just embedded but rather rooted within a civilian population. The court claimed both Israeli politicians failed to "prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities," despite having the means to do so. It should be noted there is significant documentary evidence to show the lengthy process through which the IDF is subject to, which in many instances results in aborted missions because of the presence of the civilian population.
In the Pre-Trial Chamber's released statement, the judges highlight many areas of concern, which relate to humanitarian aid.
"The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024," the ICC statement read. It further alleges, "cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care." It added these issues were only addressed when the United States threatened to withdraw aid, rather than fulfilling its obligations under "international humanitarian law."
Ultimately, the Chamber accused Netanyahu and Gallant of bearing "criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare."
Netanyahu and Gallant were also charged with "intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anesthetics and anesthesia machines." It claims doctors were forced to perform amputations, including on children, which without the requisite drugs, caused "extreme pain and suffering."
The chamber rejected Israel's petition against the warrants, which argued that the ICC does not have jurisdiction because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the court. The pre-trial chamber ruled that "the court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine," which it recognizes as a state and considers to include Gaza, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and east Jerusalem.
The Prime Minister's Office released a statement which rejected the "baseless and outrageous" accusations leveled against Israel. It further argued the nature of the charges, emanating from a corrupt prosecutor who is facing sexual misconduct charges over allegations of groping a female colleague, is antisemitic.
Members of Netanyahu's ruling coalition reacted with anger to the ruling. The court has "once again shown that it is antisemitic through and through," declared National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, while Transportation Minister Miri Regev called the warrants "a legal absurdity." Israel's former prime minister Naftali Bennett said the arrest warrants were not a "mark of shame on Israel's leaders, rather on the ICC itself." Another former prime minister and an individual who has been part of the decision-making process regarding the conduct of the war, Benny Gantz, wrote on X decrying the ICC decision as "moral blindness and [a] shameful stain of historic proportion[s] that will never be forgotten."
U.S. lawmakers fiercely condemned the ICC's decision to issue arrest warrants to the two Israeli leaders. Sen. Lindsey Graham labeled the move "absurd and irresponsible," adding, "The Court is a dangerous joke." Congressman Mike Waltz from Florida posted on X: "The ICC has no credibility and these allegations have been refuted by the U.S. government.
"Israel has lawfully defended its people & borders from genocidal terrorists. You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & U.N. come January."
Despite the U.S. House sanctioning Karim Khan and other ICC employees for asking for the warrants, sources close to Netanyahu have apparently been concerned that the dying embers of Biden's term in office might provide a significant source of jeopardy for Israel's prime minister.
Meanwhile, an arrest warrant was also issued for senior Hamas military wing leader Mohammed Deif. This would ordinarily be an interesting development, however, Deif is assessed to have been eliminated by an IDF strike on Gaza on July 13 this year, after his position was revealed by a Palestinian courier. Hamas has never publicly admitted his death, although privately they are thought to have acknowledged it. The court dropped previous arrest warrants for both Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, whom the IDF terminated in Gaza in October, and Tehran in July, respectively.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President-elect Donald Trump's lawyers have told New York judge Juan Merchan, who supervised Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's lawfare case against Trump, that it will be dismissed.
After all, the voters' selection of Trump as the 47th president trumps Bragg's "political motivations," they said.
The case was brought by Bragg as part of the Democrats' extended, multiple-case, lawfare against Trump between his terms in the White House.
Bragg took business reporting situations, which could have been misdemeanors had they been filed in a timely fashion, and claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of some other unidentified crime.
It all revolved around so-called "hush money" payments Trump's ex-lawyer made to a porn star for her silence about an alleged affair, which both of them have denied happened.
Fox News reports Trump's lawyers want an "immediate" dismissal of the case, which right now is awaiting sentencing after a leftist jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts – after the judge, whose daughter was raising money for Democrats on the rulings against Trump her father was making in court – inexplicably told jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
The lawyers told Merchan that the case needed to be dismissed because the voters' choice of Trump supersedes Bragg's "political motivations."
Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche said "Continuing with this case would be 'uniquely destabilizing' and threatens to 'hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.'"
Bragg has insisted that the case be suspended for now – and that he be allowed to reopen it years from now when Trump has completed his second term as president.
Blanche said, "The court must address these new issues and dismiss the case, prior to issuing a decision on the previously filed Presidential immunity motion. Any other action would violate the presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause."
Bragg's strategy would deprive Trump of the right to appeal, which would leave the dispute unresolved throughout his presidency.
Blanche noted, "Even if the Court were to wrongly deny the new interests-of-justice motion, which it should not do, the appropriate forum for any additional proceedings must first be resolved in President Trump's removal appeal."
Courthouse News, which lobbied for Kamala Harris to be elected, explained the Trump team's letter to the court noted that setting the verdict aside is "mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course."
The letter to Merchan explained, "As DA Bragg engages in his election campaign, DANY appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically motivated and fatally flawed case."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Highly popular and highly controversial talk-show host and commentator Alex Jones has turned the tables on the Onion, a satirical website corporation, by filing a lawsuit charging that the bid process for buying his InfoWars empire out of bankruptcy was faulty.
A report at RedState documents how Jones "is striking back at efforts to wrest his company … from his possession."
His empire was moved into bankruptcy proceedings by judicial rulings against him, essentially ordered him to pay more than a billion dollars in damages to families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting based on his commentary about that episode.
The report explained, "During Jones' bankruptcy proceedings, Global Tetrahedron, parent company of satirical news site The Onion, submitted a winning bid to transform InfoWars into a parody site."
That bid process then was halted by a federal judge.
Now, the report said, "Jones has reportedly filed his own lawsuit, calling the bid a 'flagrantly non-compliant Frankenstein bid' and referring to it as 'neither legal, moral nor ethical."
In fact, the bid award was halted by a federal judge who had questions about its legitimacy, and has scheduled a hearing to review the facts.
The report said the rules of the bid were violated when Global Tetrahedron "relied on a hypothetical promise of future payments" from victims' families.
The New York Times documented that the Onion's bid of $1.75 million was increased with contributions from those families, "who donated portions of their court-awarded damages."
At an emergency hearing just days ago, over the dispute, "it emerged that First United had made a cash offer of $3.5 million. That is exactly twice the $1.75 million in cash offered by The Onion, a figure that was secret until the court battle dragged on," the report documented.
But then the Onion "sweetened its bid to $7 million with the backing of families promising part of their potential earnings."
The new lawsuit charges that Global Tetrahedron's bid needs to be disqualified and that First United Companies, the runner-up, should be awarded the bid.
The dispute came about over his claims the shooting was an orchestrated event in which victims were alleged "crisis actors," an opinion from which he later retreated.
