This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For those who have a problem with the overarching power of Google, a federal judge on Monday ruled the popular search engine acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search.
The 277-page decision by Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is being called a landmark ruling that could force tech giants to change their business protocols.
"After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Mehta wrote, finding that Google violated the Sherman Act, a major antitrust law.
"This landmark decision holds Google accountable," said Jonathan Kanter, antitrust chief at the U.S. Department of Justice. "It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans."
"This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it's the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech," Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University's law school told the New York Times. "It's a huge turning point."
The DOJ and a group of American states joined forces against Google four years ago over its practice of paying companies including Apple and Samsung billions of dollars annually for the search engine to automatically handle inquiries on their browsers and phones.
The Verge reported: "Mehta rejected Google's arguments that its contracts with phone and browser makers like Apple were not exclusionary and therefore shouldn't qualify it for liability under the Sherman Act. 'The prospect of losing tens of billions in guaranteed revenue from Google – which presently come at little to no cost to Apple – disincentivizes Apple from launching its own search engine when it otherwise has built the capacity to do so,' he wrote."
The New York Times reported: "The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online – and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech's power.
"It is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago. …
"The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb. The ruling could have major ramifications for Google's success, especially as the company spends heavily to compete in the race over artificial intelligence. Google faces another federal antitrust case over ad technology that is scheduled to go to trial next month."
In April, "Google agreed to destroy billions of data records to settle a lawsuit claiming it secretly tracked the internet use of people who thought they were browsing privately," CNBC reported.
In March, a study by the Media Research Center confirmed Google has interfered in American elections an astonishing 41 times in recent years.
Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vice president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."
Their report continued, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values. Google's outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America's elections."
With President Joe Biden out of the 2024 presidential race and Vice President Kamala Harris the Democratic Party's nominee, the Supreme Court will play a major role in the November election.
As The Hill noted, former President Donald Trump had the unprecedented chance to appoint three justices, all conservative, which has drastically altered the decisions coming out of the high court.
Biden's last move, reportedly, will be to push for radical, unconstitutional Supreme Court "reform," and Harris has embraced the idea.
The president's promise to reform the high court came in the wake of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, and the most recent immunity ruling that heavily favored Trump in his legal battles.
Given that Trump's influence on the high court led to the striking down of the landmark abortion ruling, and given that Harris is incorporating the abortion issue heavily into her campaign, many believe the Supreme Court will play a role in the upcoming election.
Biden recently proposed several "reforms" that would drastically change the Supreme Court forever.
The Hill noted the proposed changes:
Biden’s three-prong proposal would impose 18-year term limits on the nine justices, allowing for the sitting president to appoint a new justice every two years, and establish a binding code of conduct. It also calls for a constitutional amendment to partially overturn the high court’s recent decision on presidential immunity.
The Harris campaign will likely pounce on the perceived ethics controversies surrounding the high court, which are mostly made up from mainstream media sources.
Still, the topic will be a hot one, and Harris and her campaign will likely use it as a cornerstone issue to get Democrat voters fired up and to the polls on Election Day.
"The vast majority of Americans see that something is deeply out of kilter at the Court," said Alex Aronson, executive director of the liberal advocacy group Court Accountability, The Hill noted.
Given the extreme amount of bipartisan support needed to enact even one of Biden's silly high court reform proposals, the chance of it actually happening is razor thin, to be generous.
Political insiders know that's the case, but Harris's campaign also knows how shockingly low IQ her voters are, generally speaking, and will use the issue to hype them up, and ultimately never deliver.
"Harris recognizes that it’s a winning issue," said Dan Urman, a law and politics professor at Northeastern University. That's a polite way of saying that voters won't know the difference.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has already confirmed that the proposed reforms are DOA (dead on arrival) and will not even come close to receiving enough House support to pass them.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court is being asked to "rein in" reckless police who are escalating ordinary encounters with citizens to the point they kill someone.
It is the Rutherford Institute that has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a pending case on the topic.
The institute explains, "For instance, an Illinois sheriff's deputy was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Sonya Massey after she called 9-1-1 for help at her home. A year earlier in Ohio, a pregnant mother was killed by a police officer in a grocery-store parking lot.
"Some federal courts analyze such events under the 'moment-of-threat doctrine,' which has contributed to a climate in which police unnecessarily escalate situations over relatively minor crimes and then respond to the perceived danger with deadly force," the organization said.
In the case Barnes v. Felix, the institute is calling on the justices "to overturn the 'moment-of-threat doctrine,' warning that it encourages police to act recklessly with impunity."
That ideology, the briefing argues, actually is in violation of established Fourth Amendment precedents for determining what constitutes reasonable use of force.
"In an age when police are increasingly militarized, weaponized and protected by the courts, run-of-the mill encounters between police and citizens are now inherently dangerous for any individual unlucky enough to be in a situation where police are inclined to respond to unsubstantiated fears for their safety and perceived challenges to their 'authority' by drawing and using their weapons," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.
He's also the author of "Battlefield America: The War on the American People."
"Unfortunately, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be 'neutralized' is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Equally problematic is the trend in the courts that acquits officers involved in such shootings, letting them off with barely a slap to the wrists," he continued.
The current dispute developed this way, the institute reported:
In the afternoon of April 28, 2016, Harris County Texas Officer Roberto Felix initiated a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes due to a report by the Toll Road Authority that the license plate number on his vehicle had outstanding toll violations. When asked for proof of insurance, Barnes explained that the car had been rented a week earlier by his girlfriend and the documentation might be in the trunk. The officer claimed he smelled marijuana and ordered Barnes to open the trunk. A few seconds after Barnes opened the trunk, the car's blinker toward the side of the Tollway to which Barnes pulled over turned off for about ten seconds. Once the same blinker turned back on, Felix shouted at Barnes not to move, stepped onto the door sill where the driver-side door was open, and shoved his gun into Barnes's head. At that point, the car started to move, and Felix fired two shots into the car, killing Barnes.
When Barnes's parents sued, contending that Barnes did not pose a threat justifying deadly force, especially because Felix jumped onto the vehicle, the trial court dismissed it.
The 5th Circuit Appeals court affirmed under that now-challenged "moment-of-threat" ideology.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Institute for Justice says it is helping Melisa Robinson go to court – AGAIN – to collect what the Oklahoma Supreme Court already has ruled a city owes her.
The problem is that an entity run by the city of Okay, its Public Works Authority, was ruled by the high court to owe Robinson $73,000 damages – now $200,000 including interest, for having its workers dig "a sewer line" on a small mobile home community owned by Robinson.
There was no permission, no authorization for that to have happened.
But the city says the Public Works division is a trust, and while it may owe Robison money, that division's assets all are owned by the city, and it claims no responsibility for the judgment.
"No one would sell their house if, at closing, the buyer showed up with an IOU instead of with money, but that's exactly what Okay is trying to get away with here," said IJ Attorney Brian Morris. "But constitutional rights aren't a shell game. Government officials nationwide have to obey the Fifth Amendment, full stop."
That constitutional provision forbids the government from taking property "without just compensation."
The IJ said in Robinson's case, Okay began digging a brand-new sewer line on her property—without obtaining permission and without giving notice.
The entity actually owned a sewer easement on the land next door. It didn't own anything on Melisa's land, but it dug anyway.
Besides the new, and nonfunctioning line, there was much damage to the property.
Robison demanded restitution and compensation and won at the state Supreme Court which said the city of Okay owed Robinson.
But she's back in court now, with a federal lawsuit, demanding payment.
"Okay needs to pay what the Oklahoma Supreme Court says it owes me," she said. "If the city can do this to me, there's nothing stopping any government from doing the same thing to others. I want to be paid and I want to put a stop to this before it catches on."
The IJ said, "Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the Fifth Amendment's takings clause have favored property owners. In an IJ case from the last term, DeVillier v. Texas, the court ruled that Texas could not use legal maneuvering to keep itself from being sued by a rancher whose land was flooded by a state project. IJ is also defending home and business owners fighting eminent domain in Missouri and Mississippi. In a case from the previous term in which IJ filed an amicus brief, Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Court ruled that the government could not seize property for failure to pay taxes and pocket money above what the taxpayer owed."
Hunter Biden's legal troubles took a decidedly difficult turn earlier this year when he was convicted on a series of federal gun charges, and a judge in California just dealt him another blow that could impact his fate in another federal case poised for trial.
As Fox News reports, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, set to preside over Hunter Biden's tax trial next month, granted immunity to Hallie Biden, the widow of the defendant's late brother, in order to secure her testimony in the criminal proceedings.
It was in earlier, pre-trial proceedings that the former sister-in-law/onetime girlfriend of Hunter Biden informed federal prosecutors that she would not testify in the tax case, citing “her privilege against self-incrimination.”
At issue in the case are charges against Hunter Biden that allege that he failed to pay upwards of $1.4 million in taxes over the course of three years and that he filed false returns.
During the time at issue, the first son is said to have spent funds that could have been used to pay tax liabilities on things such as escort services, drugs, luxury vehicles, and more.
In response to her prior indication of reluctance to testify at trial, Scarsi issued an order stating that Hallie Biden must “give testimony or provide other information which she refuses to give or to provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination as to all matters about which he may be interrogated in the course of these proceedings.”
Scarsi went on, “It is further ordered that no testimony or other information compelled under this order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or information, shall be used against Hallie Biden in any criminal case, except that she shall not be exempted by this order from prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this order.”
The news that Hallie Biden will be compelled to testify in the tax trial was likely not welcomed by Hunter Biden and his legal team, particularly given her appearance on the stand in his gun case.
As the Associated Press noted at the time, Hallie Biden told jurors in a Delaware courtroom a series of damning details about Hunter Biden's drug use at the time of the alleged firearms offenses.
Hallie Biden recalled the moment she found the gun at issue in Hunter Biden's truck, explaining that she swiftly attempted to discard it without his knowledge for fear he would hurt himself or someone else.
She also testified to having found crack cocaine remnants and other drug paraphernalia in the vehicle, information jurors likely used in rendering their guilty verdict.
When asked directly if Hunter Biden had been using drugs at the time he affirmed under oath on a federal gun purchase form that he was not, Hallie Biden said, “He could have been.”
Adding to Hunter Biden's legal stress is the fact that his sentencing in the felony gun case has just been set, and it will now take place on Nov. 13, as Reuters reports.
Though federal guidelines suggest that a sentence of between 15 and 21 months in prison is a possibility, legal observers believe that the first son is unlikely to receive a term of incarceration near that length -- if any at all -- and whether his father might offer a presidential pardon in the gun case or on the tax charges during his remaining time in the White House, only time will tell.
Former President Donald Trump has been on a tear lately with multiple legal wins but he had a rare setback on Saturday when his request to get his January 6th case dismissed.
Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed Trump's motion in a 16-page ruling explaining that Trump's lawyers "proffered no meaningful evidence … nor has he given any explanation of how a hearing would produce material evidence to support his claims."
All of this comes after the Supreme Court returned Trump's case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
They immediately kicked it down to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in what has become an extremely drawn-out legal process. In fact, this motion was originally filed in October 2023.
Trump wants the case against him dismissed based on selective and vindictive prosecution grounds. These claims are self-evident as Democrats have been extremely selective in their prosecution but Judge Chutkan didn't seem to see things that way.
Trump's J6 case has been on hold for months as Judge Chutkan has refused to schedule a trial until the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s claim that presidents should enjoy immunity from prosecution.
That decision took months to come out and now the case has circled back to its original starting point with Judge Chutkan yet to set a trial date.
The Supreme Court's decision will likely factor greatly in the outcome of Trump's J6 case as they found that presidents have "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts.
Trump's motion was backed by evidence from media outlets about President Joe Biden privately saying that Trump should be prosecuted.
That further proves that the litigation that Trump is facing is being pushed by his political opponents in a crucial election year with the election just months away.
However, there wasn't enough evidence of those statements for Chutkan's standards so she dismissed the motion.
Judge Chutkan set August 16 as the date for the prosecution and the defense to return to Washington to resume pretrial proceedings. Trump is not required to return for that date which is great news as his schedule is packed full on account of waging a busy campaign.
The election is just around the corner with Vice President Kamala Harris set to be coronated at the DNC this week following President Joe Biden's sudden decision to drop out.
There is a strong chance that Trump's trial will not begin until after the election in November considering pre-trial motions aren't even going to begin until mid-August. Should Trump win the election, this trial will likely be inconsequential.
A recent court decision has paused the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) efforts to bring back strict internet regulations, The Epoch Times reported.
The FCC’s plan to classify broadband as a utility has been suspended by a U.S. appeals court.
In a significant move on August 1, the U.S. appeals court issued a temporary stay against the FCC's initiative to reintroduce net neutrality rules. These regulations were initially put in place during the Obama administration and aimed at regulating broadband internet as a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934.
This reclassification by the FCC, affirmed in April, intended to prevent broadband providers from discriminatory practices such as throttling internet speeds and blocking content, ensuring an open and fair internet environment.
However, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals challenged these regulations, citing them as a major question that exceeds the FCC’s authority without explicit congressional approval.
The court's decision to block the regulations is grounded in the belief that broadband companies are likely to succeed in their legal challenge. The court stated that the FCC had not met the required standard to enforce such sweeping changes.
“Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization,” the court remarked, emphasizing the need for legislative backing to enact such extensive regulations.
Following this initial ruling, the court has scheduled oral arguments for October 28 and November 1, providing a platform for further legal examination and debate.
The FCC’s April vote not only sought to regulate internet fairness but also included measures to revoke authorizations of foreign-owned entities posing threats to national security. This illustrates the breadth of the proposed regulations and their significance to various facets of governance and public safety.
“As the Commission rule itself explains, broadband services are absolutely essential to modern day life, facilitating employment, education, healthcare, commerce, community-building, communication, and free expression, to say nothing of broadband’s importance to national security and public safety,” the court highlighted in their deliberation.
Despite the court’s reservations, the rules were intended to foster innovation and investment within the broadband sector by setting guidelines that were narrowly tailored to protect consumer interests and promote public good.
The broadband companies have been vocal in their opposition, claiming that the FCC’s rules are more invasive than the regulations established in 2015. They argue that the FCC’s assertion of authority over internet governance is excessively broad and not justified.
“It should be ‘indisputable’ that the major-questions doctrine applies to that seismic claim of authority,” claimed representatives from the broadband industry, challenging the FCC’s jurisdictional reach.
The implementation of the net neutrality rules, initially set for July 22, had already been delayed to August 5 by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating the contentious nature of the regulatory changes.
The Biden administration punched a massive hornet's nest earlier this week with regard to a plea deal with some of the worst individual enemies of the United States in history.
Earlier this week, the country was stunned to learn that Biden's Department of Justice had the audacity to strike up a plea deal with some of the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.
According to The Daily Wire, not surprisingly, the announcement brought unbelievably extreme backlash, causing the administration to go back on the deal rather quickly.
Not only was the deal canceled, the person behind making the deal was "relieved" from duty.
The cases at Guantanamo Bay, where the infamous 9/11 terrorists have been held, were overseen by retired Brig. Gen. Susan K. Escallier.
According to the outlet, "her team entered into pretrial agreements with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsaw."
The deal allows the terrorists, who killed nearly 3,000 people on that history-changing day in America, to avoid the death penalty for pleading guilty to killing 2,976 Americans.
Instead of the death penalty, the terrorists would only have to serve life in prison, and not answer for their crimes against this nation.
My statement with @LeaderMcConnell on the revoked plea deal for 9/11 terrorists. The Biden-Harris administration’s consideration of a plea deal with terrorist mass murderers was disgraceful. pic.twitter.com/T5VNLZFGnX
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) August 3, 2024
The Daily Wire noted:
By removing Escallier, Austin assumed authority over the case and immediately canceled the agreement, meaning the death penalty is back on the table, following days of public backlash against the Biden-Harris Administraiton.
Many top members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) slammed the Biden administration for allowing the deal to even become a thought, let alone reality.
"The Biden-Harris Administration’s weakness in the face of sworn enemies of the American people apparently knows no bounds," the Senate GOP leader said.
He added, "The only thing worse than negotiating with terrorists is negotiating with them after they are in custody. The families of their victims and the American people deserve real justice."
Several other members of Congress torched the Biden administration over the deal, as well they should have. What a disgrace it was to even be mentioned.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court in the United Kingdom has affirmed the legality of a ban on chemical puberty blockers for children.
The chemicals are given to children by doctors and/or parents who say they want to delay the bodily development of their children so they can determine whether they want to be male or female.
It's a false argument, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, and while bodies can be surgically "modified," sex cannot be changed.
A report from the Christian Institute explained the UK High Court has affirmed a government ban on prescribing those chemicals for gender-confused children.
"Activist group TransActual UK, in partnership with the crowdfunding group Good Law Project, failed to overturn the Conservative Government's emergency legislation, which protects under-18s from obtaining the drugs via private prescriptions from the UK or Europe," the report explained.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting also has confirmed he'll extend the ban, scheduled to expire in September.
"Mrs Justice Lang DBE dismissed the activists' challenge on all grounds, concluding that it was reasonable for the government to act swiftly based on the highly respected Cass Review without consulting the public," the report continued.
The Cass Review, recently made public, confirmed "very substantial risks and very narrow benefits associated with the use of puberty blockers."
The transgender ideology has been running wild over the last few years, especially in the United States where Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been repeatedly advocating for the dangerous procedures.
Author JK Rowling, a critic of transgenderism, on social media said, "We seem, at last, to be moving back to treatment for vulnerable youth based on evidence-based medicine, as opposed to the unevidenced claims of ideological lobby groups."
The BBC noted, "In March 2024, NHS England decided that puberty blockers would no longer be routine treatment for children with gender dysphoria. At that point, puberty blockers were only allowed to be used in NHS clinical trials."
The government then tightened the rules on the chemicals, allowing an emergency ban to prevent them from being used on children.
Chay Brown, of TransActual, said, "We are seriously concerned about the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK."
The Supreme Court of New York has ruled that Texas can continue its practice of bussing migrants to New York City, rejecting an effort by Democratic mayor Eric Adams to block the stream of arrivals.
The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott (R), hailed the ruling as a major victory.
“Another WIN! The New York Supreme Court REJECTED Mayor Adams’ attempt to block Texas from busing migrants to this sanctuary city. Until the Biden-Harris Administration secures the border, Texas will continue to send migrants to sanctuary cities," he wrote on X.
According to Abbott, 46,000 migrants have been transported to New York City so far. In January, Mayor Adams sued 17 bus charter companies, arguing they had violated a state Social Services Law by dropping migrants "without a means of support."
Abbot began bussing migrants to cities north of Texas to illustrate the hypocrisy of Democrats who have ignored the burdens of mass immigration in border states.
Since Abbott started bussing migrants to New York, the city has seen a huge strain on public resources and an uptick in crime. Adams' lawsuit demanded $700 million in compensation for shelter, food and health care.
The Supreme Court rejected Adams' attempt, saying he has no power to control the movement of people between states. Adams said he respects the ruling.
“The mass migration of people within the country, which the commissioner seeks to chill or prevent, is an issue reserved by the Constitution for Congress, lest the United States fall to a regime of Balkanization with each state setting fort a patchwork of inconsistent criteria for crossing state lines,” New York Supreme Court Justice Mary V. Rosado wrote.
The ruling just emphasizes the fact that the federal government is in control of this issue, and under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they've totally dropped the ball.
Texas has also been involved in a multi-front legal war with the federal government over the border. The Biden administration has opposed unilateral action by Abbott to secure the border, which Abbott says is justified by the feds' inaction.
An appeals court this week sided with Texas in a dispute over buoys in the Rio Grande.
"Biden tried to remove them. I fought to keep them in the water,” Abbott boasted. “That is exactly where they will stay.”