Chelsea Clinton doesn't make the headlines as much as her mother and father typically do, but over the past week, that changed, as she now faces a legal predicament.
According to New York Post, Chelsea, who backed a multi-million dollar maternity start-up that promised to revolutionize the way women give birth, has been slapped with yet another massive lawsuit.
The lawsuit, which is the second in as many years, alleges malpractice, reports noted.
According to court papers filed in New York State Supreme Court in March, the plaintiff alleged the clinic was "negligently acting outside the applicable standard of care."
The plaintiff, Vantisha Knowles, a realtor who visited one of the midwife clinics, apparently suffered the incident while attempt to give birth to her second child.
The Post noted:
Oula — which provides midwife care from four boutique clinics in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Norwalk, Conn. — is being sued by Vantisha Knowles for “negligently acting outside the applicable standard of care,” according to court papers filed in New York State Supreme Court in March.
Vantisha claimed that the clinic was good on the prenatal side, but when it came time to actually give birth to the child, it turned into a "traumatic experience."
"They basically rushed me through labor and did a C-section," she told the Post in an exclusive interview.
The outlet added:
In her complaint is says Knowles “sustained grave and permanent injuries” during the C-section, without going into specifics.
Speaking to The Post, Knowles says after getting home, after she called Oula to describe her injuries “they just told me to go to emergency. They had not solutions for me. Why couldn’t I just go through them?”
"They just don't care," she continued, adding that she ended up needing a blood transfusion.
Court documents added, "The defendants, their agents, and/or employees failed to provide reasonable medical care and deviated from accepted medical practice in the care, treatment, evaluation, management, and services provided to the plaintiff."
The clinic was hit by a lawsuit in 2023 "by a Brooklyn couple who claimed its negligence led to their baby being born badly brain-damaged. That lawsuit is ongoing, court records show."
One source familiar with the inner workings of the clinic reportedly said, "They’re growing fast, but they don’t seem to understand their own business."
Midwives keep leaving the clinic as they're reportedly scared of being hit with malpractice lawsuits.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – President Donald Trump is threatening fresh legal action against ABC News for what he calls "misleading" and "fake" news coverage of Qatar's gift of a luxury 747 jet to America.
In a late-night post on Truth Social Saturday, Trump wondered: "Why doesn't Chairman Bob Iger do something about ABC Fake News, especially since I just won $16,000,000 based on the Fake and Defamatory reporting of Liddle' George Slopadopolus. He was given warnings, but just couldn't be restrained by 'management.'"
"Now I see they are at it again, and I again give these SleazeBags fair warning!
"The wonderful country of Qatar, after agreeing to invest more than 1.4 Trillion Dollars in the United States of America, deserves much better than Misleading (Fake!) News."
Trump stressed the gift of the plane to be used as Air Force One is not to him personally, but to the U.S. Defense Department.
"Everyone, including their lawyers, has been told that ABC must not say that Qatar is giving ME a FREE Boeing 747 Airplane, because they are not," he explained.
"Instead, and as Fake News ABC fully knows and understands, this highly respected country is donating the plane to the United States Air Force/ Defense Department, AND NOT TO ME.
"By so doing, they are saving our country, and the American Taxpayer, hundreds of millions of dollars. ABC Fake News is one of the WORST."
As WorldNetDaily reported last Monday, President Donald Trump unleashed his disdain on an ABC reporter who asked him about Qatar's $400 million aircraft gift.
"What do you say to people who view that luxury jet as a personal gift to you?" ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump during a signing ceremony for an executive order designed to slash prices for prescription drugs. "Why not leave it behind?"
Trump instantly responded with an attack on Scott and her network, saying: "You're ABC Fake News right? Because only ABC – well, a few of you would. Let me tell you. You should be embarrassed asking that question.
"They're giving us a free jet. I could say no, no, no, don't give us … I want to pay you $1 billion or $400 million or whatever it is or I could say thank you very much."
He then discussed an anecdote concerning pro golfer Sam Snead.
"He had a motto, when they give you a putt, you say, thank you very much. You pick up your ball and you walk to the next hole," Trump recounted.
"A lot of people are stupid. They say, no, no, I insist on putting it. And then they put it, they miss it, and their partner gets angry at them. You know what? Remember that Sam Snead, when they give you a putt, you pick it up and you walk to the next hole and you say, thank you very much."
Scott continued to press the matter, but was cut off by Trump as she asked: "Respectfully, sir, as a businessman, some people may look at this and say, have you ever been given a gift worth millions of dollars and then not …"
"It's not a gift to me," Trump replied. "It's a gift to the Department of Defense and you should know better because you've been embarrassed enough and so has your network. Your network is a disaster. ABC is a disaster."
Regarding the offer of the aircraft, Trump said: "I think it's a great gesture from Qatar. Appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer."
"I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane. But it was, I thought it was a great gesture."
"I think it was a gesture because of the fact that we help, have helped, and continue to, we will continue to all of those countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and others," he continued.
President Donald Trump and his administration have had pretty solid luck with U.S. Supreme Court decisions since he took office, but they suffered a major setback recently regarding the deportation of Venezuelan gang members.
The Daily Caller reported that the high court maintained a block on the administration deporting the gang members through the Alien Enemies Act, upholding a previous court ruling that's causing quite an issue for the White House.
The Supreme Court shocked Republicans with the ruling, voting 7-2 to maintain the block on the deportations.
The Trump administration wanted to use the centuries-old law to expedite deportations of the Venezuelan gang members that have wreaked havoc on United States streets and neighborhoods.
The decision marked a major blow to Trump's efforts to expedite the deportations.
CNN noted:
The justices sent the case at issue back to an appeals court to decide the underlying questions in the case, including whether the president’s move is legal and, if it is, how much notice the migrants targeted under the act should receive.
Reliable conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both publicly dissented.
Newsweek noted:
Alito accused his fellow justices of "a mischaracterization" of events leading up to the request for injunctive relief and offered a reinterpretation of those events. He stressed that in his view, "the Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut" in regards to how the court certified a class of plaintiffs to resist the AEA use.
The Supreme Court's decision this week was the full ruling after issuing a temporary ruling back in April.
Newsweek added:
Part of Alito's dissent took issue with the class of Venezuelan migrants at question, accusing his fellow justices of preferring to "ignore the important step of class certification and skip directly to the adjudication of the class members' rights."
The conservative justice held nothing back in his dissent.
"The Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut," Alito wrote.
He added, "Instead of merely ruling on the application that is before us—which asks for emergency relief pending appeal—the Court takes the unusual step of granting certiorari before judgment, summarily vacating the judgment below dismissing the applicants' appeal, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals with directions regarding the issues that court should address."
"From the Court's order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief," he wrote, adding, "(I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today's order is doubly extraordinary."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just who did convicted sex-abuse kingpin Jeffrey Epstein have on speed dial on the phones in his remote island bedroom?
A new video report from OMG, O'Keefe Media Group, has some startling details, with first names of a list of those to whom Epstein wanted quick contact.
The organization has been releasing information this week about Epstein's residence on the private Little St. James island in the Caribbean.
Previously, O'Keefe released images and details about Epstein's private library.
Evidence suggests crimes committed by the convicted sex offender, who died in a New York jail while awaiting further court hearings on new charges, happened at the structures on the private Little St. James island in the Caribbean.
An earlier video release disclosed images from Epstein's kitchen, including a disturbing image in a photograph of a nude infant sitting in a sink.
Cassandra "Cassie" Ventura, who is testifying against Sean "Diddy" Combs in his sex trafficking trial, appeared visibly pregnant in court Wednesday, Fox News reported. Legal experts believe this could evoke even more sympathy for the singer as she recounts the abuse allegedly suffered at the hands of the music mogul.
During her second day of testimony, the 38-year-old star shared the horrific details of the violence she allegedly endured. Cassie revealed that she was allegeldy raped multiple times by the music mogul after their relationship ended.
"I can't carry this anymore. I can't carry the shame, the guilt … what's right is right. What's wrong is wrong," Cassie said in court.
The alleged abuse was so traumatic that she had "horrible flashbacks" about it while making a music video. In 2023, she entered rehab and sought counseling to deal with the aftermath of those experiences.
As if her testimony isn't compelling enough, legal experts believe the fact that she's pregnant could sway the jury even more to believe her version of events. Cassie and husband Alex Fine are expecting their third child together.
Criminal defense attorney Dan Rubin described the impact Cassie's condition would have on jurors. "Cassie being pregnant may make her an even more sympathetic figure on the stand," Rubin told Fox News Digital in an exclusive.
"It certainly invokes the maternal side of the singer, and that could really impact the way some members of the jury view her. They may find it interesting that — even if it's not said out loud — Cassie is looking at the dark events of what happened through the new lens of motherhood," Rubin went on.
Attorney Jo-Anna Nieves similarly believes "Cassie Ventura’s pregnancy brings a strong layer of visual and emotional impact that makes it harder for the defense to paint her as violent or dangerous," she told Fox News Digital. "Jurors are human, and whether they realize it or not, they often associate pregnancy with vulnerability, nurturing, and innocence," Nieves went on.
"That image alone makes it a tough sell to argue that she was a real physical threat or equally responsible for the violence," Nieves said. With so much evidence stacked against Combs, it will be the defense's job to tear down the witnesses and attack their credibility.
For Combs' attorneys, this may be a losing battle before it even begins for the defense. "Even if the defense introduces evidence of her alleged aggression, that version of events may not line up with what the jury sees in front of them," Nieves said, anticipating the strategy.
"It’s not just about the facts. It's about how those facts land and trying to position an attractive, visibly pregnant woman who also has her own celebrity status as abusive can easily flop with this jury and damage the defense’s credibility," Nieves added.
Nieves explained that Cassie's pregnancy "may not change the legal standard, but it can definitely shape how jurors perceive the story, and that makes the defense’s job a lot harder," the attorney said. As it is, jurors are already showing signs of sympathy for Cassie.
A juror was seen looking to Combs' side of the courtroom while Cassie recounted a "bad fight" with the 55-year-old former rapper. Another juror nodded in agreement when Cassie said she was too ashamed to tell her own mother about the alleged abuse.
This trial has revealed the worst allegations anyone could make against another person. If even a fraction of this turns out to be true, Combs' accusers, pregnant or not, will have no trouble getting a conviction.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court fight has developed that ultimately will decide whether pro-abortion state officials "can team up with abortion activists" to censor the speech of those who don't adhere to the ideology of killing the unborn.
"The state's conduct is not just discriminatory – it's unconstitutional," explained the American Center for Law and Justice.
"This case remains one of the most important pro-life and free speech battles in the country. The outcome could set national precedent on whether state governments can team up with abortion activists to suppress the voices of those who offer women hope, help, and life."
The ACLJ reported the fight focuses on a lawsuit filed on behalf of Your Options Medical, which is a pro-life pregnancy resource center run by Christians.
And it has been "targeted" by "a state-sponsored campaign to discredit and shut down life-affirming services for women."
Defendants are Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, Health Commissioner Robbie Goldstein, abortion promoters Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its chief, Rebecca Hart-Holder.
"Their actions were nothing less than the weaponization of government," the ACLJ has charged.
The state, with tax money, "launched an aggressive public misinformation campaign against pro-life pregnancy centers, accusing them of being 'deceptive' and 'dangerous,' and warned the public against visiting PRCs – even if they are not looking for abortions," the report said.
The misleading claims were all over, on websites, in videos, on posters, on buses, on benches, and included areas adjacent to the resource center's home.
A court recently rejected two separate motions by the defendants to dismiss the case, and instead is allowing the ACLJ to amend its complaint, which now will be expanded.
That's because the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, which also is working on the case, obtained documents, 8,000 pages, that confirm "a calculated effort by government officials, working hand-in-hand with pro-abortion activists, to silence and discredit Christian ministries that offer real alternatives to abortion."
The report continued, "The evidence is clear – the state's campaign wasn't just political rhetoric or support for abortion. It was an organized effort to suppress the viewpoints of pro-life organizations and intimidate them into silence."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jeffrey Epstein's Caribbean island residence library has been invaded and recorded on video, and O'Keefe Media Group is releasing those images.
The newest shows a library "full of bizarre statues, unusual objects and even cryptic messages left by Epstein," according to the Gateway Pundit.
Evidence suggests crimes committed by the convicted sex offender, who died in a New York jail while awaiting further court hearings on new charges, happened at the structures on the private Little St. James island in the Caribbean.
OMG's James O'Keefe pointed out on a chalkboard were the words "Power," "Deception," "Mirror in Face" and "Dank Brain," and he explained, ""Handwriting analysis reveals strong similarities between these markings and the note recovered from Epstein's prison cell, prior to his death."
An earlier video release disclosed images from Epstein's kitchen, including a disturbing image in a photograph of a nude infant sitting in a sink.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently examining a pivotal case that challenges President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. At the heart of this legal battle is the issue of whether lower courts overreached when they issued nationwide injunctions to block Trump's policy.
With a decision pending, the outcome of the case could redefine the division of power between the judicial and executive branches.
The legal debate began when three federal judges from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state halted the enforcement of Trump's executive order. The injunctions from these judges, described as "universal," directly countered the president's attempt to alter the longstanding tradition of granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Trump's administration swiftly asked the Supreme Court to limit the authority of lower courts in issuing such broad rulings.
The issue at hand is the scope of judicial power versus presidential authority. The central question is whether these nationwide injunctions represent an overreach of authority by the lower courts. A decision by the Supreme Court to restrict such injunctions could dramatically alter how executive orders are challenged in the future.
This case is set against a backdrop of significant legal pushback against the second term of President Trump's administrative actions. His executive orders have faced numerous legal challenges, reflecting a struggle over executive power inherent in the U.S. government’s system of checks and balances.
The nation’s highest court, which currently consists of a 6-3 conservative majority, is weighing these considerations carefully. A ruling in favor of Trump's administration could lead to a reassessment of the use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges across the country.
Beyond judicial figures, Trump's birthright citizenship has encountered opposition from over 22 U.S. states and immigrant’ rights organizations. These entities argue that the principle of birthright citizenship, which grants citizenship to anyone born within the U.S. boundaries, is both a historical precedent and a constitutional right needing protection.
The legal challenges, so far, have prevented Trump’s order from being enacted. No court to date has affirmed the legality of Trump’s directive. However, the current deliberations by the Supreme Court have the potential to change this dynamic dramatically.
In the current proceedings, critics of the president’s stance are wary of what they see as an attempt to expand executive power. Mark Zaid's remarks capture this sentiment, highlighting concerns that the administration is moving to bolster the executive branch at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.
The Supreme Court's decision will likely impact how future presidents utilize executive orders. It raises questions about the balance of power within the federal government, as well as the future of immigration policy in the U.S.
Moreover, the case is indicative of the broader political landscape. It underscores divisions in the U.S. on issues such as immigration and executive governance. The high stakes mean that both sides are preparing for outcomes that could affect policymaking for years to come.
The attention to the Supreme Court's ruling goes beyond the immediate parties involved. It also reflects the broader question of the judicial system’s role in regulating policies that stem from the executive branch. This ongoing debate has significant implications for how judicial authorities exercise their oversight functions.
Cases such as this one often set precedents that guide future judicial and executive interactions. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it could encourage a reevaluation of the use of national injunctions, affecting legal mechanisms that respond to executive actions.
The implications for immigrants and their potential citizenship rights are significant. Proposed changes to birthright citizenship have sparked prominent discussions about American identity and constitutional rights.
As stakeholders and observers await a decision, the debate emphasizes the intricate dynamics between state power and individual rights. The conclusion reached by the Supreme Court will resonate beyond this immediate case, shaping the framework of U.S. legal and political landscapes.
In sum, the Supreme Court’s judgment on Trump’s executive order to alter birthright citizenship stands as a landmark decision for America's legal and political future. As the nation waits in anticipation, the ripple effects of this case will undoubtedly influence not just current courtroom strategies but also how future policies are crafted and contested.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act is lawful, in a major boost for Trump's mass deportation effort.
The decision from Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, offers some reprieve for Trump after a series of legal setbacks that have hobbled his immigration agenda.
Since March, Trump has used the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport alleged gang members in groups like Tren de Aragua, which the administration has designated a terrorist organization.
Trump's rapid deportations have faced resistance from some federal courts on due process grounds. Some judges have also said that Trump's use of wartime powers is inappropriate because Tren de Aragua is not part of a conventional military invasion.
Crucially, Judge Haines rejected the narrow view of other courts. The Alien Enemies Act can be interpreted in a modern context, Haines said, comparing Tren de Aragua to "military detachments or pirates” that threatened the public when the Alien Enemies Act became law in 1798.
The activities of Tren de Aragua meet the definition of "predatory incursion," she said, noting the gang is "bent on destabilizing the United States" and is "flooding the United States with illegal narcotics, which it is using as a 'weapon' against the citizens of the United States."
The judge accepted the Trump administration's conclusion that Tren de Aragua is acting "at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela."
Displaying a sense of humility lacking in some other judges, Haines said deference is owed to Trump's position as commander-in-chief, which allows him to access secret information through intelligence services.
"It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held in secret," Judge Haines said.
Judge Haines relied heavily on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's designation of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist group.
She noted that the ruling is limited to dealing with terrorists and does not apply to whether Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to target gang members.
While siding with Trump on the legal substance, the judge emphasized that the administration "must provide greater notice to those subject to removal under the AEA than they are currently providing."
She ordered that 21 days of notice be provided to detainees, and they must be given Spanish interpreters if necessary.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has delivered "another blow to free speech," and constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has both advised Congress on key points in the Constitution and represented members in disputes, is urging an appeal.
The fight is over a student who wore a T-shirt to school with the slogan, "Let's Go Brandon."
That, Turley explained, "has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast's questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of 'F*** Joe Biden.' Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, 'You can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's go, Brandon!""
It was Paul Maloney, the judge in the D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools case in Michigan who used the power of his black robes to grant the school permission to censor the student's shirt.
He said vulgar and profane words are not fully protected by the First Amendment, and claimed, "If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane."
He said, "Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. … School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] "Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This 'DAM' Shirt.'"
The case developed when a student, "C.C.", wore a "Let's Go Brandon" slogan on a shirt to school. He was punished repeatedly, and eventually sued.
School officials clearly were "put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship," Turley explained.
"So what if students now wear 'Let's Go Krista' shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of 'let's go' in any shirt is now prohibited?
"C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students," Turley explained.