Civil Suits Against Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate

Civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein’s estate will go full-speed ahead in the wake of his apparent suicide. It is expected that the notorious, 66-year-old, multi-millionaire, sex trafficker’s estate will be pursued for damages by dozens of the abused women, many of whom were underage at the time of the sexual misconduct. This does not, however, mean that the civil suits will be settled in the near future. Because the civil suits involve a huge sum of money, the total value of which is not easy to determine and to be split among so many, it will take years.

New York attorney, Lisa Kaplan, is waiting until Wednesday to file her claims when the “Child Victims Act” takes effect in the state. From August 14, any sexual misconduct claims will have a year to be filed no matter how long ago the abuse took place. After the year is up, victims will have to be 55 or younger to file. In other states, the statutes of limitations may make it impossible for some victims to make claims.

Besides the statutes of limitations, the matter of time is also a factor in determining the outcome because of hazy memories of the facts after so many years. The exact amount of Epstein’s estate is unclear, though it’s been estimated at $559 million. There will be a thorough investigation of his assets to determine any hidden interests, all of which takes time.

Further complicating the matter, when an amount is determined, there is no guarantee that all of those funds will be available to the victims. It’s still unclear who will be administering Epstein’s estate and whether or not Epstein had a will. Los Angeles attorney, Lisa Bloom, currently representing two women in the case, remains undaunted. A court order will most likely be put in place to forfeit any funds to the state, stopping any assets from being sold and allocated otherwise.

Read More: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-lawsuit

Former National Security Agency Contractor Sent To Prison

A former contractor for the National Security Agency was sentenced to nine years in prison by a Maryland court on Friday. The prison was punishment for stealing classified material from various intelligence agencies over a 20 year period. There is no evidence that 54-year-old Harold Martin made the information available to anyone else.

Richard Bennett, the United States District Judge that presided over Martin’s trial, also ordered three years supervised release following Martin’s prison term.

The security agencies that were victims of theft by Martin include the CIA, National Reconnaissance Office, NSA, and U.S. Cyber Command. Martin began the series of thefts in 1996 and is believed to be the perpetrator of the largest classified information breach in the history of America.

Detailed information from the NSA regarding cybersecurity in 2014 was among the information stolen by Martin. The indictment against the disgraced former NSA agent also explains Martin stole operating instructions for an information-gathering tool used by the NSA and a 2007 file that logged daily activities within the agency.

John Demers, Assistant Attorney General, expressed outrage over the fact that Martin showed no regard for the trust the American people bestowed upon him. Demers says Martin chose instead to endanger the American people when he betrayed that trust.

Prosecutors say the thefts by Martin could have easily made classified material available to enemies of America. Martin is known to have spoken to Russian agents online but no evidence could be found that he provided them with information.

Martin’s defense team characterized their client as a hoarder who is also a little eccentric. Lawyers for Martin declined when asked for comment on the matter.

The Justice Department reports that Martin accepted assignments with several government agencies and seven private firms over a 23 year period from 1993 to 2016. The positions Martin held provided him with security clearances that made extremely sensitive information available to him.

Court documents do not specify what Martin did with the classified information other than hoard the material at his home in Glen Burnie, Maryland. Documents were also found in Martin’s car.

Martin was first arrested in 2016. At the time of his arrest, he worked for a company named Booz Allen. The same company employed Edward Snowden, the man responsible for leaking classified information to various media outlets in 2013.

The documents and files found in Martin’s possession added up to 50 terabytes of stored information.

Judge Bans Roger Stone from Social Media

NPR recently reported that Roger Stone was ordered by Judge Amy Berman Jackson to cease all online social media activities until his trial is over. Stone is a long-time informal confidant of President Donald Trump and was indicted for obstruction of justice, making false statements under oath and witness tampering. His federal case is scheduled for trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in November of this year. He was under a previous gag order from Judge Jackson, which the court found that he violated by engaging in publicly visible social media activity. Stone’s posts were not widely viewed, but they were still publicly available.

Stone was scolded by Judge Jackson during the two-hour hearing for his apparent failure to follow a court order. He was ordered to not discuss the case publicly until it was over. The government and Judge Jackson contend that Stone violated the gag order by re-posting other news articles on his social media accounts as well as by directly contacting the media. Judge Jackson noted that Stone’s defense team failed to raise any objections pursuant to the First Amendment about any violation of his right to free speech imposed by the gag order. In court, Stone’s attorney argued that Stone was not making any of the statements on social media himself and was simply re-posting articles that were created and originally published by others. In addition, Stone’s lawyer said that his past online behavior was not at risk of tainting the potential jury pool in his case.

When speculating as to what Stone intended to accomplish through his flurry of online activity since the court instituted the gag order in his case, Judge Jackson remarked that he was clearly calling into question the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation in order to undermine the government’s case against him. Although Judge Jackson did not find that Stone should serve jail time while he awaits his trial, she did impose even harsher restrictions on him than in the previous gag order that he violated. Stone is not to use Instagram, Facebook or Twitter in any fashion until after his trial. This means that he cannot even like, follow or comment on any content posted by any other social media users. She scolded his attorneys for not doing a better job of monitoring their client and ensuring that he complies with all court orders in this case.

The Lawn Mower Drunk Driving Trend Continues in Florida

Florida’s trend of lawn mower drunk driving arrests continues. In the most recent case, a Haines City Police Department squad car was allegedly damaged while officers were attending to an unrelated matter. Upon hearing a crash, officers report that they saw a man on a riding mower pulling a trailer. When stopped by police, the 68-year-old man allegedly became loud and aggressive. Upon being taken into custody, he was transported to a local hospital where testing reportedly indicated that he was three times over the legal limit of .08. Cocaine was also said to have been detected in the man’s blood.

When police ran a criminal history check on the riding mower driver, they learned that his driver’s license had been suspended since 1978. The suspension was based on two prior convictions for driving under the influence. The man reportedly admitted to being intoxicated and hitting the squad car, but he denied using cocaine. He accused police of having put it in his system. According to Newsweek, the man was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing to submit to a DUI test after his driver’s license was suspended. Both charges are misdemeanors that are punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. There is no indication as to whether a search warrant was issued for blood testing, nor was there any information as to where the man was when police saw him driving the riding mower.

Lawn mower drunk driving arrests are nothing new in Florida, says cleveland.com. In 2017, a Port St. Lucie man was arrested on a riding mower on a public street while transporting a case of Budweiser. He was also three times over the legal limit. Another man in Sarasota was arrested for DUI on a lawn mower while he was armed. In 2014, a Citra man drove a lawn mower more than two miles to purchase an 18-pack of beer. He said it was hot outside, and he was depressed. When police stopped him on his way home, he had four beers left. In the recent past, two other riders were cited for being on horses while under the influence. At this point in time, there is no news of any disposition in the Haines City case.

Undocumented Migrants are Failing to Appear at Asylum Hearings

With its last pilot program in connection with undocumented immigrants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established that about one-third of all children crossing the border into the United States were not the biological children of the adults they accompanied. Now, according to Breitbart News, the results of the most recent pilot program conducted by DHS have established that 87% of all undocumented migrant asylum seekers who have been caught and released into the United States failed to appear at their court dates. Most of those people are given work permits that allow them to take jobs in the United States prior to the time of their asylum hearings.

The individuals who failed to appear at their court hearings were recently labeled “fugitives” in congressional testimony by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. At the same hearing, a different federal immigration agent testified that only about 12% of all undocumented aliens who finish the asylum application process actually qualify for it. One commentator remarked such a small percentage is representative of the “enormous fraud and abuse” of U.S. immigration laws.

As per Harvard-Harris pollsters, two out of every three American voters are opposed to catching and releasing undocumented migrants after they have crossed into the United States. Many of them have ranked a reduction on all immigration into the country as one of their top national priorities. To date, border apprehensions for the 2019 year are running at a faster pace than every fiscal year of the Obama administration. Although many Americans believe that a border wall will affect the influx of undocumented migrants, only about 42 miles of it have been built. Much of that consisted of replacement barriers.

When an undocumented migrant applies for asylum and fails to appear at his or her asylum hearing, their application is forfeited. Given the fact that such a high number of undocumented migrants are not appearing at their asylum hearings, Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel must contend with trying to locate, identify and deport each such individual. That has been characterized as nearly impossible and a great burden on federal resources. In the most recent congressional hearing, no proposals were made on how to tackle the failure to appear issue.

The City of San Francisco Ban the Use of Facial Recognition System by the Police

Facing potential abuse from government agencies and the police, the city of San Francisco has banned the use of facial recognition software by these groups. This is despite the city being the heart of technology revolution considering that Silicon Valley is found in San Francisco. Police in the United States are increasingly using the technology to find big time crooks as well as small time crooks. This makes San Francisco the first American city to ban the technology. This ban was made possible by a board of supervisors with the vote coming down to eight people favoring the ban against one who opposed the ban. In Annapolis the technology has been credited as a success as it helped identify a mass shooter last year. However, there have been some concerns from civil liberty groups who argue that there is potential for abuse. For instance, some think it might be the basis for surveillance by the government. The bill to ban the technology in San Francisco had be sponsored by Aaron Peskin who would not hide his joy after the win. He said that they had sent a strong message across the US. He said that being the technology headquarter of the world gave local legislators some responsibility in the technology that is been developed.

Critics on the other hand say that the city would have done more rather than ban the technology. They argue that the best solution was to find better regulations as facial recognition technology will become an integral part of the society. Jonathan Turley works at the University of Washington as a constitutional expert. He said that it was a shame that facial recognition would not have a role in securing border installations as well as airports. He says the ban is a scheme to deny people value from what they would have acquired from the technology. However, this is not the end of the issue as there will be another vote in the coming days to review the matter. However, many experts say that the second vote will just be a formality. There are other cities that are considering the ban such as Somerville and Oakland. Despite the ban in San Francisco, it’s being used in other areas in America such as big stadiums as well as airports. Taylor Swift is the first pop star to use the technology. According to the New York Times, she has reportedly said that she is using the technology to identify stalkers in her shows.

 

Transgender Student Loses Big Scholarship Thanks To New Law

Just a week ago, the United States Department of Defense had officially kicked into action a new controversial law regarding whether transgender United States citizens are able to enlist in any of the five branches of the military.

Although the policy, which has strongly been supported by President Donald Trump, is effectively a ban on transgender people from entering the military, the Department of Defense stated last week that the new policy was not a ban.

Here’s a little information about how the policy works. People who were already enlisted in any of the five branches of the United States military before April 12, 2019, were able to remain in the ranks of whatever branch they were serving. According to the policy, they must have already secured a physician’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a mental condition in which males aren’t comfortable with being male and females aren’t comfortable with their female body.

The Department of Defense further allowed people who met the aforementioned conditions to serve whatever branch they’re in under whichever gender they prefer. They would also be able to continue receiving hormone treatments, an ongoing medication regimen that transgender people take to more convincingly appear as if they were born as the gender they’ve transitioned to, and surgery involving the reassignment of genitals.

However, the effective ban – don’t call it a ban to the face of any spokespeople with the United States Department of Defense, however – barred people with gender dysphoria who are also taking hormone replacement therapy or have already elected themselves to sexual reassignment surgery from enlisting in the military.

One of the many downsides to the recent enactment of military enlistment legislation is that some transgender people will lose their scholarships to college, such as Map Pesqueira, a student enrolled at the University of Texas at Austin.

Map had already secured a scholarship via the military, in which the Texan is enrolled.

However, thanks to the recent legislation from none other than the Department of Defense, Map could soon lose his scholarship, effectively forcing him to leave school.

Pesqueira, a 19-year-old who has lived in Texas since birth, is just two weeks away from finishing up his freshman year at the University of Texas at Austin. Map is also a member of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program, better known as ROTC. He received a three-year ROTC scholarship before graduating high school. Unfortunately, he’ll be disqualified from the program, and, therefore, the scholarship.

Attorney Michael Avenatti Faces More Than 300 years In Jail

The charges for attorney Michael Avenatti continue to mount and he has now been charged with the theft of millions of dollars from five past clients. He has also been charged with bank fraud, perjury, and income tax invasion as part of an indictment that includes 36 counts.

Avenatti is accused of pocketing settlement money that should have been paid to his clients. One of these clients is a former inmate who won a $4 million settlement from the county of Los Angeles. The former inmate was paralyzed after leaping from the second floor of a jail.

Prosecutors allege Avenatti only paid the client $124,000 of the $4 million settlement awarded to the client. The indictment alleges Avenatti funneled the rest of the money through multiple bank accounts including accounts for a coffee company and racing team owned by Avennatti.

The embattled attorney is also accused of using the majority of a $2.75 million settlement awarded to a second client to purchase a private jet for himself. The aircraft is now in the custody of federal officials.

Avenatti once represented adult film star Stormy Daniels when she sought to have a confidentiality agreement between herself and United States President Donald Trump voided.

Avenatti declared his innocence via Twitter and vowed to fight the charges against him. He says he is looking forward to the day the public will be provided with the entire truth pertaining to the charges against him.

A month ago, the state of California charged Avenatti with taking $1.6 million that belonged to a client and using false tax returns filed in Mississippi to access more than $4 million in loans.

Avenatti is accused of failing to pay personal income taxes for four years and not filing business taxes for his two law firms for the past three years. He has also not paid payroll taxes for his coffee shop even though none of the money seemed to trickle down to his employees.

The Los Angeles Times reports Avenatti could face up to 335 years in prison if he is convicted on all 36 counts in the indictment filed against him.

A New York Indictment filed against Avenatti a month ago alleges he attempted to extort Nike for millions of dollars. The allegation is that Avenatti threatened to reveal damaging information against the company if they did not provide him with monetary compensation for his silence.

Source: https://abc7news.com/michael-avenatti-could-face-333-years-in-prison-if-convicted/5243249/

Devin Nunes Is Suing Twitter For A Plot To Undermine The Republicans

Representative Devin Nunes is a California Republican. He has sued Twitter claiming he was smeared by their users three times. He stated the platform allowed the defamation due to a political agenda. The complaint was filed in Virginia in the Henrico County Circuit Court on Tuesday, asking for $250 million in damages. Devin Nunes repeated numerous Republican complaints concerning Twitter. He said republicans were being censored with shadow bans providing aid to their opponents. The complaint detailed three tweets he deemed objectionable.

Devin Nunes cited tweets including crude jokes regarding his person, accusations of criminal acts and overall criticism. The complaint states the tweets falsely said he brought his family shame, one tweet was a cartoon image of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and President Trump engaged in a sexual act and another stated his high school believed he would one day commit treason. Dozens of additional tweets were listed in the complaint. The Republican strategist Liz Mair was singled out for two parody accounts he stated were conducting a vicious defamation campaign.

According to the law, internet platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are protected from liability despite what the users publish. This is in accordance with the Communications Decency Act, section twenty. Devin Nunes is attempting to prove the tweets were part of a plan by Twitter to undermine the Republicans. He has been a target for abusing his authority to protect President Trump and was involved in the investigation regarding Russia by the House.

The complaint stated the tweets caused Devin Nunes pain and suffering, interfered with his investigation regarding Russian corruption and involvement in the Presidential election of 2016, influenced the Congressional election of 2018 and Twitter did nothing. Twitter refused to comment regarding the lawsuit. The claim Twitter was shadow banning was repeated by Devin Nunes. This is when a platform enables an individual to post, but others are unable to view the post. This makes the post invisible. This political phrase was established in July regarding prominent conservatives.

The assertion of shadow banning is still being used by numerous individuals including President Trump as proof of conservative bias. The unintended impact of the lawsuit was an increase for the parody account of Devin Nunes. Prior to the lawsuit there were roughly 1,200 followers. This increased to 46,000 on Tuesday after the lawsuit was filed and is continuing to grow rapidly.

College Admissions Scams

At least 50 people are being charged in the far-reaching, $25 million college admission scandal including attorneys, celebrities and athletic coaches from prestigious universities. This is the largest college admissions scam to have ever been prosecuted by the DOJ. Wealthy parents have attempted to try to fraudulently buy their children’s way into colleges and universities where they would never have been accepted otherwise.

It’s alleged that parents paid millions of dollars between 2011 and 2018 to obtain phony athletic credentials so their children could gain admission. In some of the cases, the children, none of whom are being prosecuted, were presented as having athletic credentials for sports they never even played. Staged pictures of children participating in sports they didn’t play were taken and submitted with their applications. The athletic fraud is only half of the scheme.

William Singer, an employee of a non-profit organization called The Key, allegedly accepted bribes from parents under the guise of charitable donations to help underprivileged children go to college. Others, more competent than the applicants took the admissions tests for these children to ensure their success for acceptance. Accomplishing this involved various roundabout and sophisticated, deceptive plots. One of the schemes was to have the children tested by someone at The Key to discover a learning disability that would give the student extra time for the admissions tests over several days, during which time the proxy would take the tests resulting in the guaranteed, excellent scores paid for by their parents.

Needless to say, many athletic coaches and parents who participated in these fraudulent schemes are losing their jobs and positions of importance, or at least being placed on leave until the matter is adjudicated. Along with the firings, spokespersons from several prestigious universities including Yale, Stanford, The University of Texas at Austin, and Georgetown have made public statements of disappointment in their athletic directors involved to help distance their institutions from the scandal.

Read More: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/morrie-tobin-college-admissions-scam

No Swift Homecoming For American-Born ISIS Bride

Hoda Muthana, 24, left the U.S. when she was 20 to join the Islamic State in Syria and now she wants to return with her 18-month-old son. She left the University of Alabama, telling her parents she was going to a school event and using money meant for tuition, she caught a flight to Istanbul instead. Once inside ISIS-controlled territory, Muthana tweeted she would burn her passport soon, since she didn’t need it anymore.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and has no legal right to return. Ahmed Ali Muthana, Hoda’s father, claims Trump, Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr are unconstitutionally taking away her citizenship rights. The Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America are assisting him in his fight to get his daughter and grandson home.

While Muthana was born in the U.S., her father was a Yemini diplomat. If he was an active diplomat when she was born, Muthana isn’t entitled to birthright citizenship. Instead, she would be a Yemeni citizen. Muthana claims her father left his post months before she was born. Both Hoda and her father say the matter was settled back in 2004 when she obtained a passport.

Once in Syria, Muthana incited violence against Americans via Twitter. She says she regrets believing ISIS propaganda and will face justice. Alabama Sen. Doug Jones says he wants Muthana to return to the U.S. so she can stand trial for crimes against the U.S.; she is out of reach of the U.S. justice system in Syria, where Muthana now lives in a refugee camp.

Britain is facing the same dilemma as ISIS bride Shamima Begum, who ran away to Syria at age 15, wants to return. She also has a child she wants to raise in Britain, however. British authorities revoked Begum’s citizenship. Unlike Muthana, Begum’s father supports his country’s decision.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/22/rule-by-tyranny-american-born-woman-who-joined-isis-must-be-allowed-return-lawsuit-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dfb49a7f409a

Judge Awards Senator Rand Paul $580,000 In Civil Judgment

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky received a favorable judgment in a civil court decision on Wednesday. The case stemmed from a dispute between Rand and a neighbor which resulted in the neighbor tackling Rand from behind. The Senator suffered six broken ribs as a result of the tackle, twice developed pneumonia, and suffered a hernia from the coughing. A civil court award Rand $580,000.

The judgment against neighbor Rene Boucher, a retired anesthesiologist, includes punitive damages of $375,000.

Boucher admitted to tackling Paul while the Senator placed a pile of brush somewhere near the line which divided the properties of the two men. Boucher’s explanation for the November 2017 incident was he felt Paul was attempting to get back at him because he once trimmed trees located on Paul’s property. Boucher explained he trimmed the trees because they grew over onto his property.

Boucher said he removed a brush pile left by Paul the day before the incident. He explains he burned himself while setting the pile on fire with gasoline. Boucher says he was experiencing severe pain when the altercation took place with Senator Paul.

Boucher was arrested after the incident and charged with an attack against a member of the United States Congress. He served 30 days in jail for the offense and was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine as part of a sentence.

A lawyer for Boucher said he would appeal the civil decision against his client.

Paul said during an interview with Bowling Green Daily News the verdict reflects the type of society in which Americans want to live. He says the verdict also speaks to the need for individuals to develop conflict resolution skills. Paul said conflicts can be resolved without violence. The Senator applauded the jury for helping to get this message out to Americans.

Guidelines for California Sexual Harassment Law Raises Some Confusion

Me Too and other associated movements have brought significant light to instances of sexual abuse in the entertainment industry. Substantive charges like those levied against producer Harvey Weinstein and actor Kevin Spacey have turned a scrutinizing eye towards the protection of entertainment workers. Given how centralized the film industry is in Los Angeles, it may come as no surprising that departing Governor Jerry Brown of California has taken measures to protect younger entertainers working in film, TV, and other associated industries.

A law signed by Governor Brown, identified as AB 2338, includes provisions that require all minors – aged between 14 and 17 years of age – to receive sexual harassment prevention training before being provided with an entertainment work permit. The work permits, which are issued by the California Labor Commissioner, will also be denied if the parents or guardians of minors can’t demonstrate they’ve received the proper training as well. The Department of Labor Standards Enforcement has released parameters for enforcing the new law, but some feel that there are ambiguities that need addressing.

Three points of contention have been identified as requiring clarity or revision. The first is that minor workers are exempt from training if they’re only applying for ten day work permits. The second concern is the guidance for 13 year olds scheduled for their next birthday while they’re covered by an existing work permit. They may either apply for a permit that expires on their 14th birthday rather than extends for the full six months, or they may preemptively provide proof of sexual harassment training as long as they’re older than 13 years and six months in age. Both of these concerns raise questions about the effectiveness of the law in regards to these issues, since it could leave youth in these two groups vulnerable to sexual harassment. The complexity of the rules for applicants on the cusp of age could also make the standards of the law more complex to enforce than necessary.

The final point of contention is in regards to a lack of resources to properly enforce the new restrictions. The DSLE requires that all training meet the minimum requirements outlined by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. in DFEH Form 185. Such training can only be provided by third-party vendors, but there appears to be a shortage of such vendors, and there is still a lack of clarity regarding what vendors are approved and what the designated length of such trainings be.

There’s time to resolve the issue. Despite being put into effect at the beginning of the year, the Commissioner will not begin enforcement of the law until June 30. Regardless, some measures may have to be taken to ensure that the law can be properly implemented.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Truck Drivers

The trucking industry is going through various changes. There is a massive shortage of qualified drivers, and most trucking companies struggle to remain profitable. The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of truck drivers. The court ruled that truck drivers can sue trucking companies for labor violations.in a report by Business Insider, the vast majority of truck drivers are considered independent contractors. Contractors typically have fewer legal rights than employees. However, with the recent ruling, truck drivers will now have more options for receiving recourse for the actions of trucking companies.

Strike

The port in Los Angeles is one of the largest ports in the world. In recent weeks, the port has started to endure multiple shipping issues. With the tariffs from China having an impact, companies are buying inventory from other nations. The port cannot handle all of the additional goods coming in. As the port gets congested, truck drivers have to wait in line to drop off their products. During this waiting period, truck drivers typically do not receive compensation. Most truck drivers are compensated based on how many miles are driven.

Workers at the port recently threatened to go on strike. If workers do strike, it will be a terrible time to do so. Some truck drivers have threatened to take legal action against trucking companies if the labor laws are not changed. In many cases, truck drivers are going on routes and getting paid less than minimum wage.

Other Issues

Other issues are impacting the trucking industry. Autonomous vehicles are starting to become a reality. Many young people do not want to become truck drivers because autonomous vehicles could drastically change the industry. Trucking companies cannot pay truck drivers more because of declining profits.

Executives of trucking companies need to act quickly to prevent any legal damages from the recent ruling. Companies must start paying truck drivers fairly to avoid legal action in the future.

Man Wants Free Burger King For Life Settlement Upheld

A free $7.89 meal every week is nothing to laugh about, especially when it’s time for lunch or something more than a midnight snack. To an Oregon man who was locked inside of a Burger King washroom for an hour and claims to have a life expectancy of 22 more years, that time has been calculated to be worth $9,026.16. Oh, he also suffered a small cut on his hand that didn’t require any treatment when Burger King employees gave him a fly swatter to try and unlock the bathroom door with. The man must be somewhere around 48 years-years-old. His lawyer estimates a diminished life expectancy of about five years as a result of his client’s frequent consumption of burgers.

According to Time, the “wrongfully imprisoned” man claims that the manager of a Burger King in Wood Village made him a settlement offer sometime around the middle of December in 2018. Although the specifics of the offer haven’t been disclosed, it was something in the nature of free food for the rest of his life. Apparently, the man accepted the offer. That deal worked out for a about a couple of weeks, but when Burger King’s regional manager learned of it, he rejected it. The “prisoner” has now filed a lawsuit involving the value of those lost meals. The amount in controversy was calculated that one burger would cost $7.89 per week. Whether that’s a Whopper meal or a Whopper Junior meal has yet to be disclosed. Nor has the size of the drink or fries, if any.

The man’s lawyer says that his client was presented with a settlement offer that he accepted. His position is that a deal was made, but who the deal was made with is what this case turns on. Was it made with Burger King’s franchisee, or was it made with Burger King? Did the manager who purportedly settled for free food for life even have authority to offer a settlement? Was there any valid settlement at all? Is being locked in a bathroom for an hour even worth more than $9,000?