Prosecutors in R. Kelly Case Want Accusers to Be Kept Anonymous

Superstar R&B singer R. Kelly is currently sitting in a Chicago prison cell awaiting trial later this year on charges ranging from sexual abuse, possession of child pornography and obstruction of justice. There will be a couple different trials. The first one will start in April and another will start in May. Prosecutors in one of the cases do not want the names of R. Kelly’s accusers to be made public. However, they also have another request. They do not even want R. Kelly to know the names of the two women who are accusing him. The prosecutors believe that the singer will have people try to intimidate these women so they will be too afraid to testify.

The concern of the prosecutors is very understandable. According to Chicago Tribune, this is because R. Kelly is believed to have used intimidation tactics against people testifying against him in previous trials. Therefore, they do not want the same thing to happen to these women. Their plan is to only tell R. Kelly’s defense attorneys the names of the female accusers a couple of weeks before the trial is set to begin. As you might imagine, R. Kelly’s lawyers are not happy about this at all. They think the prosecutor’s claim that R. Kelly is going to attempt to intimidate his accusers from inside of a prison cell is ridiculous.

There had been rumors about R. Kelly being involved with girls who were underage going all the way back to the middle of the 1990s. He had faced legal action multiple times in the past. However, he was always able to get off the hook. In those cases, it is believed that the singer paid off witnesses and threatened people so they would not testify against him. These methods obviously worked. However, the amount of legal problems he is facing this time might be too much for him to escape.

R. Kelly has been denied bail while he waits for his trials to begin. A judge did not grant him bail because of a concern that he might try to flee. His lawyers said that he does not have the money that would be required to pull off an escape from the country. However, the judge said that it is not known exactly how much money the singer has. His finances are apparently very confusing. Also, the judge did not want him to be free to harass and intimidate witnesses.

New State Laws for 2020

A wide variety of new state laws take effect as of January 1, 2020. Let’s take a closer view of some of these significant new state laws that just took effect around the country.

The Red Flag Law

If you live in Nevada, Hawaii, or Colorado, you should become aware of a recently implemented red flag law. This law allows a judge to remove firearms from a person temporarily if they act in a manner that is dangerous to them or someone around them. Some sheriffs in Colorado have refused to enforce this law, and some counties have referred their county as “Second Amendment Sanctuaries,” where the red flag laws don’t count.

California’s Contract Worker Protections

AB5 remains a new California law that provides additional protection for gig and contract workers by permitting them to get considered as employees. This permission requires companies to pay benefits and other worker protections. Some professions remain exempt from AB5, however.

New York’s Cash Bail Reform

New York recently followed the leads of New Jersey and California by allowing severe restrictions on using cash bail. Prosecutors will also need to share their evidence with defendants significantly sooner. Some correspondents are concerned that this new system favors defendants.

Texas’ Surprise Medical Bill Law

Texas recently passed a bill that protects people in state-regulated health care plans from getting outrageous, out-of-network bills for their care.

Illinois Marijuana Legislation

Illinois recently joint the list of states to legalize the recreational use of cannabis products. The state’s legislation remains unique, however, because J.B. Pritzker also pardoned over 11, 000 people convicted of low-level marijuana charges. These individuals had misdemeanor convictions for less than 30 grams of marijuana. The legislature adopted the recent pot legislation rather than voter initiatives.

California’s Internet User Privacy Law

California recently passed the most stringent personal data privacy legislation in the United States. No federal law matches the strength of California’s recent law. Consumers now can allow or opt-out of the collection of information by a company. If the company doesn’t provide reasonable security practices for their consumer’s information, consumers remain able to sue those companies.

New Zealand’s Efforts to Implement New Gun Laws Sparks Controversy

As 2020 rapidly approaches, efforts by the government of New Zealand to implement tough new restrictions on private ownership of most types of semi-automatic firearms and assault weapons ignited political discord. Opponents of the measure argue a short-term amnesty and buyback campaign sponsored by the New Zealand government largely failed. They suggest the lack of voluntary compliance coupled with changes in the law taking effect next year potentially subject thousands of citizens in New Zealand to hefty criminal penalties. Citizens who failed to take advantage of the government’s buy-back offer but who continue to maintain ownership of banned firearms now risk serving up to five years in jail if convicted of weapons violations.

Supporters contend the program succeeded. Jacinda Ardern’s government modeled the buy-back campaign along the lines of a similar initiative implemented a few years earlier in neighboring Australia. The New Zealand program offered less generous compensation and supplied a more limited amnesty period, however. It resulted in the collection of roughly 47,000 weapons and the successful modification of 2,000 others.

A Background Framed by Tragedy

According to, lawmakers in New Zealand’s Parliament passed tough new restrictions on the ownership of military assault-style weapons and semi-automatic firearms following a shocking act of terror in March. An alleged White supremacist used high-powered weapons to launch a massacre at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The gunman awaits trial at this time. His attack resulted in the deaths of 51 people and left 40 others with severe injuries.

Legislators in New Zealand responded by supporting the creation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to study the event. The Commissioners recently obtained an extension of time before the submission of their final report, now due at the end of April. In the meantime, the Prime Minister requested significant changes in the island nation’s gun laws. For the first time, New Zealand sought to establish a firearms registry to document private gun ownership. That proposed legislation is presently under consideration by Parliament.

Searching For Solutions to Gun Violence

The global impact of the legislative changes in New Zealand remains unclear. New Zealand’s legal framework shares many similarities with that of the United Kingdom. Both New Zealand and Australia at one time served as colonies within the British Empire.

Some gun-control advocates in the United States, such as Democrats Beto O’Rourke and Senator Bernie Sanders, touted the New Zealand program as a possible roadmap for gun reform in the United States. Yet critics point to significant differences between the legal systems of New Zealand and the USA. Within New Zealand, the buy-back program has reportedly resulted in the destruction of a number of weapons dating from the First and Second World War eras. The loss of historic firearms has resulted in public criticism by some opponents of the buy-back program.

Even Though New York Conceded A Case About Firearm Ownership Rights, The Plaintiff’s Side Continued To Pursue The Case

he United States is legally built upon what’s known as the Constitution, a list of laws that outlines that basic protections afforded to Americans. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows United States citizens to bear arms – in simple terms, this means they’re allowed to possess firearms.

According to, the state of New York has long supported a law applicable only to the residents of New York City that allows them to hold a permit to own a firearm that can be kept at only their home, further allowing them to only transport that firearm to any of seven shooting ranges located in New York City. It’s easy to see how the residents of New York City who are also firearm owners might take issue to this law, as they could face prosecution for simply transporting their guns to shooting competitions or gun ranges outside of these seven pre-approved destinations within New York City, or even transporting such firearms to another residence of theirs.

A trio of handgun owners who live in New York City with such licenses banded together in an attempt to change the restrictive law, which they believed was – and still is to this very day – excessively invasive in terms of their Constitution-given Second Amendment rights.

Believe it or not, the municipality of New York City, New York, hand-in-hand with the Empire State’s state-level legislative force, agreed to reduce such restrictions on New York City handgun owners before the United States Supreme Court even began to hear the aforementioned trio’s case at the highest level of all courts of law in the United States.

Just yesterday, on Monday, Dec. 2, 2019, Supreme Court Justices spoke amongst one another virtually entirely about whether they should kick the aforementioned case out from being heard or not, legally known as a dismissal.

During the hearing on Monday, the attorney who was hired to represent the trio of gun owners, Paul Clement, fought back against the Supreme Court Justices after they had brought up the idea that the defendant’s side of the argument had already given up. Mr. Clement particularly took issue with the potential that handgun owners who stopped somewhere to get a bite to eat or fill up their vehicle’s tank could find themselves in legal trouble.

They could even get in legal trouble – serious legal trouble, that is – for taking a bathroom break! The judges didn’t take that argument seriously. The case isn’t over yet.

Virginia AG Makes New Ruling On Marriage Licenses

As race continues to be a hot topic in the United States, one question that has recently arisen concerns whether or not a couple seeking a marriage license should be required to identify their race. In Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring has recently made a ruling on this matter. Since it has been more than a half-century since the U.S. Supreme Court negated the state’s laws regarding interracial marriages, AG Herring recently made a new interpretation of the statute dealing with this matter.

Due to the state facing the prospects of a federal lawsuit concerning current state law requiring couples seeking marriage licenses to make clear their races, AG Herring has examined the statute and informed staff of impending changes to this procedure. Starting immediately, clerks will still be required to ask a couple about their race. However, should one or both members of the couple refuse to answer, the clerk is no longer allowed to deny the couple their license.

In Herring’s memo to court clerks, he stated that based on his conclusions about state law court clerks are not required to deny a marriage license based on an applicant choosing to answer or not answer the question. To ensure this process is now carried out according to his interpretation of the statute, court clerks have been given new marriage license forms that include a section titled “Declined to Answer” regarding questions of race.

These changes, which have been brought about by a federal lawsuit filed by civil rights lawyer Victor Glasberg on behalf of three couples challenging Virginia’s law, essentially put an end to the state’s Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act, which was originally referred to as “An Act to Preserve the Integrity of the White Race,” is now viewed by AG Herring and others as a state law that was grounded in prejudice and ignorance.

Moving forward, AG Herring felt that rather than put the state through the litigation process of a federal lawsuit that the state would likely lose, it was in the best interest of everyone involved to reexamine the current statute. Commenting on the current changes taking place in society today, Herring noted “no Virginian will be forced to label themselves in order to be married.” In getting the issue resolved as quickly as possible, Herring made it clear the state is determined to move forward and adapt to societal changes.

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:

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 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.


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: