#Business Litigation Attorney Texas

[litigationattorneydallas]

Your Business Needs a Business Litigation Attorney

A business litigation attorney is important to your business because we provide expertise in handling legal disputes, protecting your company's interests, and mitigating potential financial risks. Their knowledge and experience in navigating complex legal matters can protect your business and ensure a fair resolution in court or through negotiations.

#Business Litigation Attorney Texas #Texas Business Attorney #Property Tax Attorney Texas #Dallas Business Litigation Attorney #Texas Consumer Protection Lawyer

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Since we're heading into winter...

The Supreme Court of Texas narrowly decided Friday that sovereign immunity, which largely shields government agencies from civil lawsuits, also protects the operator of the Texas electric grid.

The 5-4 opinion will likely free the nonprofit corporation from lawsuits filed by thousands of Texans for deaths, injuries and damages following the deadly 2021 winter storm, unless lawyers find another way forward.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the power supply for most of Texas, qualifies for immunity because it “provides an essential governmental service,” Chief Justice Nathan Hecht wrote in the majority opinion. State law intended for ERCOT to have the power of an “arm of the State government,” Hecht wrote. If anyone is going to hold ERCOT accountable for its actions, Hecht wrote, it should be state regulators or the Legislature, not the courts.

Freezing temperatures gripped the state during the 2021 winter storm, straining the power supply so much that ERCOT called for cutting power to millions of homes and businesses to prevent the grid’s collapse. More than 200 people died. Experts estimated afterward that financial losses totaled between $80 billion and $130 billion, including physical damage and missed economic opportunity.

Thousands of residents accused ERCOT, power companies and distribution companies of failing to prepare for the freezing weather.

Lawyers expect the high court’s decision will allow ERCOT to be dismissed from the litigation, although it does not shield other defendants.

Attorney Mia Lorick, who represents some of those plaintiffs, said she sees only a slim possibility that lawyers could keep claims against ERCOT alive by arguing that their cases have differences that somehow skirt the sovereign immunity finding.

Majed Nachawati, whose firm is representing other plaintiffs in the related cases said, “The Texas Supreme Court’s decision is disappointing to say the least. People lost their lives and the only recourse to the citizens of Texas is to be able to go through the judicial process, and the judicial system, to try to remedy or right the wrong that occurred in this case. And if you can’t count on our judiciary to protect its citizens, I think we’re in a lot of trouble.”

Justices Jeff Boyd and John Devine, along with two others, disagreed that ERCOT has sovereign immunity. Purely private entities are clearly not sovereign, and making them so undermines the public trust, they wrote. The justices argued that “no statute designates ERCOT as a part of the government” and that courts should not be barred from hearing claims against it.

The ruling sprang from two cases filed against ERCOT. San Antonio’s municipally owned utility, CPS Energy, alleged that ERCOT mishandled the soaring price of power during the 2021 winter storm. And private equity investors at Panda Power Funds alleged that 10 years earlier ERCOT issued reports that misled them about how much power the grid needed.

ERCOT spokespersons issued a statement saying that the organization was pleased with the decision. CPS Energy said in a statement that it was disappointed but thankful that four justices agreed with the utility as it sought relief for customers. The utility said the litigation still led to “critical discussions at the highest levels that are necessary to improve our power grid and energy market.”

#us politics #news #texas #texas supreme court #ercot #the texas tribune #2023 #Electric Reliability Council of Texas #Chief Justice Nathan Hecht #Mia Lorick #Majed Nachawati #Justice Jeff Boyd #Justice John Devine #CPS Energy #winter weather #power outages #freezing #winter

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.

“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.

The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can't “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”

The companies themselves are not involved in the case.

Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

"The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech, but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.

A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.

A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October, when it agreed to take up the case.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have rejected the emergency appeal from the Biden administration.

Alito wrote in dissent in October: “At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."

A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.

#nunyas news #platforms can determine the content that they want #the government needs to either stay out of it #or participate on their own without #trying to dictate what can and can't be posted #provided what's being posted is legal

[mariacallous]

The US Supreme Court seems torn over whether to trigger a radical transformation of the internet. The nation’s highest court heard arguments Monday over state laws in Florida and Texas that restrict how platforms like Facebook and YouTube moderate speech. If the court lets them take effect, social media feeds could look very different, with platforms forced to carry unsavory or hateful content that today is blocked or removed.

The high stakes gave long-standing questions about free speech and online regulation new urgency in Monday’s arguments. Are social platforms akin to newspapers, which have First Amendment protections that give them editorial control over content—or are they common carriers, like phone providers or telegraph companies, that are required to transmit protected speech without interference?

A ruling is expected by June, when the court typically issues many decisions, and could have sweeping effects on how social sites like Facebook, YouTube, X, and TikTok do business beyond Florida and Texas. “These cases could shape free speech online for a generation,” says Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which filed a brief in the case but did not take sides.

Florida and Texas passed the laws under debate in 2021, not long after social media platforms booted former president Donald Trump following the January 6 insurrection. Conservatives had long argued that their viewpoints were unfairly censored on major platforms. Laws barring companies from strict moderation were pitched as a way to restore fairness online.

The laws were quickly put on hold after two tech-industry trade associations representing social platforms, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, challenged them. If the Supreme Court now allows the laws to stand, state governments in Florida and Texas would gain new power to control social platforms and the content posted on them, a major shift from the situation today where platforms set their own terms of service and generally hire moderators to police content.

Polar Opposites

Monday’s arguments, spanning nearly four hours, underscored the legal confusion inherent to regulating the internet that remains. Justices raised questions about how social media companies should be categorized and treated under the law, and the states and plaintiffs provided opposing views of social media’s role in mass communication.

The laws themselves leave gaps as to how exactly their mandates would be enforced. The questions posed by the justices showed the court’s frustration at being “caught between two polar opposite positions, both of which have significant costs and benefits for freedom of speech,” says Cliff Davidson, a Portland-based attorney at Snell & Wilmer.

David Greene, senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief urging the court to strike down the laws, says there are clear public benefits to allowing social platforms to moderate content without government interference. “When platforms have First Amendment rights to curate the user-generated content they publish, they can create distinct forums that accommodate diverse viewpoints, interests, and beliefs,” he says.

Greene argues that the laws raise “significant First Amendment and human rights concerns” and are “profound intrusions into social media sites’ ability to decide for themselves what speech they will publish and how they will present it to users.”

Florida’s law prevents social media companies from permanently banning candidates for office or “journalistic enterprises” from their platforms, even when they post content typically barred by a platform. Texas’ law says companies cannot moderate content based on the viewpoints it expresses—potentially neutering many moderation policies such as against hate speech. Lower courts have been split on the rules: Florida’s law was deemed unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, but Texas’ was upheld by a different appeals court.

Florida’s law is worded broadly, and justices wondered Monday whether it could cover platforms like Uber, Etsy, and Gmail, which carry out far different purposes than social media services like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. The Texas law is more narrow and applies only to social media companies with 50 million active monthly users.

The trade associations argue that social platforms are like newspapers and should be protected to publish content without government interference. But the states argued that now that social media companies have become public squares of the 21st century, they act more like telephone networks carrying messages between people and should be required to be neutral.

In the US, social media companies have long been protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from liability for content they host. The state laws, which would impose penalties for moderating content, would create new liabilities for companies, compromising the long-standing immunity provided by Section 230.

Tricky Decision

Some argue the fate of the two laws will have consequences that reach far beyond social platform moderation. If the court upholds injunctions on the Texas law, it could set a precedent that stifles the ability of Congress or state governments to write better laws to regulate social platforms, a group of liberal law professors argue in a brief filed in support of Texas in the case.

“Rather than lining up to give Meta, YouTube, X, and TikTok capacious constitutional immunity, the people who are worried about these laws should be focusing their energies on getting Congress to pass more sensible regulations instead,” Zephyr Teachout, a professor at Fordham Law School who joined the brief, wrote in The Atlantic.

The justices expressed skepticism around the laws during the arguments and “seemed to recognize that it would be unconstitutional to hand to the government the unfettered power to dictate what can be said on private platforms,” Abdo, of the Knight Institute, says. “We’re hopeful that the court will strike down the must-carry provisions but chart a path forward for reasonable social media transparency laws.”

Lasting solutions to long-running debates over how to regulate online speech will require more than a single court decision.

[wipe-record]

Top-Rated Attorneys in Austin, Texas | Expert Legal Counsel

Find the best attorneys in Austin, Texas, for your legal needs. Our team of experienced lawyers specializes in various practice areas, including personal injury, family law, and business litigation. With a strong commitment to client success, we provide tailored legal solutions. Visit our site to connect with trusted legal professionals in Austin.

Call:[phone]

Email:[email protected]

#Attorneys in Austin #Texas

[foreverlogical]

A federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical on Tuesday of calls to impose a nationwide freeze on Obamacare’s rules for no-cost coverage of preventive care while litigation continues — a move the Biden administration warned would threaten access to a range of services for millions of people on employer-sponsored insurance and Obamacare’s individual market.

Both sides in the case agreed that the individual Texas businesses that sued over the mandate should be shielded from it while the case makes its way through the courts. But they split on whether more harm would be caused by keeping the current coverage rules intact for everyone else in the country or by suspending them nationwide.

Attorneys representing the Texas employers and individual workers challenging the policy argued that because 

the United States Preventive Services Task Force is made up of outside experts who are not Senate-confirmed or overseen by Senate-confirmed government employees, their recommendations of what preventive services should be covered by insurance — from syphilis tests to depression screenings — must be “set aside” and can’t be enforced.

Their suit also claims the Obamacare requirement for insurance to cover the pre-exposure prophylaxis pill used to prevent transmission of HIV — known as PrEP — violates the religious rights of the challengers. In their legal briefs, they equated covering the highly effective medication with encouraging homosexuality and promiscuity.

The merits of those legal arguments didn’t come up in Tuesday’s hearing before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which focused squarely on whether the nationwide freeze of the Obamacare mandate a lower court ordered in March went too far.

That ruling, Justice Department attorney Alisa Klein told the court, was a “legal error” that “extinguished the rights of about 150 million people who are not parties to the case.”

Klein urged the appeals court judges to consider the “balance of equities,” arguing that there would be no harm done to the already-protected plaintiffs by putting the nationwide injunction on hold, but great harm done to everyone else if they failed to do so.

“It can’t be overstated how important the guarantee of cost-free access is when patients go to get their mammograms and colonoscopies,” she said. “We’re talking about 50 different types of care.”

The attorney for the conservative challengers, Jonathan Mitchell, responded that the nationwide ruling was appropriate because “agency actions must be set aside if they are unlawful.”

Mitchell — the architect of the six-week abortion ban Texas imposed before Roe was overturned — attempted to reassure the judges that imposing a nationwide injunction wouldn’t cause harm because insurers are unlikely to drop coverage of preventive care services while the case is still in process.

The judges on the appeals court panel seemed unconvinced.

Leslie Southwick — an appointee of former President George W. Bush — called that assertion “speculative” and said it was “very unusual” to be asked to rule on “our sense of how insurance companies would react.”

“I’m not sure what we have to go on,” he said.

The judges also grilled Mitchell on whether a win for his side would solve his clients’ problem — a legal threshold known as “redressability.” When Mitchell argued that individual workers he represents who are refusing to buy insurance because of the PrEP coverage requirement would be able to get covered if the mandate were lifted, Judge Stephen Higginson noted that the workers’ own affidavits “don’t say that.”

Higginson — an appointee of former President Barack Obama — pointed out that only one of the four workers came anywhere close to making that claim, and that he expressed “a desire to buy insurance, not a specific intent.”

Mitchell acknowledged that there’s no “iron-clad guarantee” his clients would buy health insurance if courts blocked the Obamacare mandate.

In closing, the judges urged both him and the DOJ to try to broker a compromise that would more narrowly tailor the nationwide ruling without infringing on the rights of the plaintiffs.

Tuesday’s hearing was the latest in a months-long saga over the preventive care mandate that’s been in place for more than a decade.

Texas District Court Judge Reed O’Connor — the author of several rulings against pieces of Obamacare — issued a nationwide ruling in March for the challengers, striking down all of the decisions made by the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2010 about what insurers must cover without cost sharing.

In May, the 5th Circuit Court issued an administrative stay of that lower court ruling — keeping the current coverage rules in place while the case proceeds.

Public health groups warn of serious consequences if O’Connor’s ruling is upheld — citing research showing that even small out-of-pocket costs deter many people from seeking preventive care, leading to sicker patients and more costly treatments. Medical experts are particularly worried that coverage rollbacks would exacerbate already record rates of sexually transmitted diseases by making testing and treatment services unaffordable for vulnerable populations.

Many major insurers have pledged to maintain preventive care at no cost to patients for the time being no matter what courts decide, but experts fear that patients could eventually be hit with out-of-pocket charges should the 5th Circuit and Supreme Court side with the challengers.

The case also throws more than two-dozen new recommendations the federal task force is currently weighing in jeopardy, rules that could expand coverage of everything from prenatal care to speech therapy to osteoporosis.

[jlassenlawtexas]

Business Name: The Law Firm of Joseph Lassen

Street Address 1: 18911 Hardy Oak Blvd

Street Address 2: Suite 239

City: San Antonio

State: Texas

Zip Code: 78258

Country: United States

Business Phone: [phone]

Business Email: [email protected]

Website: https://www.jlassenlaw.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jlassenlaw

Twitter: https://twitter.com/lawlassen

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-law-firm-of-joseph-lassen/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lassenlaw/

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/josephlassenlaw/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8gPVYygidP6ZZ9tMKHMN6Q

Tumblr: https://lawlassen.tumblr.com/

Business Description: Trusting a sensitive situation like a legal matter to a stranger can be difficult. However, at our firm, we work to put your mind at ease when approaching any disputes or other issues that you are facing. Our lawyers have a wealth of experience handling a wide variety of straightforward and complex types of cases. We use this experience on a daily basis when helping you and other clients pursue a resolution to their cases. Our firm is here to provide you with the information and guidance you need to feel confident in moving forward with your life. Whatever your needs are, we address them and work to ensure your best interests are protected.

Google My Business CID URL: https://www.google.com/maps?cid=6673119404239637299

Business Hours: Sunday Closed Monday 8:00am-5:00pm Tuesday 8:00am-5:00pm Wednesday 8:00am-5:00pm Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm Friday 8:00am-5:00pm Saturday Closed

Payment Methods: Cash, Debit Card, Visa, Master, Amex, Discover

Services: Motor Vehicle Accidents, DWI, Child Support, Child Custody, Family Law, Divorce, Child support litigation, Custody & visitation rights litigation, Divorce litigation, Uncontested divorce legal services, Complex Family Law, Family Law Cases, Family Law Matters, Personal injury attorney, Contested divorce litigation, Spousal support & alimony litigation, Children Child Support, Complex Child Custody Cases, Contested Divorce, Divorce Family Law, Divorce Litigation, Divorce Mediation, Divorce Planning, Divorce Proceedings, Divorce Representation, Divorce Settlement, Family Lawyer Child Custody, No-Fault Divorce, Personal Injury Attorney, Personal Injury Lawyer

Keywords: family law attorney, divorce lawyer, divorce lawyers near me, family law, divorce attorney, divorce attorney near me, family lawyers near me, family attorney near me, san antonio divorce lawyer, divorce lawyers in san antonio, personal injury lawyer, personal injury attorney, san antonio personal injury lawyer, san antonio personal injury attorney, personal injury lawyer near me, personal injury attorney near me, car accident lawyer, car accident attorney, car accident lawyer near me, car accident attorney near me

Business/Company Establishment Date: 01-01-2003

Number of Employees: 02-10

Owner Name, Email, and Contact Number: Joseph Lassen, [email protected], 210-625-6540

Location:

Service Areas:

#Youtube

[buchelawtx]

Business Name: Buche & Associates, P.C.

Street Address: 901 S MoPac Expy, Bldg 1, Ste. 300

City: Austin

State: Texas (TX)

Zip Code: 78746

Country: United States

Business Phone Number: [phone]

Business Email Address: [email protected]

Website: https://www.buchelaw.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Buche-Associates-PC/100054364998757/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/buche-&-associates-p.c.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@bucheassociatesp.c.1772

Description: Buche & Associates P.C. is a law firm providing legal services for a broad range of business and civil matters. We are trial lawyers and litigators, handling cases including intellectual property, personal injuries, professional athlete disability, and contractual matters. We specialize in protecting intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.

Whether securing patents, negotiating contracts, or representing parties in litigation, we pursue our clients’ interests aggressively and respect their ultimate goals. In addition to our extensive expertise in intellectual property, we take pride in a focus on civil trial advocacy and have experience with a vast array of civil litigation in federal, state.

Google My Business CID URL: https://www.google.com/maps?cid=13864385153183224700

Business Hours: Sunday Closed Monday 8:00am-5:00pm Tuesday 8:00am-5:00pm Wednesday 8:00am-5:00pm Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm Friday 8:00am-5:00pm Saturday Closed

Services: Personal Injury, Professional Sports, Internet Law, Local Counsel, Legal Malpractice, Contract Law, Business Law, Patent Infringement Opinions, Licensing Of Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition, Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Litigation, Trademarks, Patents, ,Patent Attorney, Patent Infringement Opinions, Trademarks, Agreement Drafting, Agreement Negotiation, Agreement Review, Business Agreements, Business Attorneys, Business Contracts, Business Disputes, Business Law, Business Lawyers, Business Transactions, Civil Disputes, Civil Litigation, Confidentiality Agreements, Consumer Protection, Contract Disputes, Contract Law, Copyright Applications, Copyright Attorneys, Copyright Cases, Copyright Infringement Litigation, Copyright Law, Copyright Lawyers, Copyright Licensing, Copyright Protection, Design Patents, Dispute Resolution, Domain Name Disputes, Domain Protection, Due Diligence, Employment Contracts, Entertainment Law, Ex Parte Reexamination, Ex Parte Reexaminations, Foreign Patent Applications, Free Initial Consultations, Infringement Attorneys, Infringement Lawsuit, Intellectual Property Attorneys, Intellectual Property Cases, Intellectual Property Counsel, Intellectual Property Disputes, Intellectual Property Infringement, Intellectual Property Law, Intellectual Property Lawsuit, Intellectual Property Lawyer, Intellectual Property Licensing, Intellectual Property Litigation, Intellectual Property Portfolios, Intellectual Property Protections, Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property Transactions, Inter Partes Review, Inter Partes Reviews, International Intellectual Property, International Trademark, Ip Attorneys, Ip Cases, Ip Infringement, Ip Law, Ip Lawyers, Ip Licensing, Legal Assistance, Legal Malpractice, Legal Opinions, Legal Representation, Licensing Agreements, Licensing Contracts, Litigation Attorneys, Mergers And Acquisitions, Noncompete Contracts, Nondisclosure Agreements, Opposition Proceedings, Patent And Trademark Infringement, Patent Cases, Patent Disputes, Patent Filing, Patent Infringement Litigation, Patent Laws, Patent Lawyers, Patent Prosecution Attorneys, Patent Protection, Patent Search Attorneys, Personal Injury Attorneys, Personal Injury Lawyers, Post Grant Review, Product Liability, Real Estate Contracts, Registering Trademarks, Sound Recording, Theft Of Trade Secret, Trade Secret Law, Trademark Applications, Trademark Attorneys, Trademark Disputes, Trademark Filings, Trademark Laws, Trademark Lawyer, Trademark Legal Services, Trademark Litigation, Trademark Searches, Trademark Selection, Trademarks Protect, Unfair Competition Claims, Utility Patents, Litigation Attorney, Personal injury attorney, Catastrophic injury litigation, Personal injury lawyer, Intellectual property registry, Intellectual Property Licensing, Intellectual Property

Keywords: Austin patent attorney, Austin patent lawyer, Austin copyright attorney, Austin copyright lawyer, patent attorney, patent lawyer, patent attorney in Austin, trademark attorney, trademark lawyer, copyright lawyer, copyright attorney, patent attorney Austin, patent attorney near me, patent lawyer Austin, patent lawyer near me, best patent attorney, best patent lawyer, business law attorney, Austin trademark attorney, Austin trademark lawyer

Payment Methods: Cash, Debit Card, Visa, Master, Amex, Discover

Business/Company Establishment Date: 01-27-2005

Number of Employees: 02-10

Owner Name, Email, and Contact Number: John Buche, [email protected], [phone]

Location:

Service Areas:

#Youtube

[erbjrlawtx]

Business Name: The Law Office of E.R. Báez

Street Address 1: 700 North Saint Mary's Street

Street Address 2: Suite 1400-B

City: San Antonio

State: Texas

Zip Code: 78205

Country: USA

Business Phone: [phone]

Business Email: [email protected]

Website: https://www.erbjrlaw.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawyerandpastor/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EdgarBe56741181

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-baez-law-firm-p-c-/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thelawofficeoferbaez/

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/lawofficeofedgarbaez23/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBaezLawFirm

Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/lawofficeoferbaez

Business Description: The San Antonio criminal lawyer at The Law Offices of E.R. Baez provides criminal defense services to clients charged with DWI/DUI, assault, theft, domestic violence, homicide and other criminal charges. San Antonio criminal lawyer E.R. Baez believes that clients are innocent until proven guilty. He believes that God can change any tragedy and turn it into a testimony. ​Because of the vulnerability of our clients, our San Antonio criminal attorney offers a legal solution to the problem, and also offers counseling, prayer and a helping hand whenever possible. He is an experienced DWI lawyer and sex crimes lawyer. No matter how difficult the case, criminal defense attorney E.R. Baez will treat you and your family with the upmost dignity.

Google My Business CID URL: https://www.google.com/maps?cid=4904343929474903815

Business Hours: Sunday Closed Monday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Tuesday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Wednesday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Saturday Closed

Payment Methods: Cash, Check, Debit Card, Credit Card, Visa, Master, Amex, Discover

Services: Criminal Appeals, Federal Criminal Appeals, Abogado De Ley Criminal, Abogado De Defensa Criminal, Abogado Criminalista, Federal Crimes, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Post Conviction Relief, Prostitution Crimes, Theft And Fraid Crimes, Parole. Motions to Revoke, Murder, Assault and Battery, DWI Law, Sex Crimes, Drug Crimes, Drug possession defense litigation, DUIs & reckless driving defense litigation, Federal criminal defense litigation, Felony defense litigation, General criminal defense litigation, Petty crimes & misdemeanor, Sex offence defense litigation, 1st DWI, 2nd DWI, 3rd DWI, 5th Circuit Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeals, Criminal Defense Attorney, Criminal Defense Cases, Criminal Defense Lawyer, Criminal Defense Representation, Drug Cases, Drug Charges, DWI Charges, Federal First Act Petition, Felony, Felony Trial-Per Week, Fraid Crimes, MTR County, MTR District, Mandamus, Manslaughter Trial, Misdemeanor, Misdemeanor Trial-Per Week, Motion for New Trial, Murder Charges, Murder Trial, Post-Conviction New Evidence Review, Supreme Court Appeal, Writ of Habbeas Corpus, Criminal Cases, Fraud Cases, Parole Cases, Parole Revocation, Sex Crimes, White Collar Crimes, Criminal Appeals, DWI Defense, D W I Law, Expungement, Non-Disclosures, Parole Board

Keywords: san antonio criminal defense attorney, san antonio criminal defense lawyer, san antonio criminal lawyer, criminal defense attorney, criminal lawyer, defense attorney, criminal lawyers near me, criminal defense attorney near me, criminal defense lawyer, criminal attorney, San Antonio DWI lawyer, San Antonio DWI attorney, DWI lawyer, DUI lawyer, DUI attorney, best criminal defense attorney san antonio, drug crime lawyer, assault charge attorney, homicide attorney, defense lawyer

Business/Company Establishment Date: 01-01-2005

Owner Name, Email, and Contact Number: Edgardo Báez, [email protected], [phone]

Location:

Service Areas:

#Youtube

[96thdayofrage]

Garrett Foster's family filed a lawsuit against Sgt. Daniel Perry, 35, on Wednesday in Travis County state District Court. 

The lawsuit states that Perry, who was stationed in Fort Hood at the time of the July 25, 2020 shooting in downtown Austin, was a "dangerous, ticking time-bomb" and that he had posted online about shooting protesters, Fox Austin reported. 

Perry was driving for Uber when he shot Foster, who allegedly approached the vehicle with a rifle amid a protest march in the area. Perry fired several shots at Foster with a handgun. Foster, a 28-year-old Air Force veteran, later died at a hospital. 

The Austin Police Department determined the shooting was justified but a grand jury indicted Perry on murder charges, which are still pending. He has stated he acted in self-defense. 

The shooting came amid massive nationwide protests featuring Black Lives Matter groups. Some of the demonstrations devolved into riots, looting and even killings, 

At the time of the shooting, Perry was stationed in Fort Hood, about an hour north of Austin, and was driving for Uber to make some extra money. A spokesperson for Uber declined to comment to Fox News, citing pending litigation. 

In a statement to the media, Foster's mother, Sheila Foster, said her son "believed passionately in the Constitution and protecting our freedoms and our rights, including the right to free speech and the right to bear arms." 

⁰A United States Army sergeant facing a murder charge after shooting a Black Lives Matter protester who approached his vehicle with an AK-47 had his GoFundMe page removed from the site by the company. 

"It’s an expensive trial to undertake with the need for expert witnesses and stuff and we had a GoFundMe site that’s been taken down and it’s been weighing on him," Perry Attorney Clint Broden told Fox News Digital, adding that Perry’s father had to pay a "significant bond" for his release and that the ordeal has taken a "significant toll" on the family.

On the night of July 25, 2020, at about 9:50 p.m., authorities say Sgt. Daniel Perry was driving for Uber when he encountered a Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Austin, Texas. Perry, an active duty soldier, was stationed at Ft. Hood at the time. The protesters did not have a permit and were reportedly clogging a busy intersection.

After making a right turn onto Austin’s Congress Avenue, Perry’s attorneys say he was swarmed by a group of Black Lives Matter protesters and a masked man, later identified as Garrett Foster, approached his vehicle armed with an AK-47 in the "ready position" as protesters began banging on Perry’s car and throwing bricks.

Believing that Foster was beginning to raise the rifle and that his life was in danger, Perry fired the handgun he kept in his car console multiple times at which point another protester opened fire on him. 

The man with the AK-47, Garrett Foster, was fatally wounded. 

Roughly a year later, Perry was indicted on murder and aggravated assault charges by Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza who claimed that over 150 pieces of evidence and testimony from 22 witnesses during a three-week court hearing led to the decision to press charges.

Perry’s attorneys say the shooting was a clear case of self-defense and have expressed serious concerns with how the case has been handled by Garza’s office.

"Garrett Foster either intentionally or accidentally pointed his rifle at Daniel Perry’s head and Daniel Perry fired in self-defense," Perry attorney Doug O’Connell told Fox News Digital. "And as a practical matter he had no ability to retreat nor was he required to."

"You have the right to defend yourself in a crowd and you feel like you’re in imminent danger of being shot," Broden added. "That’s what it’s all about. I ask people to put themselves in Sgt. Perry’s position and you have this masked man with an assault rifle ready starting to raise it. I think anybody that had access to a firearm would react the same way."

Texas castle law extends to one's vehicle in some circumstances.

Veteran Detective David Fugitt of the Austin Police Department, the lead investigator on the case who has been on the Austin police force for 27 years, concluded that the shooting was justifiable homicide, but charges were filed anyway, and the veteran detective said in a sworn affidavit that Garza’s office committed witness tampering by preventing the grand jury from seeing exculpatory evidence.

[jlassenlawtx]

Business Name: The Law Firm of Joseph Lassen

Street Address 1: 18911 Hardy Oak Blvd

Street Address 2: Suite 239

City: San Antonio

State: Texas

Zip Code: 78258

Country: United States

Business Phone: [phone]

Business Email: [email protected]

Website: https://www.jlassenlaw.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jlassenlaw

Twitter: https://twitter.com/lawlassen

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-law-firm-of-joseph-lassen/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lassenlaw/

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/josephlassenlaw/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8gPVYygidP6ZZ9tMKHMN6Q

Tumblr: https://lawlassen.tumblr.com/

Business Description: Trusting a sensitive situation like a legal matter to a stranger can be difficult. However, at our firm, we work to put your mind at ease when approaching any disputes or other issues that you are facing. Our lawyers have a wealth of experience handling a wide variety of straightforward and complex types of cases. We use this experience on a daily basis when helping you and other clients pursue a resolution to their cases. Our firm is here to provide you with the information and guidance you need to feel confident in moving forward with your life. Whatever your needs are, we address them and work to ensure your best interests are protected.

Google My Business CID URL: https://www.google.com/maps?cid=6673119404239637299

Business Hours: Sunday Closed Monday 9:00 AM–5:00 PM Tuesday 9:00 AM–5:00 PM Wednesday 9:00 AM–5:00 PM Thursday 9:00 AM–5:00 PM Friday 9:00 AM–5:00 PM Saturday Closed

Payment Methods: Cash Check Visa Master Discover Amex

Services: Child support litigation, Divorce litigation, Probate legal services, Complex Family Law, Estate Lawyers, Estate Planning Attorney, Estate Planning Faqs, Estate Planning Law, Estate Planning Will, Family Law Cases, Family Law Matters, White Collar Fraud, Child Support, Child Custody

Keywords: divorce attorney near me, divorce lawyer near me, family lawyer, family law attorney, family lawyer near me

Owner Name, Email, and Contact Number: Joseph Lassen, [email protected], 210-625-6540

Location:

Service Areas:

#Youtube

[litigationattorneydallas]

Essential Factors to Evaluate When Selecting a Business Attorney in Dallas

When hiring a business attorney in Dallas, consider their expertise, track record, communication skills, availability, and fees. Prioritize compatibility and trust. Evaluate these factors to make an informed decision and find the right legal representation for your business. Schedule consultations with potential attorneys to discuss your needs and find the best.

#Business Litigation Attorney Texas #Texas Business Attorney #Property Tax Attorney Texas #Civil Attorney Dallas TX #Dallas Business Attorneys

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

The Court said the dispute could continue in state court for now, a move that could chill workers’ decisions to strike for fear that unions would now have to face potentially costly litigation in state court for misconduct during federally protected strikes.

The union argued that the case should be handled by an independent federal agency that investigates allegations of wrongdoing, and that the union should not have to face costly state litigation.

The case had been closely watched by supporters of unions who have witnessed the conservative majority in recent years chip away their power.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority that included two of the court’s liberal members, said that the Washington state Supreme Court had been too dismissive of arguments made by the business that it should be able to move forward in state court with a claim of intentional destruction of property.

She pointed particularly to the fact striking workers “abandoned fully loaded trucks” of cement “without telling anyone,” a move that could have destroyed the trucks had they not been unloaded in time by non-striking workers at the company, Glacier Northwest.

Barrett said that the “union’s actions not only resulted in the destruction of all the concrete Glacier had prepared that day; they also posed a risk of foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent harm to Glacier’s trucks.”

Because “the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property,” rather than “reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk,” the conduct at issue is arguably “not protected by the” National Labor Relations Act, Barrett wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s opinion.

Noel Francisco, an attorney for the cement company, said he was “pleased” with the court’s ruling. “Our client is entitled to just compensation for its property that the union intentionally destroyed.”

The ruling is a loss for the unions, but the majority maintained a test for future cases that the unions had argued should remain in place.

“Given the implications of the ruling, and the uncertainty it will create for when striking workers can and can’t be sued for damage to their employers (as Justice Jackson stressed in her dissent), it may seem odd that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Barrett’s majority opinion,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“But compared to completely revisiting the court’s 1959 decision holding that state law generally doesn’t apply in these circumstances, the fact that Justice Barrett’s analysis rests on the narrow facts of this case – including the workers’ intentional misconduct and lack of effort to mitigate the damage – likely was enough to attract two of the three Democratic appointees, and too narrow for some of her fellow conservatives,” he said.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority’s bottom line but would have gone further in their reasoning.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion joined by no other Justice, in which she suggested that the majority’s opinion “risks erosion of the right to strike.”

She said that the majority opinion would likely cause “considerable confusion” in the lower courts about what Supreme Court precedent requires, and she charged that her colleagues had failed “in multiple respects to heed Congress’ intent” that the National Labor Relations Board take a primary role in adjudicating labor disputes.

“In my view, doing that places a significant burden on the employees exercise of their statutory right to strike, unjustifiably undermining Congress’s intent,” Jackson wrote. She noted that “workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master.”

LABOR DISPUTES AT THE COURT

Conservatives on the Court have diluted the strength of unions in recent years. In 2018, for instance, the Court held that public-sector unions aren’t automatically entitled to dues from non-union members.

Back in 2017, Glacier Northwest, a company that sells and delivers ready-mix concrete, was negotiating with Teamsters Local 174 when the company’s truck drivers went on strike. The workers left behind concrete in trucks, causing non-striking workers and managers to work quickly to remove the concrete so as not to damage the trucks. The trucks were saved, but the concrete went to waste and the company moved to sue in state court for damages that resulted from the strike.

A lower court dismissed the claims, holding that they were preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act, a law passed in 1935 that established the legal right for workers to join labor unions and enter into collective bargaining. Under the law, labor disputes are resolved by an independent agency called the National Labor Relations Board set up to enforce US labor law.

In the dispute at hand, Glacier argued that the workers’ activity amounted to intentional destruction of property and did not fall under the scope of the NLRA because it doesn’t cover workers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to prevent the destruction of an employer’s property. They said state courts are proper vehicles to decide tort claims.

The unions, on the other hand, said the workers had acted responsibly as evidenced by the fact that no truck was damaged.

The Biden administration supported neither party in the dispute, arguing that the lower court had erred, and the case should be remanded to the state court for further fact-finding.

#us politics #news #cnn politics #us supreme court #2023 #scotus #justice amy coney barrett #justice ketanji brown jackson #unions #labor unions #workers union #worker's rights #destruction of property #federal labor law #striking workers #federally protected strikes #Glacier Northwest #National Labor Relations Act #Noel Francisco #Steve Vladeck #right to strike #Teamsters Local 174 #National Labor Relations Board #biden administration #president joe biden

[perkins45s]

Finding the Right Accident Lawyer in Corpus Christi

Accidents can disrupt lives in an instant, leaving victims grappling with physical injuries, emotional trauma, and financial burdens. When faced with the aftermath of an accident in Corpus Christi, Texas, finding the right legal representation is crucial. An experienced accident lawyer can guide you through the complexities of the legal system, ensuring your rights are protected and you receive the compensation you deserve. In this guide, we'll explore the importance of hiring an accident lawyer in Corpus Christi and provide tips on how to find the best legal representation for your case.

Understanding the Role of an Accident Lawyer:

Accident lawyers, also known as personal injury attorneys, specialize in representing individuals who have been injured due to the negligence or wrongdoing of others. Their primary goal is to help clients recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages resulting from the accident.

In Corpus Christi, accident lawyers handle a wide range of cases, including:

Car Accidents: With the bustling highways and busy streets of Corpus Christi, car accidents are unfortunately common. A skilled accident lawyer can help you navigate the complexities of Texas's fault-based insurance system and pursue compensation from the at-fault party's insurance company.

Truck Accidents: Due to its proximity to major shipping routes and ports, Corpus Christi sees its fair share of truck accidents. These collisions often result in catastrophic injuries and significant property damage. An experienced accident lawyer will understand the unique challenges associated with truck accident cases, such as determining liability and dealing with commercial insurance policies.

Slip and Fall Accidents: Property owners have a legal obligation to maintain safe premises for visitors. When hazardous conditions such as wet floors, uneven surfaces, or inadequate lighting lead to slip and fall accidents, victims may be entitled to compensation. An accident lawyer can assess the circumstances of your case and hold negligent property owners accountable for their actions.

Workplace Accidents: From construction sites to oil refineries, Corpus Christi's economy relies heavily on industrial activities. Unfortunately, workplace accidents are not uncommon in these high-risk environments. An accident lawyer with experience in handling workplace injury claims can help you pursue compensation through workers' compensation benefits or third-party liability claims.

The Benefits of Hiring an Accident Lawyer: Navigating the legal process can be daunting, especially when you're recovering from injuries and dealing with the aftermath of an accident. Here are some key benefits of hiring an accident lawyer in Corpus Christi:

Legal Expertise: Accident lawyers have a deep understanding of personal injury law and know how to apply it to your case. They can assess the strength of your claim, identify liable parties, and develop a strategic legal strategy to maximize your compensation.

Negotiation Skills: Insurance companies are notorious for offering lowball settlements to accident victims in an attempt to minimize their financial liability. An experienced accident lawyer knows how to negotiate with insurance adjusters and fight for a fair settlement that reflects the true value of your damages.

Courtroom Experience: While many personal injury claims are resolved through settlement negotiations, some cases may require litigation. If your case goes to trial, you'll want an accident lawyer who is comfortable presenting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and arguing on your behalf in court.

Peace of Mind: Dealing with the aftermath of an accident can be overwhelming, especially when you're trying to focus on your recovery. By hiring an accident lawyer, you can rest assured knowing that a skilled legal professional is handling all aspects of your case, allowing you to focus on getting back on your feet.

Finding the Right Accident Lawyer in Corpus Christi: When searching for an accident lawyer in Corpus Christi, it's important to do your due diligence and find a reputable attorney who has the experience and resources to handle your case effectively. Here are some tips to help you find the right legal representation:

Research Online: Start by researching accident lawyers in Corpus Christi online. Visit their websites, read client testimonials, and review their case results to get a sense of their track record and reputation.

Ask for Referrals: Reach out to friends, family members, and colleagues who may have experience working with accident lawyers in the area. Personal recommendations can be invaluable in finding a trustworthy attorney.

Schedule Consultations: Once you've narrowed down your list of potential candidates, schedule consultations with each lawyer to discuss your case. Use this opportunity to ask questions about their experience, fee structure, and approach to handling personal injury claims.

Evaluate Communication: Pay attention to how the lawyer communicates with you during the consultation. Are they attentive to your concerns? Do they explain legal concepts in a way that you can understand? Effective communication is essential for a successful attorney-client relationship.

Consider Experience: Look for an accident lawyer who has experience handling cases similar to yours. Whether you were injured in a car accident, a slip and fall incident, or a workplace injury, you'll want an attorney who understands the nuances of your specific type of case.

Conclusion: Hiring the right accident lawyer can make all the difference in the outcome of your personal injury claim. By choosing a skilled and experienced attorney who is committed to advocating for your rights, you can increase your chances of obtaining the compensation you deserve for your injuries and losses. If you've been injured in an accident in Corpus Christi, don't hesitate to seek legal representation and protect your legal rights.

[mylawyerintexas]

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION ATTORNEY IN TEXAS

Our legal team specializes in resolving complex business disputes with precision and expertise and we also handle contract disputes, business torts, partnership conflicts, and more. Our experienced attorneys work to protect your business interests and achieve the best outcomes. Whether it's mediation, arbitration, or court proceedings, we're here to fight for your rights.

Contact Us: 📞 [phone] 📧 [email protected] 📍 14850 Quorum Drive, Suite 210, Dallas, TX 75254 🌐 https://www.mystartuplawyer.com/litigation/

CommercialLitigation #TexasAttorney #BusinessLaw #mystartuplawyer #Texas #dallas

[dankusner]

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL

texas attorney general opinion or2018-19705

Jurors have variety of backgrounds, news habits

18 chosen say former president’s history will not influence decisions

A full jury of 12 jurors and six alternates has been seated in the historic hush money trial of former president Donald Trump after four days of jury selection in the Manhattan-based court case.

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records, part of what prosecutors have described as a scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign to cover up an alleged affair with adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump has pleaded not guilty.

Here is what is known about the jurors, according to The Washington Post ’s reporting and pool reports:

Juror 1 This juror gets his news from The New York Times , the Daily Mail , as well as “some” Fox News and MSNBC. “I’ve heard some of them,” the juror, who works in sales, said about Trump’s other cases.

Juror 2 This juror said he follows former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on social media platform X. Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and confidant, arranged the hush money payment to Daniels in 2016 and is expected to be a key witness in the case. He said he also follows former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway on X, as well as other figures on the right and left. The juror, an investment banker, said he did so because of his work in finance. “Anything that might move the markets, I might need to know about,” he said. During questioning by Trump’s defense team, he said Trump had done some good for the country. “It’s ambivalent. It goes both ways,” he said.

Juror 3 This juror said he doesn’t need to be a mind reader to determine intent. “I am actually not super familiar with the other charges. I don’t really follow the news that closely — a little embarrassing to say,” he said. He works as a corporate lawyer. He reads The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. In middle school, he enjoyed watching The Apprentice .

Juror 4 Asked by the prosecution if he had any concerns about returning a guilty verdict, this juror said, “No.” He is not on social media and gets his news from a range of news outlets, he said. He is an engineer. He served on a criminal jury in California a long time ago but said he couldn’t recall if there was a verdict.

Juror 5 This juror said that, as a “woman of color,” she has friends with strong opinions about Trump but that she tries to avoid politics and is not very interested in the news. While most of the jurors in the box indicated they were aware Trump faced other criminal cases, this woman signaled she did not. She said she likes Trump’s candid style. “President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “I’d rather have that than someone in office that we don’t know what he’s doing behind the scenes.” This juror works in education. She gets her information from Google and TikTok, and she listens to The Breakfast Club , a radio show in New York City.

Juror 6 During questioning, this juror said she could treat Trump like any other person on trial. “I would say that I think that Trump and I probably have different beliefs,” she said, “but I don’t think that that invalidates anything about who he is as a person.” This juror works as a software engineer, and she gets her news from The New York Times and TikTok.

Juror 7 This juror said he has “political views as to the Trump presidency” and thinks there were probably Trump administration policies he disagreed with. “I don’t know the man, and I don’t have opinions about him personally,” he added. The juror also said he does not have any opinions about Trump’s character. “I certainly follow the news. I’m aware there are other lawsuits out there,” he said. “But I’m not sure that I know anyone’s character.” This juror works as a civil litigator. He gets his news from The New York Times , Wall Street Journal , New York Post and The Washington Post . He also listens to NPR’s Car Talk , WNYC public radio and the SmartLess podcast.

Juror 8 This juror paused before answering “yes” when asked if he had feelings about Trump that could prevent him from being impartial. Justice Juan Merchan stopped him, asked him to be clear, then repeated the question. “No,” the juror responded. He said he gets his news from The New York Times , Wall Street Journal , CNBC and the BBC. He is retired from a wealth management firm. He said he once served on a jury but the case settled before trial began.

Juror 9 This juror said she had opinions about Trump but insisted she could be impartial. “I fully believe that I can follow the judge’s instructions,” she said. She added that she appreciated an analogy offered by prosecutors during questioning because, she said, “I’m not very well-versed in the legal world.” She said she gets morning newsletters from The New York Times and CNN and listens to podcasts about reality television. “I don’t watch any news or follow it too closely,” she said. She said she works as a speech therapist.

Juror 10 This juror said he prefers podcasts about behavioral psychology to following the news. When it comes to his media consumption, he said, “If anything, it’s The New York Times .” He works in e-commerce.

Juror 11 During questions from the defense team, this juror was blunt about how she views Trump. “I don’t have strong opinions, but I don’t like his persona, how he presents himself in public,” she said. “I don’t like some of my co-workers, but I don’t try to sabotage their work,” she continued, drawing laughs in the courtroom. Merchan asked her to repeat herself for the record, which she did. “He seems very selfish and self-serving,” she continued. “I don’t really appreciate that from any public servant.” The way he portrays himself publicly, she said, “it’s not my cup of tea.” Trump defense lawyer Susan Necheles said, “It sounds a bit like what you’re saying is you don’t like him.” “Yes,” the juror responded. The juror works in product development. She follows fashion publications and watches late-night television but doesn’t follow the news closely, she said.

Juror 12 This juror said she reads The New York Times and USA Today, and watches CNN. She also listens to sports and faith-based podcasts. She works as a physical therapist.

Alternate 1 This juror, the first alternate to be seated, gets her news from the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times . She works in finance.

Alternate 2 Necheles, Trump’s defense lawyer, asked this alternate juror about witnesses changing their stories. “I will base my verdict on the proofs presented,” the juror said. “I won’t take into consideration whatever happened in the past.” She added that she “will be objective and neutral for this case or any case the justice system needs me to do.” The juror is not currently employed. She said she doesn’t watch the news, only skims through headlines, and isn’t on social media.

Alternate 3 This alternate juror told the court he doesn’t have a strong opinion of Trump. “My opinion is Donald Trump is a man, just like I am,” he said. He said he agreed with the legal burden of proof of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “If there is evidence found against a man,” he said, “there should be consequences.” He said he thought that Trump had been treated fairly in the case. He said he reads The New York Times and The Washington Post , and works in IT.

Alternate 4 Like several others on the jury, this alternate juror said she doesn’t have strong opinions about Trump. She told the court she was “not a big news person” but reads The New York Times , Reuters, the BBC and social media. She works in the financial sector.

Alternate 5 This alternate juror said she gets news from The New York Times and Google. She works in fashion.

Alternate 6 This alternate juror said she follows local news and listens to true crime podcasts. She works in construction.

Juror details:

Media play into Trump’s hands

A number of media outlets covering Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial are playing right into the former president’s manipulative little hands, effectively assisting him with juror intimidation.

In real-time, specific details about prospective jurors are being blasted out on social media and on news networks – neighborhood names, marital status, job titles, things they like to do in their free time.

The result, as of Thursday morning, is one seated juror saying she couldn’t proceed out of fear her identity had been compromised.

Journalists have no business reporting jurors’ personal details

On Tuesday, Fox News lunkhead Jesse Watters was spitting out details on jurors who had been seated.

Speaking of juror No. 2, he said she gets her news from CNN and the New York Times and added: 'This nurse scares me if I’m Trump. Goodbye.'

That same juror told the court Thursday morning: 'Aspects of my identity have already been out there in public.

Yesterday alone, I had friends and family push things to me.

I don’t think at this point that I can be fair and unbiased.'

She was excused.

The judge scolded the press in attendance, and he was right to do so, as it’s not just Fox News working overtime to identify members of what is supposed to be an anonymous jury.

What’s the news value in small details about prospective jurors?

Politico published specific information about a prospective juror, including her neighborhood, job, hobby and the role she plays in a community organization.

On its website, ABC News had a story titled: 'Who are the first 7 jurors of Trump’s historic criminal trial.'

NBC News had an online story under the headline: 'A lawyer, a teacher and a software engineer: Meet the first jury members of Trump’s hush money trial.'

The public doesn’t pick the jurors, so there’s no public need to know

This level of reporting on what we journalists like to call 'civilians' is outrageous given the circumstances surrounding this trial.

There’s no inherent news value in knowing the hobbies or marital status of someone who might serve on the jury.

Each juror is vetted and decided on by defense attorneys and prosecutors – the public has no voice here.

It’s up to Trump’s lawyers and the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecutors to make sure the best people are chosen to consider the case and render a verdict.

Sharing minute personal details of people who are being asked nothing more than to perform their civic duty is low-brow, at best.

And attempting to ferret out the true identity of these people in hopes of spotting something to write or talk about is both dangerous and counterproductive to the administration of justice.

Threats and Donald Trump go hand-in-hand

Anyone paying attention knows threats and intimidation go hand-in-hand with Trump and his MAGA movement, and few know that better than journalists, who were long ago labeled 'the enemy of the people' by Trump himself.

So I’ll ask my fellow journalists out there:

What the hell do you think is going to happen to these people if you make it easy for others to identify them?

They will be targeted.

They will be threatened.

And what’s the news value in any of that?

The news here is that a former president and the all-but-certain GOP presidential nominee is on trial and he and his followers are so prone to dirty tricks and violent rhetoric that the jury requires anonymity.

Media outlets can’t become Trump’s unwitting accomplices

This feels like a trial for a mob boss, not a politician.

And the last thing the trial needs is thirsty-for-clicks media outlets tripping over each other to see who can be first to report on a potential juror’s favorite diner.

The people called for jury duty in this case are under enormous pressure, given the nature of the defendant.

They should be treated with respect and given the anonymity they need to honestly and effectively do their jobs.

Trump and his assorted minions will do all they can to jam up the mechanics of these proceedings.

We know this.

So we certainly don’t need minor-scoop-hungry journalists abandoning basic news judgment and putting good people in danger while acting as the defendant’s unwitting accomplices.

Who’s Afraid of Judging Donald Trump?

Lots of People

On Monday afternoon, ninety-six New Yorkers were ushered through metal detectors and into a courtroom on the fifteenth floor of the criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan.

They had been selected as prospective jurors in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump—the first-ever criminal trial of an American President.

As court officers led them into the gallery, several craned their necks to get a look at the defendant.

There he was: his face exactly as orange and mottled as it looks on TV, a long red tie draped over his paunch.

He stared right back at them, and leaned over to whisper something in the ear of one of his attorneys.

One prospective juror broke out in giggles, and put a hand over her mouth.

A clerk had everyone stand and swear to tell the truth during the jury-selection process.

“A fair juror is a person who will keep the promise to be fair and impartial,” Judge Juan Merchan said. “Please raise your hand if you believe you cannot be fair and impartial.”

More than half the hands in the room went up.

Merchan excused these unfair and partial people one by one.

“I just couldn’t do it,” one dismissed potential juror was heard saying out in the hall.

Who could?

It takes a special kind of person to be completely impartial when it comes to Donald Trump.

The judge and the lawyers on both sides of the case needed to find twelve such people for the jury, and also half a dozen more who could serve as alternates.

The thirty or so candidates who’d remained in the courtroom were asked to read through a long questionnaire—forty-two questions, along with numerous sub-questions.

The first prospective juror was a young woman who said she lived in midtown and worked in business development.

She felt that she could be fair and impartial, but she also had vacation plans that coincided with the trial.

She was excused.

The second prospective juror was a middle-aged white man with thick-framed glasses, who said he was a creative director at a clothing company.

“I’m here to judge the facts that are presented and not the individual,” he told the court.

He said he had never read any of Trump’s books and did not consider himself a supporter of the QAnon movement, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the Boogaloo Boys, or Antifa.

In his spare time, he said, he enjoyed hiking and cooking, and playing with his dog.

Was there any reason at all that he could not be a fair and impartial juror?

No, he said.

And yet the dog-loving creative director was too good to be true.

Trump’s team discovered a spicy Facebook post that he made in 2017.

“Good news!! Trump lost his court battle on his unlawful travel ban!!!” he wrote. “Get him out and lock him up.”

Under questioning from Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche, the man acknowledged that the Facebook account was indeed

his. “I had strong feelings at the time,” he told the judge. “Today, like I said, I could be unbiased and open about what we are talking about today. But, you know, that was a place and time.”

Merchan wasn’t having it; he granted the defense’s request to have the potential juror axed.

“If I cannot credit a juror’s responses, then we cannot have him on the jury,” Merchan said. “This is a person who has expressed, at least at one time—it was several years ago—the desire that Donald Trump be locked up,” Merchan said. “Everyone knows that, if Mr. Trump is found guilty in this case, he faces a potential jail sentence, which would be lockup.”

By Thursday morning, only seven jurors had made it through the questionnaire, in addition to several rounds of follow-up questions from the prosecutors and Trump’s attorneys, and had been sworn in as members of the official jury.

They tended to be the people who had given the most inscrutable answers.

The foreman is an immigrant, a native of Ireland who now lives in upper Manhattan, and who said he gets his news from the Times, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Another juror, a young Black woman, seemed well aware of Trump’s baggage.

“Obviously, I’m a person of color, so I’m around people who did have an opinion during the election,” she said.

Yet she expressed a certain admiration for the defendant.

“President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “I would rather that in a person than someone who’s in office and you don’t know what they’re doing behind the scenes.”

What was Trump doing during all this?

Brooding, mostly.

At several points, reporters noticed that he seemed to have dozed off, his eyes closed and his eyebrows slack, his chin occasionally drifting down toward his chest.

At other times, he spoke animatedly with Blanche, slapping his lawyer’s arm with the back of his hand.

Coming in and out of the courtroom during recesses, he sometimes stopped to talk with the reporters waiting in the courtroom hallway.

“Every legal pundit, every legal scholar, said this trial is a disgrace,” he said, on Tuesday morning, lying. “This is a trial that should never happen. It should have been thrown out a long time ago.”

At the defense table, he often slumped, perking up only when a potential juror said something he particularly approved or disapproved of.

He smiled and nodded, enthused, when the director of sales and revenue at a software company claimed to have read several of his old books, including “The Art of the Deal” and “How to Get Rich.”

When Blanche questioned a prospective juror who had filmed videos of Upper West Siders celebrating the 2020 election results, Trump muttered something under his breath and gestured aggressively.

“I won’t tolerate that,” Merchan snapped. “I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom.”

And yet many of the would-be jurors have been intimidated, if not by Trump, then by the prospect of serving on a jury in such a high-profile case.

The stakes felt higher than ever on Friday afternoon, when, just before the court broke for lunch, a man doused himself in accelerant and set himself on fire, in a small park across from the courthouse.

(The man, who is reportedly in critical condition, threw pamphlets into the air before lighting the fire; the N.Y.P.D. has described the flyers as conspiracy-oriented.)

Even before this, the judge announced that one of the seven people who’d made it onto the official jury had called in to say that she was having second thoughts.

She’d heard from friends, family, and colleagues who told her that she was being talked about, online and on TV.

On Tuesday night, Fox News’s Jesse Watters did a segment on his prime-time show where he went through the chosen jurors one by one, and put graphics listing their occupations, racial backgrounds, and reading habits.

Everything but their names.

“The fate of a billionaire real-estate tycoon, TV celebrity turned forty-fifth President of the United States, is in the hands of New York City lawyers, teachers, and Disney workers who like to dance and get their news from the Times,” Watters said, smirking.

Merchan understood the juror’s concerns and allowed her to withdraw from the jury.

Anonymous juries are anonymous for good reason, he said: “It kind of defeats the purpose of that when so much information is put out there that it is very, very easy for anyone to identify who the jurors are.”

He admonished the reporters in the courthouse and said he was “directing” them to refrain from identifying potential jurors’ employers, or describing “anything that you observe with your eyes and hear with your ears related to the jurors,” such as their accents.

First Amendment lawyers told the New York Law Journal that Merchan’s prohibitions were “dubious” at best.

A judge can’t really keep journalists from reporting on what is said in an open court.

But, online, many journalists seemed to side with Merchan, and spoke up out of concern for the safety of the jury pool.

“What of editorial standards? we don’t report everything all the time,” one former BuzzFeed reporter wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter).

Having reporters choose what to censor in real time seems like a bad approach to a case that tests the very limits of judicial power and America’s constitutional order.

Merchan’s suggestion was that the reporters in the courtroom simply use “common sense.”

In the lead-up to the trial, many law professors and former prosecutors were of the opinion that an acquittal was a long shot for Trump.

“The allegations are, in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 Presidential election,” Merchan told the prospective jurors, on Monday. “Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump made or caused false business records to hide the true nature of payments made to Michael Cohen by characterizing them as payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement.”

The payment at the center of the case went to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film star who was prepared to go public with her past affair with Trump.

Trump has pleaded not guilty, but many legal observers believe a hung jury is the best outcome he can hope for.

He needs just one obstinate fan to make it into the final jury box.

On Tuesday afternoon, it seemed like he had almost found his guy, a young, fit man who looked to be in his thirties, with slicked-back hair.

But, before he even got to the questionnaire, the man requested to be excused.

“Your Honor, as much as I would love to serve for New York and one of our great Presidents, I could not give up my job for six-plus weeks, which means I would be working eighty-plus hours a week,” he said.

The judge excused him.

President Trump’s fate is in the hands of 12 regular people. Who are they, and how will each of them impact the case? Dr. Phil uses 15 years of trial science expertise to break down how this trial won’t be tried in the courtroom, but in the jury room.

#Youtube