Summary: Jane Doe 3 has filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and misconduct by Michael Howell, an athletic trainer at Butler University, against her and other members of the women's soccer team. The plaintiff asserts that Howell exploited his position of authority to manipulate, isolate, groom, and sexually assault multiple young women in various locations, including the university's training room, offices, buses, and his private hotel rooms during away games. The lawsuit also implicates Ralph Reiff, Howell's direct supervisor and Butler's Senior Associate Athletic Director for Student-Athlete Health, Performance and Well-Being, for negligence. The plaintiff alleges that Reiff neglected to investigate the circumstances, train the coaches, implement safety policies, or protect the female athletes from Howell's abuse. The plaintiff further alleges that Howell sexually assaulted her during a massage session for her lower back pain on September 11, 2021. She also claims that Howell had been secretly photographing and recording female student-athletes on his university-issued phone. The lawsuit accuses Butler University of alerting Howell to the investigation before contacting law enforcement or seizing his work-issued phone, thereby potentially enabling him to destroy or transfer inappropriate photographs and videos of the athletes. The university is also accused of ignoring warnings from the NCAA about the need for policies to prevent staff-on-athlete sexual abuse and of having no written policies or procedures regarding proper athletic trainer conduct, setting boundaries with athletes, or working with athletes of the opposite sex. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages, compel Butler University to implement safety protocols, assess whether former student-athletes were also abused by Howell, prevent Howell from maintaining licensure, and hold the defendants accountable for their alleged negligence. The case is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. The venue is deemed appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as all defendants reside in the judicial district where the lawsuit is filed.
United States of America v. Robert Hunter Biden
Summary: Hunter Biden is currently embroiled in a lawsuit, accused of purchasing a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018 while allegedly using illegal substances. Despite denying drug use on the necessary paperwork, if found guilty, he could face a maximum of 25 years in prison along with substantial fines. Biden's defense team contends that the charges are politically driven, asserting that Biden's temporary possession of an unloaded firearm did not constitute a public safety risk. They intend to contest the charges, leveraging an agreement with the prosecution, recent federal court decisions, and potential Second Amendment defenses. This case could potentially ignite wider discussions about Second Amendment rights, especially as the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on a related issue concerning gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Opinions are divided among political and legislative figures, with some speculating that advocates of the Second Amendment might oppose the law that prohibits gun ownership for drug users.
Robert Hunter Biden v. United States Internal Revenue Service
Improved Summary: Hunter Biden has filed a lawsuit against IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and an unidentified associate, along with their legal counsel, alleging they infringed upon his privacy rights by revealing his confidential tax information in media interviews. Biden is demanding $1,000 for each unauthorized disclosure, an unspecified amount in punitive damages, and a court directive for the IRS to implement a data security protocol in line with the Privacy Act. Critics, however, view the lawsuit as a strategic move by Biden's legal team to divert attention from his own legal challenges and discourage potential whistleblowers. The defendants' attorneys have pledged to resist any attempts at silencing by Biden's legal team. This lawsuit is part of a wider legal approach by Biden, who is concurrently addressing recent firearm charges and another lawsuit involving a former official from the Trump administration.
Edelson Pc V. David Lira Et Al
Summary: Erika Jayne, a cast member of "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," is currently facing a lawsuit filed by her former costume designer, Christopher Psaila. Psaila alleges that Jayne, in collaboration with American Express and the Secret Service, conspired to falsely accuse him of credit card fraud. According to Psaila, Jayne deliberately initiated fraudulent refund requests and bribed a Secret Service agent, through her husband, to press baseless felony charges against him. However, the case against Psaila was dismissed in 2021. Jayne's attorney has vehemently denied these allegations, describing them as "calculated." The lawsuit seeks $18.2 million in damages. This legal action comes on the heels of Jayne's involvement in another case where her husband was accused of embezzling $2 million from the families of victims in the 2018 Lion Air crash. Jayne filed for divorce in November 2020, and her husband's assets have been frozen as part of a separate legal proceeding.
Zornberg V. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. Et Al
Summary: A class action lawsuit has been initiated by the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors who acquired securities from Napco Security Technologies, Inc. within the period of November 7, 2022, to August 18, 2023. The lawsuit was instigated following Napco's disclosure of inaccurate financial statements from Q3 2022 to Q1 2023, attributed to errors in their cost of goods sold (COGS) and inventory calculations. The suit accuses Napco of disseminating false and misleading statements, exaggerating inventory figures, understating COGS, and overlooking deficiencies in their internal controls. These actions precipitated a substantial decline in Napco's share price, resulting in investor losses. The lawsuit argues that Napco's previous optimistic statements were unfounded and deceptive. Investors are urged to contact Howard G. Smith to explore their legal options.