Quebec-based Resolute Forest Products recently filed a racketeering lawsuit against Greenpeace for its campaign criticizing the company's forestry practices. Included in the case were Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and the advocacy group STAND. Seeking compensatory and other damages, the complaint also included trademark, defamation, and tortious interference related to its campaign entitled “Resolute : Forest destroyer.” The world's largest producer of newsprint, Resolute was accused of destroying endangered forests and destroying caribou habitat. The racketeering lawsuit followed a libel case that Resolute filed against Greenpeace in 2013. The lawsuit alleges that Greenpeace maliciously accused and defamed Resolute of destroying endangered forests. The issue began in 2012 when Greenpeace first started spreading malicious information that Resolute violated the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement with illegal logging activities in “suspended harvest areas.” Greenpeace was forced to issue a “Notice of Correction” for spreading false accusations. However, Greenpeace continued spreading misinformation. Despite the statement of the President of Canada's Forest Stewardship Council that the boreal forests are in healthy condition, Greenpeace still claimed that Resolute was illegally logging endangered forests and destroying caribou habitats. Because of Greenpeace's allegations, an Ontario paper mill and a couple of Quebec paper production machines were closed down resulting to the loss of 300 jobs. In response to the attacks launched at them by Greenpeace, Resolute CEO Richard Garneau filed a $7 million defamation lawsuit against them. Greenpeace called the lawsuit as “bullying” and tried to appeal their case but was turned down several times. On the other hand, Resolute Vice President Seth Kursman said that it is their company, way of life, and livelihood that is under attack. In order to turn things around, Resolute launched in the middle of 2015 a series of campaigns which included advertising in national and regional publications as well as direct mail and digital advertising and social media campaigns. It also launched the Boreal Forest Facts to inform the public about the state of Canada's boreal forests to rebut Greenpeace's allegations. In a statement, Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer said that they will fully defend themselves from the case. The company refused to make a comment as they still have not received the copy of the lawsuit from Resolute.
At around 11:15 p.m. of September 10, 2015, 18-year old Christal McGee's car crashed into a Mitsubishi which was being driven by Wentworth Maynard. Due to the force of impact created by McGee's car, Maynard suffered extensive brain damage which left him in intensive care for five weeks and requires he use either a walker or a wheelchair in order to get anywhere. On the night of the accident, McGee's driving speed was 107 mph; she was in a 55 mph zone. Her reason for driving too fast was she wanted to capture the Snapchat filter image at 100 mph so she can post it on Snapchat. While the accident is another case of distracted teenage driving, the defendants named in Maynard's lawsuit were McGee, the driver, and Snapchat which, according to Maynard's lawyer, was encouraging teenage drivers to drive at very fast speeds for social status. Obviously, Snapchat has overtaken cell phone use when it comes to the leading cause of distracted driving, making it the main concern of personal injury lawyers all across the U.S. The issue, specifically, is Snapchat's speed filter feature which is able to track how fast a person is traveling while he or she takes a selfie. The photos taken, however, can only be viewed for a few seconds and the pictures disappear right after. This requires the person to whom the photos were sent to pay attention to the images, making him or her turn her concentration from whatever other thing he or she is doing, which may just happen to be driving. Snapchat, which was launched in 2011, is an image messaging mobile app that allows users to take videos and pictures that self-destruct after a few seconds. A user sending a message can decide how long an image will remain visible, between 1 and 10 seconds, making the receiver put all his or her attention into such image before he or she loses it permanently. According to one personal injury lawyer, any person injured by a driver who is distracted by Snapchat while behind the wheel may not just have the distracted driver to blame, but Snapchat as well. Snapchat, meanwhile, seems poised and ready to defend itself in any lawsuit where it is, accused of causing car accident deaths.
Sara Lowry has filed a civil rights action with the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the City of San Diego for its promulgation of a “bite and hold” dog apprehension policy. Ms. Lowry claims that, due to this policy, her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The following is the details of the events that caused the lawsuit: After Ms. Lowry spent some hours drinking vodka with her friends, she decided to go back to her office where she eventually fell asleep on a couch. Ms. Lowry awoke a little later, used the bathroom and then went back to sleep (on the same couch). Unconsciously, however, she had set off a burglar alarm. Responding to the alarm were three officers who took with them a service dog called Bak. As the police arrived at the building, they called out (about three times) to whoever was inside the office, the door of which was ajar, and warned that they will send a police dog inside unless the person comes out. The officers had no idea whatsoever who was inside the office and if the person was armed. No response came from the sleeping Ms. Lowry who the dog saw and bit on the lip. Bak let go of Ms. Lowry only after one of the officers pulled (Bak) off. After ascertaining that Ms. Lowry was not a burglar and that it was, in fact, her office, the officers took her to a hospital where she was given medical treatment for her bleeding wound. During the pre-trial, it was found out that police dogs are trained to “bite and hold” the first person they encounter at a scene; they are not trained, however, how to identify the good guys from the bad ones. While this system of training police dogs may be a bad one, the district court, which heard the case, said that it made no violation in Ms. Lowry's Constitutional rights; the case was dismissed, therefore. Though the plaintiff, Ms. Lowry, may not have received a decision that is in her favor, it does not mean that the State or the Police department is outrightly exempt if a police canine attacks someone who may be innocent and/or with unnecessary excessive force.
No one will be indicted for the death of Sandra Bland, a grand jury in Texas decided. The 28-year-old black woman was arrested on the 10th of July 2015 and was found dead in her cell only three days later. She was pulled over for making an improper lane change and was promptly arrested and charged with the assault of a public servant after an altercation occurred when she had refused to get out of her car. Official reports have claimed that her death was a suicide by hanging. Bland’s relatives and supporters have questioned these findings as the footage found on the dashboard camera, as well as the CCTV footage available, has appeared to have missing parts. They also claim that Bland had not shown suicidal tendencies in the days prior to her arrest. Her supporters have suspected foul play as Attorney Larry Rogers also claimed that the incident “screams of a cover-up”. All the while, Bland’s mother and sisters have expressed their distrust of the grand jury, though they filed a lawsuit and claimed the situation warranted a claim of wrongful death. Prosecutor Darrell Jordan, however, has said that the grand jury has not made a decision on whether or not the Texas police officer who had arrested Bland, 30-year-old Brian Encinia, should be charged for his arrest of Bland.
The state of Nevada passed earlier this year a school voucher program that radically diverts from other similar programs launched by other states across the United States. As the Las Vegas Sun reported last August 27, Nevada lawmakers have allowed any family whose child is currently attending the public school system to benefit from a stipend of around $5,000 for concerns such as tutoring, distance education, and even private school tuition. In other states, such programs are only available for lower income families or those with children that have special needs. As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada to put an end to what they call an “unconstitutional program”. According to the Las Vegas Sun, the ACLU sees the voucher program as “[tearing] down the walls separating church and state erected in Nevada’s constitution”. This assertion comes from the fact that the program will be relying on public funds. ACLU executive director Tod Story says that majority of these funds will be used to fund tuition or services schools and other institutions that are “explicitly religious in nature”. The constitution of Nevada states that “no public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.” The ACLU asserts through their lawsuit that this is a mandate being ignored by the school voucher program. Amidst the criticism, over 2,500 parents have already applied to the program after only a few weeks since the enrollment in schools first opened.