Latest news with #UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
Miami Herald
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
City rejects permit to build mosque over ‘anti-Muslim animus,' TN lawsuit says
A local Muslim congregation is suing a Tennessee city after officials delayed plans to build a mosque then rejected them completely. The lawsuit — filed July 25 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Bartlett Muslim Society — asks the court to declare the city's actions a violation of federal and state law and to make the city approve their building plans. 'Our congregation needs more space to worship, teach our children, and host community meals and gatherings,' Badrul Hossain, board president of the Bartlett Muslim Society, said in a July 25 news release. 'We have tried very hard to work with the city and have responded to any and all concerns raised, yet we were still denied a permit.' A spokesperson for the City of Bartlett told McClatchy News in a July 30 email they had not been officially served with the complaint and are unable to comment. According to the complaint, city officials have approved plans for Christian churches in similar or 'less favorable' situations, including one church in which 70 people signed a petition in opposition of the build. 'This is a clear case of interference with religious freedom,' Stella Yarbrough, ACLU-TN legal director said in the release. 'The facts don't support the permit denial, but they do reveal something deeper — an attempt to restrict a community's religious practices based on who they are.' Bartlett is about a 10-mile drive northeast from downtown Memphis. The Bartlett Muslim Society — made up of about 20 families — had plans to build a new worship space after outgrowing a commercial retail space it had been renting, according to the complaint. The rental space lacked room to accommodate religious needs, like keeping men and women separate during prayer, performing ablution and observing the Ramadan feast together, according to the complaint. But after purchasing land for a new mosque and submitting a special use permit application in 2023, the congregation was subjected to 'extensive, expensive, and purposeless delay as part of a sham permitting process,' attorneys said. This marked the start of what led to the suit accusing the city of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which protects religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws, according to the Department of Justice. Unlike other applicants for the permit, the Bartlett Muslim Society had to complete a mandatory traffic study, which they paid more than $20,000 for, according to the complaint. Two city planning commission members said in private text messages they thought the traffic study was 'a total waste of time and money,' according to a public records request cited in the complaint. Despite the study's conclusion that the mosque wouldn't have a negative impact on traffic patterns, the commission voted unanimously in December to deny the request, and in February it was formally denied by the city, attorneys said. According to attorneys, the city also denied any attempts to compromise or find an alternate solution, imposing a burden on the group's religious exercise and discriminating against them based on religion. 'The real reason the (Bartlett Muslim Society's) permit was denied was anti-Muslim animus,' attorneys said. In previous years, Muslims have been perceived as facing a 'high degree of discrimination,' according to Pew Research Center. While that changed this year — with the share of Americans who said Muslims face discrimination at the lowest level in eight years — Muslims still remain among the top groups to be perceived as facing at least some discrimination, McClatchy News reported.
New York Post
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Judge Judy recreates controversial American verdicts and challenges viewers in ‘Justice on Trial'
EXCLUSIVE – Judge Judith Sheindlin helps recreate some of the most controversial court cases in American history in her new show, 'Justice on Trial.' The show, which was over 10 years in the making and finally premiered on Prime Video last Monday, revisits eight of the most monumental court cases in American memory — allowing the viewer to decide if justice was truly served with each verdict. The main lawyers featured on the show are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer. Advertisement Episode seven features a re-telling of 'Snyder v. Phelps,' in which a grieving father, Albert Snyder, sued Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress after church members protested his son Matthew's military funeral. The churchgoers, as depicted in the episode, carried signs reading, 'God Hates Your Son,' 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers,' and 'Thank God for 9/11,' to protest the military's tolerance of homosexuality. 7 The show, which was over 10 years in the making and finally premiered on Prime Video last Monday. Michael Becker/Prime 7 The main lawyers featured on the show are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer. Michael Becker/Prime As Snyder noted during the trial, his son was not gay. The protesters were protesting the military at-large. The court showdown highlighted the legal boundaries of protected speech when it conflicts with potential harm to others. Advertisement A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with Snyder and awarded him a total of $10.9 million, which the judge lowered to $5 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit's ruling. The fiery Sheindlin had an opinion on the matter. While she and others may find the protesters' signs 'abhorrent,' she intoned that the Constitution does protect free speech. 7 A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with Snyder and awarded him a total of $10.9 million. Courtesy of Prime 'Totally uncaring for people who are religious people, totally uncaring about the emotional trauma that that kind of demonstration might have on the family,' Sheindlin said of the Westboro protests in an interview with Fox News Digital. 'And yet the Supreme Court said in its decision that they had a right to express their views, even though their views were maybe abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans. I suppose you have to be able to… I wouldn't want to tolerate seeing the American flag burned in protest in America. Just wouldn't. It would offend me. But you have the right to do it. Is there a law that proscribes it? And I'd say probably not.' Advertisement So how do Americans reconcile their anger at a verdict with the Court's constitutional responsibilities? Sheindlin began her answer by referencing the movie 'American President.' 'I mean, we all would like our presidents to be like Michael Douglas, correct?' she said. 'And he said something at the end, but he's making the big speech at the end. He said, 'As an American, America is not easy, and you have to be able to defend somebody burning a flag, the American flag, as a protest, if you're going to insist that freedom of speech and expression exists.' And while we are all offended, it just didn't seem right that for no apparent reason, with no knowledge of who this young man was who was killed, just because they had a cause, they didn't care what the collateral damage was emotionally to the family of this young man.' 7 Judge Judy Sheindlin presiding over a courtroom trial. Courtesy of Prime 7 Judge Judy said there was one case, in particular, that spurred her to want to create 'Justice on Trial' and that may also leave some Americans feeling like justice may have taken a walk. Courtesy of Prime Advertisement Judge Judy said there was one case, in particular, that spurred her to want to create 'Justice on Trial' and that may also leave some Americans feeling like justice may have taken a walk. 'It was a case that happened in New York many, many years ago,' she shared. 'Two young thugs decided to rob an old man on the subway. Believe it or not, I remember the man's name. His name was Jerome Sandusky, and he was a man well in his 70s. And one of them was acting as a lookout. The other one went down the stairs with the pretty deserted platform and was beating up this old man in an attempt to take his watch and cash. And a transit police officer heard the screams of the old man coming from the subway, and he ran down into the subway. Pulled out his revolver and said, 'Stop, police!' And the young thug ran off and was running up the stairs. Police said, 'Stop, police!' He didn't stop, and the police officer shot him. And he shot him in the back as he was fleeing.' Then things got tricky in court and the situation seemed to turn on the victim. 7 Then things got tricky in court and the situation seemed to turn on the victim. Courtesy of Prime 7 'The young man pled guilty to the robbery, was sentenced, but hired a lawyer who sued the transit authority in the city of New York and received a judgment, a jury verdict for $4.3 million,' Sheindlin continued. Michael Becker/Prime 'The young man pled guilty to the robbery, was sentenced, but hired a lawyer who sued the transit authority in the city of New York and received a judgment, a jury verdict for $4.3 million,' Sheindlin continued. 'And then Mr. Sandusky, who took a very long time to recover from his physical wounds, but who would, you know — if you're a crime victim emotionally, you really never get over being a victim of violent crime. And Mr. Sandusky, he said, 'Well, that's sort of outrageous. I was the victim.' And so he hired a lawyer because now this thug had $4.3 million and his lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. So there are many facets to that case. Whether or not, ultimately, justice was served is an issue. And if you ask 10 people, given those set of facts, you will get at least eight different opinions.' Advertisement All eight episodes of 'Justice on Trial' are streaming now on Prime Video. Other cases covered by the series include the famous Scopes Monkey trial, Gideon v. Wainwright and People v. Turriago. In the latter case, troopers stopped Leonardo Turriago for a speeding violation on the New York State Thruway, which led police to discover a decomposing body locked in a steamer trunk. The episode explores the question of whether or not the search of the truck was legal. The series is created and executive produced by Sheindlin. Casey Barber, David Carr and Randy Douthit are also executive producers. Amy Freisleben is a co-executive producer.
RTÉ News
11-07-2025
- RTÉ News
George Gibney due in Florida court to formally consent to extradition
Former Olympic swimming coach George Gibney is due in court in Florida to formally consent to his extradition to Ireland from the United States. The Irish Government has sought his return to face 78 counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted rape against four girls aged between eight and 14 at the time of the alleged offences. George Gibney, with an address in Altamont Springs Orlando, submitted an affidavit of waiver of extradition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In it he agrees to give up his right to challenge the extradition request, and agrees to being held in custody until his removal to Ireland by Irish authorities. Mr Gibney states in the signed affidavit: "I am the individual against whom charges are pending in Ireland and for whom process is outstanding there". He was arrested on 1 July on foot of an extradition request from Ireland that was submitted by a Diplomatic Note to the US Department of State last October. In February, the State Department's legal advisor's office said the documents complied with the terms of a 1983 Extradition Treaty between the EU and the US, and with a 2003 EU-US Extradition Agreement, and sent it to the Department of Justice for processing. An arrest warrant was issued in the Central District of Florida on 23 June at the request of the US Attorney's office. After his arrest, the US Attorney's office submitted a memorandum to Judge Daniel Irick, who is dealing with the Gibney case, which argued strongly against granting bail to Mr Gibney. It also set out the extradition law of the United States, arguing that the court's function is to ensure that the paperwork is correct, not to hear arguments about the charges being brought. Mr Gibney met with his court appointed public defenders, who went through the government memorandum with him. The following day, he notified the court of his intention to not contest his extradition. In the formal affidavit withdrawing his challenge to continued custody and his extradition to Ireland, Mr Gibney states that he has been fully informed of his rights by his attorney, who also explained the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and Ireland, the nature of the complaint filed and the treaty obligation of the US Government to the Government of Ireland. He states "I understand that I am entitled to a hearing at which certain facts would need establishing, including: A) that currently there is an extradition treaty in force between the United States and Ireland. B) That the Treaty covers the offense for which my extradition was requested. C) That I am the person whose extradition is sought by Ireland: and D) that probable cause exists to believe that I committed the offense for which extradition was requested." Mr Gibney's affidavit continues: "I fully understand that in the absence of a waiver of my rights, I cannot be compelled to return to Ireland unless and until a court in the United States issues a ruling certifying my extraditability and the Secretary of State of the United States issues a warrant of surrender." Mr Gibney says he understands that he has a right to a hearing to challenge the extradition, but has decided to waive that right and not challenge it. He states that he agrees "to be transported in custody, as soon as possible, to Ireland, and to remain in custody of the United States Marshal pending the arrival of duly authorised representatives from Ireland". Mr Gibney further states that no officials, representatives or officers of the United States or the Government of Ireland nor anyone else has made any promise, inducement or threat, nor exercised any form of intimidation against him, and he agrees to not contest his extradition knowingly, voluntarily and entirely of his own free will. Judge Daniel Irick is expected to order Mr Gibney's continued detention by US Marshals until his transport to Ireland is arranged, which is understood to be at least five more days away.
RTÉ News
11-07-2025
- RTÉ News
George Gibney due in US court to consent to extradition
Former Olympic swimming coach George Gibney is due in court in Florida to formally consent to his extradition to Ireland from the United States. The Irish government has sought his return to face 78 counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted rape against four girls aged between eight and 14 at the time of the alleged offences. George Gibney, with an address in Altamont Springs Orlando, submitted an affidavit of waiver of extradition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In it he agrees to give up his right to challenge the extradition request, and agrees to being held in custody until his removal to Ireland by Irish authorities. Mr Gibney states in the signed affidavit: "I am the individual against whom charges are pending in Ireland and for whom process is outstanding there". He was arrested on 1 July on foot of an extradition request from Ireland that was submitted by a Diplomatic Note to the US Department of State last October. In February, the State Department's legal advisor's office said the documents complied with the terms of a 1983 Extradition Treaty between the EU and the US, and with a 2003 EU-US Extradition Agreement, and sent it to the Department of Justice for processing. An arrest warrant was issued in the Central District of Florida on 23 June at the request of the US Attorney's office. After his arrest, the US Attorney's office submitted a memorandum to Judge Daniel Irick, who is dealing with the Gibney case, which argued strongly against granting bail to Mr Gibney. It also set out the extradition law of the United States, arguing that the court's function is to ensure that the paperwork is correct, not to hear arguments about the charges being brought. Mr Gibney met with his court appointed public defenders, who went through the Government memorandum with him. The following day, he notified the court of his intention to not contest his extradition. In the formal affidavit withdrawing his challenge to continued custody and his extradition to Ireland, Mr Gibney states that he has been fully informed of his rights by his attorney, who also explained the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and Ireland, the nature of the complaint filed and the treaty obligation of the US Government to the Government of Ireland. George Gibney's signed affidavit of waiver of extradition. He states "I understand that I am entitled to a hearing at which certain facts would need establishing, including: A) that currently there is an extradition treaty in force between the United States and Ireland. B) That the Treaty covers the offense for which my extradition was requested. C) That I am the person whose extradition is sought by Ireland: and D) that probable cause exists to believe that I committed the offense for which extradition was requested." Mr Gibney's affidavit continues: " I fully understand that in the absence of a waiver of my rights, I cannot be compelled to return to Ireland unless and until a court in the United States issues a ruling certifying my extraditability and the Secretary of State of the United States issues a warrant of surrender." Mr Gibney says he understands that he has a right to a hearing to challenge the extradition, but has decided to waive that right and not challenge it. He states that he agrees "to be transported in custody, as soon as possible, to Ireland, and to remain in custody of the United States Marshal pending the arrival of duly authorised representatives from Ireland". Mr Gibney further states that no officials, representatives or officers of the United States or the Government of Ireland nor anyone else has made any promise, inducement or threat, nor exercised any form of intimidation against him, and he agrees to not contest his extradition knowingly, voluntarily and entirely of his own free will. Judge Daniel Irick is expected to order Mr Gibney's continued detention by US Marshals until his transport to Ireland is arranged, which is understood to be at least five more days away.
NDTV
09-07-2025
- Business
- NDTV
CBI Gets Custody Of Economic Offender Monika Kapoor, Who Fled To US In 1999
New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday took the custody of economic offender Monika Kapoor, an accused in an import-export fraud who had fled to the US more than 20 years. A flight carrying Kapoor is expected to land in India on Wednesday night, officials said. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had cleared her extradition under the bilateral extradition treaty between India and the USA. She fled to the US in 1999 after the alleged fraud, where she, along with her two brothers -- Rajan Khanna and Rajiv Khanna -- forged documents for a jewellery business. These documents were allegedly used to obtain licenses from the Indian government to import raw materials duty-free. The alleged fraud caused a loss of more than USD 6,79,000 to the Indian exchequer. India had approached the US seeking Kapoor's extradition in 2010. Multi-Crore Fraud Case Monika Kapoor, who was the owner of a firm named "Monika Overseas", along with her two brothers prepared fake shipping bills, invoices and fake export documents for banks in 1998. Through these fake documents, they obtained six 'replenishment licenses' from the government, which allowed the purchase of duty-free gold worth about Rs 2.36 crore. They then sold these licenses at a premium to Deep Exports, an Ahmedabad-based firm, which used them to import duty-free gold. Due to this irregularity, the government suffered a loss of about Rs 1.44 crore. CBI's Actions The CBI filed a charge sheet against Monika Kapoor and her brothers, Rajan and Rajiv, in 2004 upon completion of the investigation. As Kapoor did not join the investigation and trial, she was declared a proclaimed offender in 2006. A red corner notice was also issued against her in 2010, the same year CBI sought help from the US authorities. The local court in Delhi convicted Rajan and Rajiv in 2017.
