Charlamagne tha God on stage in the course of the 9th Yearly HOPE Worldwide Boards on December 13, 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia.
Correction as of 7:35p.m.ET on 12/22/2022:
An previously model of this tale said that Charlamagne admitted to supplying Reid alcoholic beverages when she was underaged. Associates for the well-liked radio identity have denied that claim and variations have been built to replicate that.
Read through additional
Individuals reps have also issued supplemental statements to The Root clarifying sure aspects pertaining to this match:
“This is a self-submitted lawsuit that is meritless and will be dismissed. She [Jessica Reid, the woman filing the suit] is symbolizing herself.
He [Charlamagne Tha God] has Never admitted to offering her alcoholic beverages. He does not know Ms. Reid. He in no way handed her alcohol.”
See primary story below.
It seems like The Breakfast Club host Charlamagne Tha God might be in for a forthcoming legal fight as it’s been revealed that he’s at the heart of a new federal sexual assault lawsuit.
According to HipHopDX, the common persona is remaining sued by Jessica Reid who alleged that Charlamagne (legal name Lenard McKelvey) “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously” engaged in “penile/vaginal intercourse with a fifteen-year-outdated woman child” when he was 22-calendar year-outdated back in 2001.
At the time, Charlamagne allegedly pled responsible to a lesser demand of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” right after providing an underaged Reid with alcohol and subsequently served a few many years of probation. Nevertheless, Charlamagne’s DNA was reportedly in no way found in rape kit exam effects that was later performed on Reid.
A lot more from the match, for each HipHopDX:
“Ms. Reid has tried out to get justice, but to no avail. And to make matters worse, all people that Ms. Reid achieved out to, which includes iHeartRadio, disregarded her and nevertheless authorized Charlamagne to communicate on their platform. Each and every time Ms. Reid turns on the radio and hears his voice, sees him on Television set, and walks past his publications in the retailers, she is reminded of what Charlamagne did to her.”
Michael Weinsten, the attorney symbolizing Charlamagne has because responded, indicating in a assertion: “We are confident that Ms. Reid’s meritless civil lawsuit in which she represents herself will be instantly dismissed. This is the similar sexual assault claim that was thoroughly investigated and dismissed by authorities in South Carolina additional than 21 years in the past. It is also the identical subject that Ms. Reid experimented with to re-open up in 2018 that the South Carolina Solicitor Standard declined to re-open up, suggesting among the other matters it was ‘not ethical’ to do so.”
The Jan. 6 committee released its ultimate 800-furthermore-web site report on Thursday, contacting previous President Donald Trump the “central trigger” of the assault on the Capitol.
Authorized authorities noted that in addition to 4 legal referrals, the committee’s report may perhaps open up other authorized liabilities for Trump, together with likely legal responsibility in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit towards the previous president’s allies.
New York College Legislation Professor Ryan Goodman pointed out that the report “opens doorways extensive for Dominion Voting Techniques to sue former president Trump for defamation,” and that there are “hundreds of tens of millions of [dollars] probably at stake.”
#January6thReport opens doorway large for Dominion Voting Systems to sue previous president Trump for defamation (pp 216-224).
Hundreds of hundreds of thousands of $$$ probably at stake.
“Trump demonstrated a aware disregard for the points and continued to maliciously smear Dominion.”
Goodman, who has previously penned on the subject matter, discussed that “virtually every single pro reported a defamation go well with brought by Dominion versus Trump would be pretty solid.” He also observed that Dominion has completed incredibly well in other defamation conditions versus other Trump associates.
I formerly interviewed experts on this incredibly topic.
“Almost each and every pro claimed a defamation suit introduced by Dominion in opposition to Trump would be really potent …”
Notice: Dominion has performed extremely nicely so significantly in defamation cases towards other Trump associates.https://t.co/2A6Jm31JWN
“Under no circumstances understood why Trump was not involved in this suit,” agreed previous Justice Division prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on distinctive counsel Bob Mueller’s group. “It’s been amazing so much and has triggered Rudy and Sidney to clam up.”
Never ever comprehended why Trump was not bundled in this suit. It can be been good so much and has prompted Rudy and Sidney to clam up. https://t.co/AxFY1RwMSZ
CNN authorized analyst Norm Eisen wrote on Twitter that of the greatest surprises in the report, 1 is “how numerous OTHER kinds of authorized liability apart from felony report drives versus Trump and his co-conspirators.”
What are largest surprises in the Jan 6 report? i am going to join @CNN shortly to talk about with the greats @thelauracoates & @harrylitman
1 shock is how many OTHER types of lawful liability besides criminal report drives versus Trump and his co-conspirators
Professionals also forecast prospective liabilities for other Trump associates, together with the former president’s main of team, Mark Meadows. “He’s likely down for this,” Weissmann predicted.
Former Lawyer Standard Eric Holder tweeted in June that “all legal professionals included in the plot to stop the transfer of ability as component of the 1/6 conspiracy ought to be disbarred.” Harvard Legislation professor Laurence Tribe on Friday wrote that he “couldn’t concur additional.”
“From Eastman and Chesebro to Giuliani and Powell and at least a fifty percent dozen other folks, these so-called attorneys shame the law and endanger democracy,” Tribe wrote. “None really should evade disbarment. Some ought to facial area jail conditions.”
I could not agree a lot more. From Eastman and Chesebro to Giuliani and Powell and at minimum a 50 percent dozen other folks, all those so-called lawyers shame the law and endanger democracy. None ought to evade disbarment. Some really should deal with jail phrases. https://t.co/RcL2bWY73i
Watergate law firm Nick Akerman explained to CNN that from what he read through of the Jan. 6 report, the proof “proves that Donald Trump is guilty of these crimes, past a reasonable doubt.”
Akerman referenced a Dec. 31, 2020 e-mail from John Eastman “where he writes to the other legal professionals on the group, indicating that they are about to file a federal lawsuit in Georgia, but they are worried, now due to the fact they initially submitted a lawsuit in Ga condition courtroom. And Donald Trump experienced submitted a declaration there, fundamentally stating that so a lot of dead people today have been voting, that so lots of felons voted, and that a specific variety of persons that don’t even live in the point out of Ga.”
Nonetheless, as Akerman points out, Trump understood that the statements have been untrue, but the only way they could file a federal fit was to repeat the exact lies.
“And the worry was, this would appear back again to chunk Donald Trump, because he understood it was wrong,” Akerman claimed. “But what did they do? They still filed that federal lawsuit. Donald Trump swore underneath oath, that the similar points occurred, but then on prime of it all, two times, later Jan. 2, Donald Trump helps make this call to Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of condition in Ga … For the duration of that get in touch with, Donald Trump elevated these certain concerns. He explained to Raffensperger, X amount of dead persons voted, X selection of felons voted, X selection of folks who did not vote in Ga voted. And Brad Raffensperger took them via issue by level, and told him precisely that none of this was legitimate.”
Want a every day wrap-up of all the information and commentary Salon has to provide? Subscribe to our early morning e-newsletter, Crash Course.
Despite staying explained to by Raffensperger that the concerns cited weren’t legitimate, Trump nonetheless designed the statements publicly the pursuing day.
“So, you have acquired this proof, and the exact same lies that ended up recurring, in Arizona, the recurring in Wisconsin,” Akerman described. “When you start to put together this world-wide-web of evidence, the aspects, the minute new facts that are sprinkled through this report, it really is from a scenario that can be demonstrated over and above a realistic question.”
An obscure, a long time-aged ordinance that limited the place buskers — musicians who performs in general public areas — can play for guidelines in Houston has been deemed unconstitutional and struck down by a federal choose.
The choice this week by U.S. District Decide Alfred H. Bennett strikes down the burdensome allowing approach that confined musicians vying for cash gratuity to the Theater District. Whilst performers could engage in somewhere else, soliciting recommendations though undertaking so made them liable to a good.
Now, everyone can play any instrument, anyplace and without a allow as extended as noise restrictions are not violated, Pacific Authorized Basis lawyer Joshua Polk stated.
Houston accordionist Anthony Barilla, who in January 2020 lodged the lawsuit, analyzed the ordinance prior to suing the town and found the 8-block zone void of pedestrians. Less folks signifies fewer strategies, he argued.
Impression: Make busking shielded speech in all of Houston, not just the Theater District
“It was not fiscally worthy of it,” stated Barilla, a member of the accordion band Houston’s A-S-S and a composer whose do the job has been listened to on the radio system “This American Lifestyle.”
Barilla believes stretches of Westheimer in Montrose or along Most important Avenue are greater suited for sidewalk performances than the downtown Theater District. He recouped the price tag of his $50 permit when he tested the busking waters. When his permit expired, he did not renew it. The application approach expected musicians to receive prepared permission from “the abutting home owners” wherever they wish to perform. Barilla was rejected thrice.
Unlike other big towns, Houston’s busking ordinance is really restrictive. The city prohibited street performers for most of the 20th century right up until the G-7 Summit in 1990 was anticipated to attract a deluge of website visitors. The town signed off on a pilot program to make it possible for performers in the Theater District only — only 5 permits have been reportedly issued — and an ordinance was later on authorized.
The ordinance defined street performers “bands, musicians, singers, mimes and other artists” who accomplish for recommendations.
Barilla’s lawsuit waged on for far more than two many years. A deposition with the director of Houston’s Organizing and Advancement Office, Margaret Brown, taken in May demonstrates she expressed worry that a busker could attract a group — and from there, she concerned, pedestrians would wander into car targeted visitors to stay away from the performer’s onlookers.
When requested, having said that, she was not able to give evidence that busking on sidewalks interferes with targeted visitors and pedestrian safety.
“I do not know that that would be one thing we could compile in Houston,” Brown claimed. “We have not viewed a ton of buskers, we have not seen a lot of buskers at all by way of these many years and so I’m not sure which is even (a little something) you could assess.”
The judge’s ruling took exception to the busking ordinance as a Very first Amendment violation. Arturo Michel, who represented the city towards the federal litigation, claimed the court, even so, located no challenge in how the ordinance regulated pedestrian website traffic and protection.
The town has no strategy to attraction the ruling and Mayor Sylvester Turner would instead have the ordinance amended as necessary, town officials stated.
A judge declined Monday to dismiss Kari Lake’s election problem soon after oral arguments by attorneys, providing her a opportunity to try to establish her claims of misconduct by election officers.
Maricopa County Remarkable Court Choose Peter Thompson tossed eight of the promises in Lake’s lawsuit, but allowed two to continue being that alleged an intentional plot by officers to manipulate the election in favor of Lake’s Democratic opponent, Secretary of Condition Katie Hobbs. In two independent orders, he ruled that a two-day trial will consider area in advance of Jan. 2, and that Hobbs and County Recorder Stephen Richer would be needed to testify as Lake wished.
Lake has “alleged intentional misconduct sufficient to have an impact on the consequence of the election and so has mentioned an concern of truth that needs likely further than the pleadings,” the ruling mentioned. It ongoing that Lake will have to present at trial that the county’s printer malfunctions were being deliberately rigged to impact the election outcomes, and that the steps “did in fact influence the outcome.”
Thompson did not quickly established the time for the trial, but ordered the attorneys for Lake and defendants such as Hobbs and county officers to submit a listing with the expected time expected for the proceedings no afterwards than 12 p.m., Dec. 20.
Very last 7 days, he agreed to permit Lake’s authorized workforce to examine a smaller variety of printed and early ballots from the election, together with 50 that ended up marked “spoiled” on Election Day. That inspection was scheduled to start off Dec. 20.
Here’s what the lawyers argued in court
Lawyers for Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs and Maricopa County officers informed a judge previously Monday that Lake’s lawsuit is comprehensive of unproven speculation that is just not allowed for election troubles below condition regulation.
The lawyers, who appeared prior to Thompson alongside lawyers for Lake, gave a forceful rebuttal of claims by the unsuccessful governor candidate, stating her lawsuit fails to meet up with legal requirements for an election grievance and contains baseless claims of fraud.
The Trump-endorsed Republican is contesting election benefits that exhibit she shed to her Democratic competitor and present Secretary of State Hobbs by just more than 17,000 votes. Her 70-site lawsuit, filed Dec. 9 in Maricopa County Exceptional Court, contends that “hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots contaminated” the Nov. 8 election, relying on so-named pro evaluation and witness declarations.
Lake hopes the court will declare her the rightful winner of the Nov. 8 election or purchase a new election.
Attorneys for the officers named in Lake’s lawsuit − including Hobbs, Richer and five members of the county Board of Supervisors − explained at Monday’s hearing Lake’s situation should be thrown out for the reason that it doesn’t adhere to state requirements for a valid election complaint. They also asked for sanctions versus Lake.
Kurt Olsen, one particular of Lake’s attorneys, meanwhile portrayed the lawsuit as an expose of systemic complications, failures and doable illegal functions by election officials that led to “huge failure” at the polling stations and “tens of 1000’s” of disenfranchised voters.
Hobbs team: Expectations not met
Hobbs’ attorney, Abha Khanna of the Democrat-allied Elias Law Group, informed Thompson that Lake’s lawsuit was section of a “sustained assault” on election procedures by getting rid of candidates and ought to be instantly dismissed.
The lawsuit’s theory of a “master plot” to focus on Lake by county officials, who like Lake are Republican, in some way happened “with out a solitary trace: no files, no e-mails, no leaks,” Khanna explained.
Glitches did strike equipment at about a 3rd of polling places in Maricopa County in the course of the election, providing conversing factors for election-denying candidates such Lake and losing GOP Secretary of Condition candidate Mark Finchem but so significantly no evidence that voters were being disenfranchised.
When tabulators commenced rejecting some printed ballots on Nov. 8, generating disappointment and very long strains at some polling sites, county officials instructed voters who anxious their ballots may possibly not depend to go away them in a batch termed “door three,” wherever they have been retrieved afterwards and counted.
Big figures of Republican voters adopted the instructions of Lake and other conspiracy-minded candidates to vote in-human being on Election Working day instead than to mail their ballots, which created them more susceptible to any polling-place challenges. Until finally the Trump period, Republicans had utilised mail-in ballots additional than Democrats in Arizona.
Out of 220 witnesses presented by Lake’s lawsuit, the county’s motion to dismiss the scenario notes that only 3 of individuals were being not able to cast a ballot right after choosing not to wait in line or go elsewhere.
The voter declarations incorporate practically nothing that implies any votes were counted unlawfully or any voters “were being wrongfully turned away,” Khanna mentioned, including that “at most, those declarations point out a handful of voters chose not to vote employing the means obtainable to them on Election Working day.”
The crucial point in the situation is that Arizona regulation necessitates a grievance to contain particular allegations of fraud, a typical produced to avoid unproven, “totally free-wheeling” speculations that unfairly keep up the democratic process, she said. The law requires “credible, constructive, and unequivocal evidence” of perceived problems, with presumptions in favor of the election benefits, but Lake’s lawsuit features only insinuations, she claimed.
The lawsuit states that it is not alleging fraud, hence hanging out a single of two authorized standards desired, she stated. The other necessity is to display that alleged misconduct or unlawful votes really impacted the end result of the election, but Lake failed to do that possibly, Khanna stated.
“Ms. Lake does not occur shut” to assembly the specifications,” she reported. “The lawsuit calls for speedy dismissal.”
Lake law firm fights again
Lake’s lawyers for the go well with include Bryan Blehm, who was a law firm for Cyber Ninjas, the contractor employed by the condition Senate for its assessment of the 2020 election, and Olsen, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who recently was requested to fork out sanctions in a federal match brought by Lake and Finchem that a choose claimed contained frivolous and baseless promises.
Olsen, who spoke after the county lawyers, mentioned the judge must place stock in the affidavit of “leading cyber skilled” Clay Parikh, whose examination concluded that the county’s “technique-large” failures could only be defined by intentional manipulation of county officers. An examination “dependent on science” also showed that 15,000 to 29,000 votes were being disenfranchised, Olsen explained. He also claimed the county mysteriously “found” 25,000 “additional voters” two days immediately after the polls closed.
Drawing from the lawsuit, Olsen talked over several things that he stated led to “huge failure” on Nov. 8, these types of as Hobbs’ reporting of misinformation on Twitter, a PAC started out by Richer, alleged ballot “chain of custody” problems and what he implied was a suspicious voter-signature verification process.
He appealed to the affidavits of three “whistleblowers” on the past point, declaring that “tens of hundreds of ballots had been remaining pushed into the program that need to never ever have been counted” due to the fact of sloppy signature checks.
One of the county’s attorneys, Tom Liddy, ripped Olsen’s claim that Parikh was a “cyber pro,” stating another person who managed printers at a Staples business office-provide retail store would have impressed him a lot more.
Liddy mentioned Olsen’s notion of 25,000 “ghost ballots” was simply just because the county gave one particular early estimate of mail-in ballots that had been dropped off at the polls on Nov. 8, and then unveiled the actual variety a few times later.
He provided an remedy to Olsen’s “obstacle” to find a further election in which tabulators failed to go through ballots: Liddy reported individuals problems “materialize all the time” due to the fact of printer challenges, damp ink on a ballot, or ovals that weren’t loaded in.
On the concern of signatures, Khanna stated they were not rejected at a price of 30{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} to 40{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} as Olsen asserted, and that in truth, ballot rejection typically amounts to fewer than 1{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} of ballots checked.
Here is what the judge’s ruling said
Thompson, who presided over Monday’s live-streamed, hour-plus hearing, listened to every facet without having asking thoughts and finished by expressing he would make a ruling on the county’s motion to dismiss as soon as probable.
His ruling, released just before 8 p.m., dismissed 8 of Lake’s 10 counts in her lawsuit. The authorized doctrine of laches, which forbids promises that could have been brought a great deal before in time, applies when thinking of the county’s signature-verification process or Lake’s claim that the Arizona Constitution’s Secrecy Clause bars mail-in ballots, he wrote.
In other dismissed counts, Lake did not state a claim adequately or requested for aid that the court could not present these types of as “buying a new election.”
But she did state a valid assert in alleging that a county staff interfered illegally with the printers, “ensuing in some amount of misplaced votes” for Lake, and she’s entitled to try to prove that, Thompson ruled.
Likewise, she made a distinct allegation that an unfamiliar selection of ballots were being extra to the county’s full by workforce of Runbeck Election Expert services, a Phoenix firm that presents election products for the county, and that receipts of supply had been not preserved in violation of point out legislation. Thompson allowed that declare to carry on, much too.
The hearing arrived times following a choose dismissed a similar lawsuit by Mark Finchem, an additional Trump-endorsed prospect. Finchem, who was defeated by Democrat and former County Recorder Adrian Fontes, claimed Hobbs unsuccessful to make certain tabulation machines were being permitted by the Election Guidance Commission and that she helped cause suspension of his Twitter account.
Choose Melissa Julian said Thursday that Finchem’s promises of misconduct were being inadequate to survive dismissal and granted a request for sanctions by attorneys for Hobbs and Fontes.
The town of Buffalo declared Tuesday it has filed a “1st of its sort” lawsuit towards the gun industry, 7 months after a teen killed 10 people and wounded 3 others at a Buffalo grocery retail store.
The lawsuit was announced by Mayor Byron Brown and names as defendants some of the nation’s major firearm companies, including Beretta, Smith & Wesson, Bushmaster, Glock and Remington. The accommodate, submitted in point out Supreme Court in Buffalo, also names ghost gun stores Polymer and Arm or Ally as defendants.
“Users of our community have experienced way too substantially for too extended from gun violence,” Brown mentioned in a assertion. “We should do almost everything we can to reduce gun violence. Enabling the possession of illegal guns destroys life and deeply has an effect on our neighborhood, specifically in Black and Brown communities.”
Buffalo Law enforcement on scene at a Tops Friendly Sector, May possibly 14, 2022, in Buffalo, New York.
John Normile/Getty Pictures
City leaders concede that gun violence in Buffalo is obtaining worse regardless of endeavours by the Buffalo Police Department to curb gun violence.
Gun violence has surged in the metropolis considering that 2020, when 355 persons have been killed or injured in shootings.
“As of March, 2021, the range of people today shot in Buffalo around the to start with two months of the year jumped 140{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} when compared to the exact same interval [in 2020],” the city’s statement reads.
The lawsuit will come immediately after a racially motivated mass capturing on Might 14 at a Tops current market on the east side of Buffalo left 10 Black people today dead. Police said the 18-year-outdated suspect, Payton Gendron, utilised a semi-automatic rifle in the massacre that he bought lawfully but manipulated to in shape a significant capability ammunition journal that is illegal to have in New York. It was bought at a gun store in Pennsylvania.
In November, Gendron, now 19, pleaded responsible to 15 rates in all, together with domestic terrorism determined by detest, murder and attempted murder. He faces lifetime in prison with no the risk of parole when he is sentenced in February.
Town officials said the intention of the lawsuit “is not to protect against lawful gun possession.”
“The city of Buffalo is not likely to enable these gun field associates go on to flood our Town with illegally possessed guns,” stated Cavette A. Chambers of the town Company Counsel. “We will have to keep them accountable.”
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown speaks to media just after Payton S. Gendron seems in court docket to plead responsible of prices of killing 10 men and women in a dwell-streamed supermarket shooting in a Black neighborhood of Buffalo, New York, Nov. 28, 2022.
Lindsay Dedario/Reuters
Chambers claimed metropolis officials have been adhering to public nuisance legal guidelines in New York “and will be looking at more defendants and brings about of motion as we get into discovery.”
Brown extra, “The conduct of certain gun manufacturers has unreasonably interfered with the public’s appropriate to use open house totally free from concern.”
The lawsuit explained the plaintiffs are looking for compensatory and punitive damages as properly as an abatement fund “with ample cash to do away with the general public nuisance [gun manufacturers] are accountable for building, exacerbating, and/or perpetuating.” The lawsuit requests a jury trial.
There was no immediate reaction to the lawsuit from the gun companies and vendors named as defendants.
The lawsuit fees the gun manufacturers and suppliers have “managed the community nuisance of illegal possessing, transportation and disposition of firearms and the utilization of guns in the commission of an offense” by advertising and marketing firearms to emphasize their “superior capability and simplicity of concealment.” The suit alleges that these kinds of internet marketing, such as its use in flicks and social media, appeals to potential purchasers with felony intent.
The lawsuit also faults manufactures for not education sellers “to stay clear of straw income and other unlawful transactions” and for refusing to terminate contracts with distributors who provide to sellers with disproportionately high volumes of guns traced to crime scenes.
“All of the Defendants produced or distributed countless numbers of firearms recovered in crimes fully commited in the City of Buffalo and New York Point out,” the lawsuit alleges.
The five prime gun organizations named in the accommodate “acknowledged that they have no method system in location to get protection details connected to their items, and they were being not able to develop any interior analyses of the potential risks caused by sellers of their army-style weapons to civilians.”
Ever heard of litigation funding? It’s a relatively new, multibillion-dollar industry where investors fund lawsuits. Here’s the idea: say someone was wronged by a big corporation but has no money to sue it. A litigation funder will pay for their court battle. In essence: they’re betting on the lawsuit the way traders bet on stocks. If it’s successful – they make money, sometimes a lot of money; if it fails – the funders get nothing – their investment is lost.
Litigation funding can help in cases where otherwise the little guy who’s suing would just get crushed or lowballed by defendants with deep pockets. Problem is – this market is exploding with nearly no rules or oversight.
Craig Underwood: This is quite an honor to be able to drive you around in my truck.
We start our story in the rolling hills of Ventura County, California, where Craig Underwood’s family farm had been growing jalapenos for three decades.
Lesley Stahl: So you used to have peppers as far as the eye could see.
Craig Underwood: As you were driving through the Valley, peppers were everyplace.
Lesley Stahl: But I heard that you had one customer?
Craig Underwood: One customer. Huy Fong Foods.
Huy Fong makes the world-famous Sriracha Hot Sauce. In 2016, they abruptly severed ties with Underwood. His business dried up overnight.
Lesley Stahl: Is there anything growing here at all? Can you tell?
Craig Underwood: There’s nothing planted here. And up here, it’s just weeds —
Craig Underwood
Facing ruin, he sued Huy Fong for breach of contract and won: $23 million.
Lesley Stahl: But they appealed?
Craig Underwood: They appealed.
Lesley Stahl: You couldn’t collect any of the money?
Craig Underwood: No. We were looking at whether we could survive or not. Every week we were trying to find enough cash to pay the bills, make sure we could make payroll.
He couldn’t afford to keep fighting, until he heard of an investment firm that backs people in his situation.
Christopher Bogart: We make the playing field level. And that’s what people should be wanting in litigation.
Christopher Bogart is the CEO of Burford Capital. He funds litigants and takes a chunk of their award, if they win.
Christopher Bogart: We are a multibillion-dollar company because litigation is expensive. And there’s an awful lot of demand from businesses for this kind of solution.
Lesley Stahl: So is it a loan?
Christopher Bogart: It’s a non-recourse financing.
Lesley Stahl: What does “non-recourse”? What does that mean?
Christopher Bogart: What it means is that if the case that we’re financing doesn’t succeed, then we don’t get our money back. And so it’s different from a loan in the sense that a loan obviously you’re always having to pay back the principle.
Lesley Stahl: If your side loses, you get nothing?
Christopher Bogart: That’s correct.
Still, Craig Underwood was torn, because if he won the appeal, Burford would get a big chunk. But, seeing no other choice, he took $4 million from them. Soon after, he won the appeal and the $23 million. But then he had to pay his lawyers and square away with Burford.
Craig Underwood: We had to give them $8 million to pay for the– the 4 that we got and the 4 that, you know, was their… umm…
Lesley Stahl: Did you think when you realized they were gonna charge you 100{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} that that was predatory?
Craig Underwood: Some people might think that. I didn’t feel that way. ‘Cause they stepped in and helped us out when we couldn’t have gotten money from anybody else. They basically rescued us.
Founded in 2009, Burford is the world’s largest litigation funder, with $5 billion invested in multiple lawsuits.
Lesley Stahl: Is it actually safer in today’s environment to invest in litigation than in the stock market?
Christopher Bogart: Well, the benefit that you get from litigation is that litigation doesn’t fluctuate the same way that the markets do.
Lesley Stahl: What’s your average investment?
Christopher Bogart: When we’re financing a single piece of litigation, it would be very rare for us to be below $5 million. And it goes up from there.
Christopher Bogart
Lesley Stahl: So let’s say you have a huge case with tens of millions of dollars. What kind of percentage do you expect to win in the end?
Christopher Bogart: On an average basis, we’ll largely double our money.
Lesley Stahl: Are there cases where you actually walked away with more money than the plaintiff, the person who was wronged?
Christopher Bogart: So that doesn’t happen very often.
Lesley Stahl: But occasionally–
Christopher Bogart: It certainly can happen.
There’s no legal limit on how big a chunk litigation funders can take and the deals are confidential. Bogart argues that the reason they demand so much is because of the big risks they take. But actually they pick their cases very carefully.
Lesley Stahl: So these are all lawyers?
Christopher Bogart: Indeed they are.
Lesley Stahl: And what are they doing?
Christopher Bogart: They are fundamentally vetting potential cases that we might finance for corporate clients.
Christopher Bogart: We certainly do diligence on those matters to try to choose ones that are meritorious and that will be successful.
Lesley Stahl: How often are you right?
Christopher Bogart: We’re right about 90{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} of the time and we’re wrong about 10{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8} of the time.
Lesley Stahl: What if the client that you’ve given all this money to, invested in, wants to settle, and you think that’s a mistake.
Christopher Bogart: Clients are free to run their litigations as they see fit. They’re free to work with their lawyers as they see fit. And we don’t interfere with that relationship. It’s not uncommon for them to come and ask for our advice but it’s advice. And the client is free to disregard that advice and take its own path.
But Maya Steinitz, a law professor at the University of Iowa, says there are ethics rules for lawyers, but not for these investors.
Maya Steinitz: The funders are not regulated. There’s nothing precluding them legally from pressuring a client to settle. The rules of ethics are very clear that the lawyer has to abide by the wishes of the client. But human nature is human nature. There may be an inclination to be pulled towards the person who is paying.
Lesley Stahl: Why is this important? Why should someone out there who’s not involved in a lawsuit care?
Maya Steinitz: For multiple reasons. First of all, there is this new industry and a new type of player, “litigation funders,” who are reshaping every aspect of the litigation process – which cases get brought, how long are they pursued, when are they settled. But all of this is happening without transparency. So we have one of the three branches of government, the judiciary, that’s really being quietly transformed. And there’s –
Lesley Stahl: Very little oversight.
Maya Steinitz: Very little oversight.
Lesley Stahl: Who is working to impose regulations, insist on transparency in this industry?
Maya Steinitz: One entity that’s been very vocal is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that represents big businesses because the sector that’s most concerned about this is big corporations now there’s money to sue them, and there’s money to persevere, and not to settle early at a discount.
Lesley Stahl: Big business would like to have regulation? How interesting, ’cause they don’t like regulation.
Maya Steinitz: Generally.
Lesley Stahl: Except when it helps them
Maya Steinitz: Generally.
Maya Steinitz
Burford usually funds huge cases, involving big, sophisticated corporations. There are only a handful of investment firms like it, whose business is solely investing in litigation. But hedge funds, foreign government funds, and wealthy individuals are also getting into this market. But because there are no regulations, in most cases, litigation funders remain anonymous in court.
In 2012, a billionaire, Peter Thiel, secretly funded wrestler Hulk Hogan’s invasion of privacy lawsuit against the website Gawker that drove it out of business. Thiel had his own long-standing score to settle with the site.
But litigation funding isn’t just for giant cases worth gazillions.
There are ads for a whole other category of litigation funding. Companies that offer quick cash directly to individuals who are suing in smaller cases, usually over personal injury accidents.
They need the money to pay their household bills so they can hold out for larger settlements.
Advertisment: The beauty of pre-settlement funding is that if you lose, you don’t have to pay back anything.
But in the ads, it’s easy to miss that if you win, you might have to pay a hefty sum.
This group of litigation funders charges so much because, again, they say the risk is so high… especially given that the applicants for these advances are often broke, injured, out of work and with no assets. But we found rates running high even when there’s seemingly minimal or no risk.
Take the case of former NYPD officer Donald Sefcik who was entitled to money from the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. He became ill after he raced to ground zero.
Donald Sefcik
Lesley Stahl: And how long did you stay?
Donald Sefcik: I stayed there approximately nine days.
Lesley Stahl: Inhaling all that—dust.
Donald Sefcik: It was so much dust down there that you could not see your hand in front of your face.
Lesley Stahl: So obviously you had medical issues.
Donald Sefcik: Yeah. I couldn’t run, I couldn’t breathe.
Lesley Stahl: So you were entitled from that Victims’ Compensation Fund to get $90,000.
Donald Sefcik: Yes, I was—
Lesley Stahl: You were told you would get $90,000. You got $10,000 up front.
Donald Sefcik: Yes.
He knew he would eventually get more, but in the meantime, he needed money for his medical care. So an ad in the paper caught his eye.
Donald Sefcik: It said, “RD Legal Funding can get your money faster. We can cut through the red tape.” And so I called RD Legal Funding, but then after I signed all the documents and sent over to ’em– they came back at a interest rate that I couldn’t even figure out. The document was very confusing. I couldn’t even understand it.
Michael Barasch: I’m a lawyer 40 years, I couldn’t understand it.
Michael Barasch
Michael Barasch is Sefcik’s lawyer.
Michael Barasch: They lent him $25,000. He had to repay $64,800.
Donald Sefcik: I had no choice. No– I had no choice. I paid it. Out of the $90,000 I ended up with about $30,000 of it. I feel totally just taken advantage of.
Lesley Stahl: The argument from this industry is that they take a big risk when they invest this money.
Michael Barasch: This is not a car accident case against a small insurance company. This was the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund created by Congress and backed by the U.S. Treasury.
The company told us Sefcik’s contract was clear, but his case was part of a lawsuit against RD Legal brought by the New York attorney general. It settled last month; the company denied wrongdoing but had to “provide over $600,000 in debt relief to harmed consumers;” “stop doing business with recipients of 9/11 victim compensation funds;” and pay a $1 penalty.
So how do litigation funders like this get away with charging such exorbitant rates? If you take out – say, a car loan, usury laws that prevent predatory lending cap the interest rate… in New York at 16{c024931d10daf6b71b41321fa9ba9cd89123fb34a4039ac9f079a256e3c1e6e8}. But remember, these aren’t loans per se. They’re “investments.” litigation funders – for giant and personal cases – argue that this market is offering a lifeline to those who have nowhere else to turn. And legal scholars, like Maya Steinitz, agree.
Maya Steinitz: Accessing the courts in a civil process is a luxury good in today’s America. Lawyers charge hundreds of dollars by the hour. So if you have been injured, if you have been discriminated against, if a contract that you have entered into has been breached, it’s simply too expensive to bring your case in court. So I think litigation funding is essential. However, personally I think that litigation funding should be regulated, but I certainly don’t think it should be prohibited.
Produced by Shachar Bar-On and Jinsol Jung. Broadcast associate, Wren Woodson. Edited by Peter M. Berman.
Lesley Stahl
One of America’s most recognized and experienced broadcast journalists, Lesley Stahl has been a 60 Minutes correspondent since 1991.
![Charlamagne Tha God Hit With Sexual Assault Lawsuit [CORRECTED]](https://i3.wp.com/media.zenfs.com/en/the_root_754/6b9fc43f5655c9b4ad85cbca3dc99fc8?w=2000&resize=2000,1200&ssl=1 "Charlamagne Tha God Hit With Sexual Assault Lawsuit [CORRECTED]")
