Trump Sued for Wrongful Death of Officer at Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

???The estate of a police officer who died a day after the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is suing former President Donald Trump and two rioters

???The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Washington, D.C., says Trump's "campaign of lies and incendiary rhetoric" incited the mob violence that contributed to Officer Brian Sicknick's death.

???"That attack on the United States Capitol cost U.S. Capitol Officer Brian Sicknick, who was bravely defending the cradle of American Democracy, his life," the lawsuit says.

???Sicknick was in a police line defending the Capitol's Lower West Terrace when rioters tried to push their way into the building. Two of the rioters named in the lawsuit, Julian Khater and George Tanios, hit and kicked Sicknick and other officers, the lawsuit says.

???In addition, Khater sprayed Sicknick in the face with bear spray he got from Tanios, the lawsuit says.

???Sicknick died on Jan. 7 after suffering two strokes, according to a report from the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The examiner, Francisco Diaz, said in later press reports that the assault Sicknick, 42, endured “played a role in his condition.”

???His body lay in state under the Capitol Rotunda before his funeral.

???The lawsuit filed against Trump, Khater and Tanios alleges wrongful death. It sicks more than $10 million in damages.

???Khater and Tanios were arrested in March 2021. Tanios pleaded guilty to entering a restricted building and disorderly conduct. Khater pleaded guilty to two counts of assaulting or resisting an officer with a dangerous weapon.

???Both are scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 27.

???Sandra Garza, Sicknick’s partner and administrator of his estate, said in her lawsuit that Trump should not be allowed to escape liability for orchestrating a violent attempt to stop Congress from certifying a presidential election victory in favor of his opponent, Joe Biden.

???“Out of options and out of time, Defendant Trump finally called his supporters to Washington, D.C., on the day Congress met to certify President-elect Biden’s win, telling them to ‘Stop the Steal’ and that the day ‘will be wild,’” the lawsuit says.

???“Defendant Trump implored the crowd to ‘fight like hell’ and ‘walk down Pennsylvania Avenue ... to the Capitol,’” according to the lawsuit.

???It adds, “Many participants in the attack have since revealed that they were acting on what they believed to be Defendant Trump’s direct orders in service of their country.”

???Trump’s potential civil and criminal liability continues to be a subject of uncertainty in Congress and the Justice Department.

???Presidents normally are protected from liability by the “executive privilege” the Constitution grants them to prevent legal barriers that might interfere with carrying out their duties.

???Garza, along with members of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, say Trump was acting outside the scope of his authority as president when he made a speech on the White House Ellipse the morning of Jan. 6, 2021.

???Trump also told the thousands of his supporters who gathered on the Ellipse, “And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."?

???Last month, the House Jan. 6 Committee referred criminal charges against Trump to the Justice Department. The referrals recommended charges of obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement and "incite," "assist" or "aid and comfort" an insurrection.?

???Justice Department officials have not yet indicated whether they will follow through by prosecuting Trump.

???The lawsuit filed Thursday adds to other legal claims against Trump brought by Democratic lawmakers and law enforcement officers who were assaulted during the Jan. 6 insurrection.

???A U.S. District Court judge has ruled Trump could be personally liable for his actions but the ruling is pending on appeal before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington.

???The Jan. 6 riot is blamed for five deaths and injuries to 140 law enforcement officers.

???The case is Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump et al., case number 1:23-cv-00038, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Virginia Attorney General Investigates

Fairness of Schools’ Equity Policy

???Virginia’s attorney general is investigating allegations that administrators at an Alexandria high school delayed notice to top students about college scholarship opportunities to advance their own equity policy.

???Fairfax County Public Schools recently adopted a policy that seeks “Equal outcomes for every student, without exceptions.”

???To comply with the policy, school officials told top-performing students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology that they could qualify for National Merit scholarships a month after the deadline for applying passed.

???A parent who asked the director of student services why the notification was delayed was told it was to avoid hurting the feelings of students who failed to qualify for the scholarships, according to the parent who complained to state education officials.

???The students who could have won any of nearly 800 scholarships ranked in the top 3 percent of students nationwide on standardized college admission tests. They are called National Merit Scholars.

???The parent whose son was a National Merit Scholar said the notification consisted of teachers putting certificates on students’ desks.

???The investigation by the Virginia attorney general was ordered by Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R).?

??“We need to get to the bottom of what appears to be an egregious, deliberate attempt to disadvantage high-performing students at one of the best schools in the country,” Youngkin said in a statement. “Parents and students deserve answers and Attorney General Miyares will initiate a full investigation. I believe this failure may have caused material harm to those students and their parents, and that this failure may have violated the Virginia Human Rights Act.”

???Fairfax County Public Schools responded by sending its superintendent to meet with families of the students affected.

???“Our preliminary understanding is that the delay this fall was a unique situation due to human error,” the school system said in a statement.

???School officials pledged to cooperate with the investigation.

???“As a reminder, once this error was brought to light, school staff reached out to colleges to update records where commended scholars had applied,” the schools’ statement said.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Court of Appeals Eliminates

Commercial Real Estate Tax Shelter

???A recent D.C. Court of Appeals ruling puts new restrictions on a tax shelter commonly used in commercial real estate transactions.

???The ruling is forcing subsidiaries of Hobby Lobby and Vornado Realty to pay taxes on the full value of a $250 million deal instead of only the land that was exchanged. The land is valued at $76 million.

???The buyers and sellers had argued that the rest of the valuation resulted from early termination of a ground lease. D.C. does not tax ground leases, which consist of a developer paying a landowner rent for a right to build on land and use it for years.

???The trial court agreed with the Hobby Lobby and Vornado Realty subsidiaries. But the Court of Appeals said the ground lease was only one part of the deal, which meant the entire transaction was taxable.

???The buyers also purchased rights to retake possession of two parcels after conditions of the sale were satisfied, or a reversionary interest.

???"The transfers of those reversionary interests were taxable and yet entirely unaccounted for in how the taxpayers structured their sale and tax payments," Judge Josjua Deahl wrote. "The taxpayers in effect, albeit silently, lumped the value of those reversionary interests together with the consideration paid for the early ground lease terminations and thereby improperly reduced their tax burdens."

???The initial buyer was Hobby Lobby. It later signed over its rights to WOC LLC and Museum of the Bible Inc.

???The structure of the deal is not unique to Hobby Lobby and Vornado Realty, the ruling said.

???"Adding to the importance of this issue is that … more entities have begun structuring their commercial real estate sales in a manner similar to how the taxpayers here structured their sales, in an apparent effort to lighten their tax burdens," Judge Deahl wrote.

???The case was remanded to the trial court but without penalties to the parties.

???The case is District of Columbia v. Design Center Owner (D.C.) LLC et al., case numbers 21-TX-0473 and 21-TX-0627, in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Google to Pay $9.5 Million Settlement

Over Secret Tracking of D.C. Users

???Internet giant Google agreed last week to a $9.5 million settlement with the District of Columbia Attorney General’s Office over allegations it secretly tracked users’ locations.

???Google denied wrongdoing, including claims that its tracking of users continued after they left the website.

???The D.C. attorney general joined lawsuits by 40 states that made similar complaints. Google is paying a total of $391 million to end all the claims.

???The settlement requires Google to inform users with pop-up notifications about the kind of information the company gathers on them and how to disable tracking. Google agreed to maintain a webpage that disclosed the type of information it collects, how enabling location history settings will affect information-gathering and how users can limit data collection.

???Google would be restricted from sharing users' location information with third parties without their consent.

???"Given the vast level of tracking and surveillance that technology companies can embed into their widely used products, it is only fair that consumers be informed of how important user data, including information about their every move, is gathered, tracked, and utilized by these companies," former D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said in a statement.

???The D.C. lawsuit claimed a violation of the local Consumer Protection Procedures Act. It accused Google of misleading users who believed turning off their tracking location history would prevent anyone from knowing their whereabouts.

???Google tried in April to get the D.C. lawsuit dismissed by saying Washington courts lacked jurisdiction over the California-based company.

???D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert R. Rigsby denied Google's motion to dismiss, saying the tracking of D.C. residents to help the company target ads at them gave local courts jurisdiction.

???Google said in a blog posting last week that it already has completed many of the changes required under the settlement.

???The case is District of Columbia v. Google LLC, case number 2022 CA 000330 B, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Federal Trade Commission Proposes

Ban on Non-Compete Clauses

???The Federal Trade Commission is trying to ban the non-compete clauses that prevent employees from switching jobs to work for a competitor.

???A rule the agency proposed last week would prohibit employers from using non-compete clauses in employment contracts with paid staff members, independent contractors and volunteers. It would classify the clauses as unfair competition.

???"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. "Non-competes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand. By ending this practice, FTC's proposed rule would promote greater dynamism, innovation and healthy competition."

???The FTC estimates that banning non-compete clauses would increase wages by nearly $300 billion a year for 30 million workers across a wide range of industries.

???State laws that allow non-compete clauses can prevent entrepreneurs from starting their own businesses and inhibit their ability to bring innovative ideas to new employers, the FTC says.

???"The proposed rule would ensure that employers can't exploit their outsized bargaining power to limit workers' opportunities and stifle competition," the FTC said in a statement.

???The proposed rule faces opposition from employers who argue that non-compete clauses help them retain talented employees. They also create incentives for employers to invest in training and to promote long-time staff members.

???Opponents include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which says the proposed rule exceeds the FTC’s authority and is “blatantly unlawful.” A better option is to assess the fairness of non-compete clauses on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they promote legitimate business interests, the Chamber says.

???The FTC invokes authority for its proposed rule under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It prohibits ''unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.''?

???Section 5 defines unfair acts as business practices that:

???Cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers,

???Cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and

???Are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.