Comedian and popular podcaster Theo Von wasn’t joking when he grabbed a man by the throat who was reportedly harassing him at a Nashville bar — in a wild confrontation caught on video. In the footage, obtained by TMZ, a man holding a bouquet of golden birthday balloons approaches Von, 45, from behind at The…
THE NEWS
Jeanine Pirro sworn in as interim US attorney
3M Settles New Jersey’s ‘Forever Chemicals’ Contamination Lawsuit For $450 Million
3M Settles New Jersey’s ‘Forever Chemicals’ Contamination Lawsuit For $450 Million
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Chemical manufacturer 3M has entered into a settlement agreement with New Jersey to resolve claims accusing the company of contaminating water and other natural resources with PFAS substances, popularly known as “forever chemicals,” the state Attorney General’s office said in a May 13 statement.
The settlement, valued at up to $450 million and subject to court approval, is the “largest statewide PFAS settlement in New Jersey history,” said the statement. It resolves certain lawsuits filed by the state against the company in 2019.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are used in fabric, furniture, industrial products, and several household items. Known as “forever chemicals” because of their inability to degrade over time, these substances continue to accumulate in human beings and the environment.
The chemicals have been found in drinking water, livestock, and food packaging, and are linked to several adverse health issues such as cancers, endocrine disorders, developmental issues in fetuses, and negative impacts on reproduction and immune function.
The settlement amount will be paid over a period of 25 years, with around $275 million to $325 million scheduled to be paid between 2026 and 2034, and the remainder between 2035 and 2050.
The first lawsuit on the matter was a complaint filed in March 2019. It alleged that New Jersey sustained environmental damage from 3M’s role in contaminating the Chambers Works site in Pennsville and Carneys Point in Salem County.
The second lawsuit, also filed in March 2019, made similar claims against the company’s Parlin facility in Sayreville in Middlesex County.
A third complaint was filed against 3M and other manufacturers in May 2019, citing environmental damage and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This was related to the manufacture and sale of certain products that allegedly contained or broke down into PFAS chemicals.
With the settlement agreement, all these lawsuits are now resolved.
“For decades, 3M knew that their PFAS chemicals were forever contaminating the New Jersey environment. But they continued to pollute the environment and escape accountability. That ends now,” said Attorney General Matthew Platkin.
“New Jersey has some of the highest levels of PFAS in the country. That’s why New Jersey has been leading the national charge against corporate polluters who contaminate our drinking water and harm our state’s communities.”
The agreement also settles 3M’s liability related to a statewide PFAS directive issued in 2019 by New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection.
Announcing the settlement in a May 12 statement, 3M said it had committed to ending all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025 and was “on track to do so.”
“This agreement is another important step toward reducing risk and uncertainty on these legacy issues, allowing 3M to focus on its strategic priorities,” it said.
“In the agreement, the State specifically recognized that 3M ‘has taken actions, which other companies have not taken, to cease manufacturing’ PFAS.”
Tackling PFAS Contamination
3M has previously settled claims related to PFAS contamination. In June 2023, the company reached a $10.3 billion settlement with multiple public drinking water systems. The amount was set to be paid over a period of 13 years.
The company was caught up in another complaint in December when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against 3M and DuPont for allegedly misleading consumers about the safety of PFAS.
“Defendants marketed products containing harmful PFAS chemicals for over 70 years and were aware of the harmful effects of PFAS chemicals for over 50 years,” the state said in the lawsuit.
The Trump administration is taking action to combat PFAS contamination.
On April 28, Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), outlined certain actions the agency intends to take on the matter.
Such actions include establishing liability frameworks to ensure polluters pay for contamination and creating limitation guidelines for PFAS manufacturers.
“I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,” Zeldin said.
“This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water.
“With today’s announcement, we are tackling PFAS from all of EPA’s program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable.”
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/15/2025 – 13:25
BK musicians hire private lab to test for toxic Gowanus Canal vapors after landlord gives silent treatment: ‘This could kill me’
These Brooklyn musicians are playing to deaf ears. Tenants at a band rehearsal space near Brooklyn’s toxic Gowanus Canal are taking matters into their own hands and pooling funds to hire a private company to test for cancer-causing vapors inside the building after the landlord refused to let state inspectors inside. The space — which…
Aaron Judge opens up to The Post on Juan Soto leaving Yankees for Mets: ‘I tried to do my part’
“I’m excited to see him,” Judge said.
5 takeaways from oral arguments on universal injunctions at high court
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday on whether nationwide injunctions violate the Constitution, after lower courts have issued 40 nationwide injunctions against the second Trump administration.
“Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III which exist only to address the injury to the complaining party,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued.
The case, Trump v. CASA, concerns nationwide injunctions that lower court judges have ordered, pausing President Donald Trump’s order interpreting the 14th Amendment as not guaranteeing what is known as “birthright citizenship,” the idea that if someone is born in the U.S. to alien parents (who are not foreign diplomats or enemies in a hostile occupation), they are immediately a citizen.
Critics of birthright citizenship note that the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” Emphasis added. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not apply to aliens who enter the U.S. and then give birth in America, they say, because non-Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.
Supporters of birthright citizenship note that the U.S. has extended citizenship to children of aliens born in the U.S. for more than 100 years.
The Supreme Court arguments did not focus on the birthright citizenship issue, but rather the legality of lower courts issuing injunctions that apply to the entire country. Many of the groups filing the lawsuits that result in the injunctions had a great deal of influence in the Biden administration, as noted in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.”
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum argued in favor of the legality of universal injunctions, claiming that an injunction that only applied to New Jersey would not address the issues in the case.
Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, represented immigration groups.
Sauer’s Argument Against Universal Injunctions
While judges have the authority to issue temporary injunctions to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, the Trump administration claims the judges have abused this power, claiming to protect people across the country who aren’t parties to the suit.
Sauer noted that courts have issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts.
He argued that these injunctions “prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions” through the normal legal process. He also argued that “they encourage forum shopping,” that is, parties filing lawsuits in certain areas, seeking friendly judges who will issue injunctions on their behalf. He further argued that they circumvent Rule 23, the process by which plaintiffs apply for class action.
“They create what [Supreme Court] Justice [William] Powell describes as repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government,” Sauer added, referring to a justice who served from 1972 to 1987.
The History of Universal Injunctions
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer about the history of universal injunctions, and the solicitor general pointed to 1963 as the first example.
“We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked.
“Correct,” Sauer responded. “Those were rare in the 1960s. It exploded in 2007. The Ninth Circuit started doing this with a bunch of cases involving environmental claims.”
The solicitor general noted that “the court consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in your court.”
In response to questions from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sauer brought up the history of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, where “there were passionate challenges to nationwide policies,” but when judges held New Deal policies illegal, they issued “hundreds of injunctions protecting individual plaintiffs.”
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum cited the English common law practice of a “bill of peace,” which judges used to settle multiple related claims against a defendant in a single lawsuit. The practice allowed the court to bind all members of a “multitude” with the outcome, even if they didn’t directly participate in the lawsuit. Sauer argued that a “bill of peace” most resembles class-action lawsuits, not universal injunctions.
Feigenbaum also cited cases from before the 1960s, which Sauer claimed do not represent universal injunctions.
Corkran argued that if the court ruled in Trump’s favor, it would reject “the status quo all three branches of government have ratified and operated under for over a century,” warning that “catastrophic consequences would result for the plaintiffs and our country” if the government can “execute an unconstitutional citizenship-stripping scheme simply because the court challenges take time.”
Alternatives to Universal Injunctions
Sauer argued that judges have alternatives to universal injunctions, such as class-action lawsuits.
Feigenbaum noted many practical considerations that would make unworkable an injunction that only applied to New Jersey.
He noted that if children of illegal aliens don’t have U.S. citizenship in other states but do gain it when they move to New Jersey, that introduces serious problems with New Jersey’s legal obligations to provide benefits, such as Medicaid, to citizens.
“They did not get Social Security numbers because they would not have been eligible for the enumeration at birth,” Feigenbaum said. “They are going to arrive and seek benefits that we administer. Federal law requires that they have Social Security numbers for the administration of these benefits.”
Elena Kagan Taunts Sauer
Justice Elena Kagan taunted Sauer, noting that many judges have ruled against the Trump administration.
“This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. Every court ruled against you,” she said.
Sauer argued, however, that nationwide injunctions encourage “forum shopping,” so the success of nationwide injunctions in courts that plaintiffs target because judges are more likely to side with them may illustrate bias, as well as legal concerns.
Good for the System?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s appointee, suggested that universal injunctions might be healthy for the judicial system.
“It seems to me that when the government is completely enjoined from doing the thing it wants to do, it moves quickly to appeal that,” bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
Sauer responded that the courts are supposed to work more slowly, methodically considering cases and not rushing them through emergency dockets to the Supreme Court. The “percolation” of cases through lower courts up to the Supreme Court is “a merit of our system, not a bad feature of our system,” he responded.
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]
US Treasury ‘Surprised, Confused’ By Trump’s Sudden Lifting Of Syria Sanctions
US Treasury ‘Surprised, Confused’ By Trump’s Sudden Lifting Of Syria Sanctions
Much of the world was caught off guard when amid an avalanche of multiple US-Gulf deals worth hundreds of billions of dollars each being signed Wednesday, President Trump not only announced that he is lifting all sanctions on Syria, but even met in-person with US-designated terrorist and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa (Jolani) in the Saudi capital.
Apparently even the State Department and US Treasury departments were caught off guard. Trump’s move to lift sanctions on Syria “took many by surprise,” including his own officials at State and Treasury, according to Reuters.
“In Washington, senior officials at the State Department and Treasury Department scrambled to understand how to cancel the sanctions, many of which have been in place for decades … The White House had issued no memorandum or directive to State or Treasury sanctions officials to prepare for the unwinding and didn’t alert them that the president’s announcement was imminent,” several senior US officials anonymously told publication.
“Officials were confused about exactly how the administration would unwind the layers of sanctions, which ones were being eased and when the White House wanted to begin the process,” they added while emphasizing that top officials were “caught off guard.”
“Everyone is trying to figure out how to implement it,” Reuters cited the officials as saying. Legally and procedurally, the removal of the sanctions will be a process which could take weeks or even months.
Meanwhile there are reports saying the Syrian Pound (SYP) jumped 30% quickly upon Trump’s announcement. The local currency has experienced runaway inflation, and people have to lug huge bricks of cash around to purchase simple items like eggs or medicines.
Syrians have further endured rolling blackouts and lack of resources, or even fuel, for years amid the US-sanctions regimen which was geared toward regime change. But now…
The streets of Syria were a carnival of car horns, fireworks and flags after President Donald Trump made the surprise announcement that the United States would lift sanctions that have throttled the country’s economy for more than 45 years.
Trump stunned even close observers on Tuesday by saying he wants to normalize relations after Syria’s longtime president, Bashar al Assad, was toppled in December. Trump met Wednesday with Assad’s successor, interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former leader of an al-Qaeda offshoot group, in Saudi Arabia after urging him late Tuesday to “show us something special.”
Trump said he wanted to give Syrians a ‘fresh start’ – and indeed this could be the start of an economic turnaround after years of brutal proxy war.
With Assad having been overthrown, the Saudis and Qataris are also stepping in to cover national debt and prop up public sector salaries.
Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs: “With the fall of the Assad regime last year, U.S. posture should change and shouldn’t continue to punish the Syrian people.”
A clear articulation of the US posture in Syria up until last year: to bring about the fall of the Assad regime, the US… pic.twitter.com/lllUpwIZbF
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) May 15, 2025
Ultimately, Washington and the Gulf monarchies got their desired regime change in Syria. It was never about “democracy” or the Syrian people at all. The brutality of the sanctions, which compounded the common mysery, proves that – as some US officials are now openly admitting.
But this sick policy of the Washington blob is nothing really new…
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/15/2025 – 13:10
Bless Her Heart! X Has ZERO Sympathy for Rashida Tlaib BLUBBERING on the House Floor and LOL (Watch)
‘Casanova killer’ Glen Rogers set to be executed nearly 30 years after murder spree
Glen Rogers, 62, a self-proclaimed serial killer who once told a law enforcement official he had killed 70 women, will be put to death on Thursday by lethal injection.
Tiffany Trump gives birth to first baby with husband Michael Boulos
Trump and Boulos tied the knot in November 2022 at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. The couple’s little one is President Trump’s 11th grandchild.