Today, continuing our longstanding opposition to the ruination of American healthcare by importing foreign…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF Joins 75-Group National & State Coalition Opposing Socialized Medicine and Importation of Foreign Price Controls

Today, continuing our longstanding opposition to the ruination of American healthcare by importing foreign price controls and socialized medicine, CFIF proudly joins a 75-group coalition letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services opposing the interim final rule to implement the "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) model under Section 1115A of the Social Security Act, which forces physicians, patients and providers into a mandatory demonstration under the ObamaCare Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and which ties prices paid for medicines in Medicare Part B to the prices paid in socialized healthcare systems of foreign nations.

Specifically, the letter explains in detail how the rule will do nothing to stop foreign freeloading off of American pharmaceutical innovation…[more]

January 25, 2021 • 04:53 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Jester’s Courtroom
Coffee, Tea, or a Blondie?
Wednesday, December 02 2020

United Airlines is being sued by two veteran flight attendants who claim the airline is discriminating against older crew members because it is only using “youthful, white flight attendants – most of whom are blonde” on NFL charter flights for the Los Angeles Rams, as well as a number of other sports teams including the Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints and Pittsburgh Pirates. 

The lawsuit, brought by Kim Guillory and Sharon Tesler, two long-serving United flight attendants, alleges older crew are barred from operating on charter flights and the airline determines the economic value of crew based “entirely on their racial and physical attributes, and stereotypical notions of sexual allure.”

The two women claim United’s “assignment of flight attendants for charter flights arranged by dozens of professional and collegiate American sports teams is based entirely and unlawfully on age, race and ancestry, gender, and physical appearance.”

“United has not only demeaned its hard-working and long-standing loyal employees, but created an egregious workplace culture in which discrimination, harassment, and retaliation have taken root and flourished,” the suit continues.

According to news reports, the flight attendants claim that every time they tried to pick up charter flights that appeared on the open marketing scheduling system they were denied, with younger blonde flight attendants with less seniority picked up for the trips.

United denied the accusations and said the charter customers were allowed to pick from a list of flight attendants – “there was nothing United could do except comply with the customer’s request,” the lawsuit claims.

United has “created a despicable situation,” the women further allege, asking the court to award them compensatory damages for discrimination and harassment they’ve allegedly suffered.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the airline said: “United Airlines is proud of our track record on diversity, equity and inclusion. While we cannot comment on this ongoing litigation, the flight attendants included in our sports team charter program are largely representative of our overall flight attendant population in regards to age and race.”

“Importantly, flight attendant eligibility to work a charter flight is based solely on performance and attendance and has nothing to do with age, race or gender.”


The Next Big Gift: A Lawsuit
Wednesday, November 18 2020

Supermodel Naomi Campbell and her ex-boyfriend billionaire Vladislav Doronin are allegedly locked in competing lawsuits over millions of dollars of belongings and gifts given to one another.

According to news reports, Campbell and Doronin dated for five years, ending the relationship in 2013. Campbell reportedly threw a three-day party in India for his 50th birthday, flying in Diana Ross via private jet to perform. Meanwhile, Doronin is said to have built her "a multi-million dollar love nest in a Moscow forest" and given her a 25-bedroom house in Turkey shaped like the Egyptian Eye of Horus as a 41st birthday present.

Campbell filed suit in London in February against Doronin, seeking to retrieve “some of her things...that are in his possession.”  In September, Doronin filed his own suit in New York Supreme Court against Campbell on grounds she never repaid a loan he gave her and she still is in possession of approximately $3 million of his belongings.

"She's been asking for these things back for years, but they've had no recent conversation. And then he went and did this," said an unnamed source.

Though her rep had no comment, a friend of the two told news sources the legal back-and-forth "can't be just about the cash," given his billionaire status and her estimated $80 million net worth. "It's about the game. It's a power thing," the friend surmised.

Reportedly, Campbell and Doronin eventually split after he was caught "passionately embracing" a Chinese model in Ibiza. The model, Luo Zilin, was someone Naomi had previously mentored, according to the news sources.


Want Privacy? Try a Deserted Island
Tuesday, November 10 2020

Neighbors living in an affluent area of Laguna Beach, California, are locked in a lawsuit over ocean views, noise and aesthetics.

According to news reports, Bill Gross, co-founder of bond giant Pacific Investment Management Co, and his partner, Amy Schwartz, are the subject of a complaint filed by tech entrepreneur Mark Towfiq and his wife, Carol Nakahara, over an illuminated 22-foot-long art installation in Mr. Gross’ yard. Towfiq claims the Dale Chihuly glass sculpture, which stretches as high as 10 feet and includes protective netting, was installed on Gross’ $32 million property without a permit. 

After filing the complaint with Laguna Beach authorities, Towfiq alleges that Gross and Schwartz have repeatedly played the theme song to “Gilligan’s Island” throughout the yard, constituting “harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Towfiq said the dispute has damaged his childhood memories of Gilligan’s Island. Towfiq and Nakahara are seeking a temporary restraining order. 

“It’s almost like being inside of a prison,” said Nakahara about the loud theme-song music that has kept her inside of her house. 

Gross and Schwartz have filed their own complaint seeking a restraining order, charging that Towfiq invaded their privacy by pointing cameras at their house.

A neighbor, Kian Khaloghli, who lives across the street has offered to mediate the dispute. “They can all come into my backyard and have a glass of wine, and we can figure this out,” he said.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Dancing Around a Difficult Lawsuit
Wednesday, November 04 2020

The New York City Ballet has been dropped from a lawsuit related to the sharing of explicit photos.

Alexandra Waterbury, a former student at the School of American Ballet, an affiliate academy of the New York City Ballet, sued the City Ballet and several other defendants. In her 2018 lawsuit, Waterbury alleges that the City Ballet condoned a culture that enabled “fraternity-like” behavior, fostering an atmosphere that allowed demeaning behavior toward women to occur. Waterbury contended that the company had shirked its responsibility to protect her.

According to news reports, Waterbury sued after discovering that her then boyfriend, Chase Finlay, a principal dancer with City Ballet, shared explicit photos and videos of her with other members of the company. Last month, 19 of Waterbury’s 20 claims were dismissed, with the State Supreme Court Judge in Manhattan ruling that City Ballet was not negligent in the handling of the situation and that it didn’t have a duty to protect Waterbury because she was not the company's student at the time. The only remaining defendant, Finlay,  recently offered an expansive rebuttal to Waterbury’s charges, acknowledging that he shared the photos but claiming he was the victim of abuse by Waterbury.

"Plaintiff’s emotional instability resulted in extraordinary fits of jealousy that would evolve into paroxysmal, violent rages and repeated physical attacks upon Mr. Finlay," the court filing said.

At the core of Finlay’s defense is the argument he never meant to cause Waterbury harm by sharing the images; Finlay claims, instead, that he was bragging to his friends.

"Mr. Finlay was frequently under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances when he sent the photographs but the dissemination was never done with malice," the court papers say.

Finlay has since left the company. Waterbury’s lawyer said there are plans to appeal.


They’re Just Doggone Funny
Wednesday, October 28 2020

Jack Daniels, a major whiskey manufacturer, has sued the manufacturer of a dog toy claiming its product associates Jack Daniels’ “image of sophistication” with “juvenile bathroom humor.”

The lawsuit filed against VIP Productions cites infringement on the company’s trademark for a squeaky dog toy in the shape of a bottle of Jack Daniels’ Old No. 7 Black Label Tennessee Whiskey with a label that replaces “Jack Daniels” with “Bad Spaniels” and describes the brand as “The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee Carpet.” Instead of alcohol-content descriptions, the label says “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”

A trial judge sided with the whiskey company, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled differently.

“The toy communicates a humorous message, using word play to alter the serious phrase that appears on a Jack Daniels bottle — ‘Old No. 7 Brand’ — with a silly message — ‘The Old. No. 2,’ ” wrote Judge Andrew Hurwitz for the court. “The effect is a simple message conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner.”

The company has appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Jack Daniels has invested substantial resources into an image of sophistication,” said attorney Lisa Blatt, who represents the company. “Accordingly, Jack Daniels has a strong interest in protecting its trademarks and trade dress from association with juvenile bathroom humor.”

Blatt also told the justices that the company “carefully licenses” its images on non-whiskey products, including pet products like branded dog leashes, dog collars and dog houses. She said the toy in question is likely to confuse consumers about who is sponsoring it.

What the court rules could have a spillover effect onto other products manufactured by VIP. The company’s web site features similar products, including Heine Sniff’n in something that looks like a Heineken bottle, Mountain Drool that mimics a Mountain Dew bottle, and Cataroma that bears more than a passing resemblance to Corona.


Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was eulogized as “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen”?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"Incoming Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has suggested taxing Americans for the number of miles they drive, a policy he endorsed as a Democratic presidential candidate.The Biden Administration is actively searching for ways to fund its ambitious $1 trillion infrastructure plan.Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., acknowledged 'privacy concerns' related to implementing a vehicle…[more]
—Nicholas Ballasy, Just the News Senior Correspondent
— Nicholas Ballasy, Just the News Senior Correspondent
Liberty Poll   

Would a federally mandated $15 an hour minimum wage have a positive or negative impact on your state's overall economy?