Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
When Richard Camel finally reported the racism he said he’d endured for years inside the Passaic County Sheriff’s Office, he expected an investigation. Instead, the 55-year-old corrections corporal says his own department unleashed a campaign of punishment — suspensions, surveillance, trumped-up charges, hostile reassignments — all designed, he believed, to break him for speaking out.
A New Jersey jury agreed that Camel was wronged. And now the cost is $750,000. Camel won $375,000 in damages, with another $375,000 in legal fees awarded by the court — a stunning rebuke of a sheriff’s office he served for 25 years.
For Camel, the verdict was vindication: “I finally got my justice,” he said. But he also calls it something else: the price of telling the truth.
Richard Camel, 55, of Paterson, won $375,000 in his retaliation lawsuit against the Passaic County Sheriff’s Office. Photo courtesy of Richard Camel
Camel filed suit in 2021, arguing that after he complained about harassment from a sergeant in 2016, the sheriff’s office retaliated instead of protecting him.
Jurors concluded the department did not discriminate because of race, but it did retaliate “more likely than not” once he spoke up.
The retaliation wasn’t subtle. Camel was transferred to a worse shift, hit with a five-day suspension for alleged conduct from 2015 just weeks after filing his complaint, and confronted with a barrage of disciplinary charges seemingly designed to force him out.
While caring for his mother during COVID-19, officers in an unmarked vehicle drove past his home, alarming neighbors and prompting a police response. He was later suspended for 35 days for not being home when investigators arrived — even though he was at the hospital with his mother. And at one point, a positive performance evaluation was allegedly ordered rewritten to make him look worse.
Camel said the message was unmistakable: You spoke up. Now you’ll pay.
Camel’s case exposes what civil-rights attorneys argue is a broader pattern inside some sheriff’s offices: don’t challenge the chain of command, don’t expose misconduct, and never accuse a superior.
Camel’s attorney, Leonard Schiro, said the jury recognized exactly what kind of system Camel was fighting.
“He went through a tough time up there,” Schiro said, adding that Camel’s ordeal shows how easily a department can weaponize discipline to crush a whistleblower.
Camel says the retaliation was designed not just to punish him — but to make an example out of him.
He describes:
Leadership closing ranks around abusive supervisors
Supervisors using internal affairs as a threat
A department more focused on silencing complaints than solving them
Camel believes this culture ultimately ended his career.
“I loved being an officer,” he said. “I was robbed of that. And no amount of money can ever bring it back.”
Camel says he reported discrimination informally as early as 2012 but feared retaliation. By 2016, when he finally spoke up, he said the warning signs were immediate: unwarranted scrutiny, discipline for old allegations, and attempts to paint him as a problem employee.
By 2020, after another written complaint, he said the retaliation escalated dramatically.
Internal affairs never conducted a full investigation.
He continued receiving removal-level charges.
Even after receiving a positive performance evaluation in 2021, Camel’s supervisor was reportedly ordered to rewrite it to make him look worse.
He retired in 2023 — only after disciplinary actions blocking his retirement were finally cleared.
“They were basically going after my livelihood,” he said. “They were trying to hurt me and my family.”
Despite the sheriff’s office avoiding a discrimination finding, the retaliation verdict — and its $750,000 price tag — send a clear message:
The department failed Camel.
Camel says the responsibility lies not just with the sergeants who targeted him, but with every commanding officer who stood by.
“Everyone who watched this happen is just as guilty,” he said.
Passaic County officials have not commented on the jury’s findings.
Camel, meanwhile, says he’s relieved the nightmare is over — but still grieving the career he lost, and the department he once trusted.
Camel’s lawsuit was brought under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), which treats retaliation as a standalone violation. To win, Camel only needed to show that he:
Reported alleged harassment,
Faced adverse actions afterward, and
That the two were connected.
Jurors decided that standard was met. While they did not find racial discrimination, they concluded the sheriff’s office retaliated through suspensions, shifted assignments, surveillance, and downgraded evaluations — all actions NJLAD considers unlawful if they would deter an employee from speaking up.
Because NJLAD also mandates fee-shifting, the $375,000 verdict automatically triggered another $375,000 in attorney’s fees.
Bottom line: In New Jersey, retaliation itself is illegal — and juries take it seriously even when discrimination isn’t proven.
👉 Recent News: Ja Rule Fires Back After Blogger Claims He Was Jumped in NYC: “Not a Scratch on Me” 👈
For years, Terrence told jail officers exactly what was happening to him inside New York City jails: he was being raped — repeatedly, violently, and in full view of surveillance cameras that should have protected him. He filed reports. He named names. In two cases, he pointed investigators to video that later showed detainees entering his cell and leaving with evidence of a sexual assault on their clothing.
And every single time, the Department of Correction dismissed him.
Now, after five ignored rape allegations across three years and two jail complexes, the city has quietly agreed to pay the 32-year-old $4 million to settle three lawsuits — a massive acknowledgment of failure in a jail system already collapsing under violence, mismanagement, and federal scrutiny.
Terrence’s attorney, Josh Kelner, put it plainly:
“The Department of Correction failed Terrence.”
Terrence, whose last name THE CITY is withholding, alleged that he was raped on at least five occasions between 2019 and 2022 at the Manhattan Detention Complex and at Rikers Island’s Anna M. Kross Center.
Each time, he made official reports.
Each time, evidence existed.
And each time, investigators either ignored or discarded it.
In one case, surveillance footage showed another detainee shutting Terrence’s cell door before emerging minutes later with a visible wet stain on his pants.
A correction officer walked by during the attack — and kept walking.
Investigators still called the complaint “unsubstantiated.”
At Rikers, camera footage captured two detainees walking to the recreation yard just before another assault. Investigators again dismissed Terrence’s report, speculating that the encounter “may have been consensual.”
Terrence reported three more attacks in 2022 — including one inside a broken-lock cell and one inside a shower — but investigators claimed footage “expired” before they could review it, or declared allegations “unfounded” even when an accused attacker admitted entering the cell.
Not a single officer or attacker was disciplined.
The settlement, filed in Bronx Supreme Court, arrives as the city’s jail system faces the possibility of an outside takeover. Manhattan federal court Judge Laura Swain is currently reviewing candidates for a “remediation manager” who could assume control of large parts of Rikers operations.
The Correction Department declined to comment, directing all questions to the Law Department, which also refused to answer.
Kelner believes Terrence was targeted because he is gay and has developmental disabilities — making him especially vulnerable inside a jail system already notorious for unchecked violence and staff negligence.
The attacks occurred years after the city announced it had achieved compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) — a milestone DOC leadership celebrated as proof of reform. Terrence’s case shows how hollow that claim was.
Under PREA, jails are required to investigate sexual abuse reports, preserve evidence, and ensure detainees are protected from retaliation.
Terrence’s case revealed the opposite:
Video evidence wasn’t preserved. Key camera angles were “lost,” “expired,” or never pulled.
Staff failed to intervene. Officers seen walking past active attacks did nothing.
Findings defied the evidence. “Unsubstantiated” became the default label, even when footage strongly suggested assault.
Broken infrastructure enabled abuse. Terrence’s cell lock was malfunctioning during one rape.
No assailants received consequences. Not one attacker or officer faced disciplinary action.
PREA, meant to be a protection, became a paperwork shield — a bureaucratic tool used to close cases instead of confront them.
Advocates say this isn’t unusual: PREA files often show patterns of investigators dismissing allegations without serious review.
The city’s jails are currently drowning in allegations of violence, excessive force, preventable deaths, and unsafe conditions.
In just one year, detainee-related claims jumped 38%, according to city data.
Terrence’s settlement won’t fix a system that allowed him to be attacked repeatedly — but it exposes, in stark detail, the rot inside Rikers’ investigative culture.
Kelner summed up the case in words the city still hasn’t publicly answered:
“He relied on corrections officers to protect him. Instead, he was repeatedly victimized.”
Texas’ mid-decade redistricting plan—pushed aggressively by Republicans and backed by former President Donald Trump—has been thrown into chaos after a panel of federal judges ruled the new congressional maps cannot be used. The decision forces Texas back to its previous district lines and leaves millions of voters wondering what map will govern the high-stakes 2026 elections.
The ruling is one of the most consequential legal setbacks Texas Republicans have faced in years. Judges concluded that lawmakers attempted an extraordinary and unconstitutional power play by redrawing maps mid-decade to secure up to five additional GOP-held U.S. House seats. Now the state is scrambling to determine whether it can salvage the plan before ballots are printed.
The outcome? Millions of Texans may have to vote in the same districts they used in 2022—even though the Legislature already passed and the governor already signed a map designed to transform the political landscape.
The federal panel’s ruling centers on two core findings: (1) Texas attempted an unlawful mid-decade redistricting, and (2) the new maps likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black and Latino voters.
Under federal law, states may not redraw congressional districts mid-decade solely for partisan advantage. Courts found Texas’ plan—engineered to secure up to five additional GOP seats—was an unconstitutional attempt to “entrench political power.”
Civil rights groups also argued the maps fractured minority communities in fast-growing regions, weakening their ability to elect candidates of choice. The judges agreed there were substantial signs of racial vote dilution, a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Because the 2026 election calendar is already underway, the panel issued a preliminary injunction preventing Texas from using the new maps. Until an appeal is resolved, the state must revert to its previously approved district lines.
Bottom line: the court ruled that Texas’ new maps cannot be used because the Legislature’s mid-decade redraw was both procedurally improper and potentially discriminatory under federal law.
This fall, Texas lawmakers executed a rare mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts. It was a fast-moving political maneuver encouraged by Trump and embraced by state Republican leadership, including Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton.
But in November, a three-judge federal panel halted the map, ruling that Texas could not enforce it in the 2026 elections.
The court’s order immediately reshaped the political calculus for both parties — and thrust Texas into yet another redistricting battle with national implications.
Attorney General Ken Paxton has vowed to appeal, but it remains unclear if the state realistically has time to rescue the rejected maps before candidate filing deadlines.
Multiple lawsuits were filed by groups representing Black and Latino voters who argued the redrawn districts diluted minority voting power and violated the Voting Rights Act.
Plaintiffs pointed to districts where fast-growing minority communities were carved apart, merged with distant suburbs, or shifted into majority-white districts in ways that dramatically changed their political influence.
The courts appeared to agree, issuing a ruling that blocked the maps before they could take effect.
If the ruling stands, the “new” mid-decade districts will not be used. Instead:
Voters will revert to the previously existing congressional maps
Candidates may have to adjust campaign plans abruptly
Some communities will escape dramatic changes that would have reshaped who represents them
The Texas Secretary of State has not yet provided updated district lookup tools, leaving many voters unsure which district they fall into for now.
Republican strategists who had counted on five new safe seats are now recalculating their 2026 roadmap. Losing those seats drastically alters GOP expectations for their national majority.
Democrats, meanwhile, see the ruling as a vindication of long-standing claims that Texas lawmakers repeatedly used the redistricting process to disadvantage communities of color. One senior Democratic strategist, reacting to the ruling publicly, called it “the most significant redistricting decision in Texas in nearly a decade.”
Local campaigns across the state are now in limbo. Several GOP challengers had launched campaigns specifically designed for the redrawn districts—districts that may no longer exist by the time the primaries begin.
Political consultants on both sides say the uncertainty could reshape fundraising, endorsements, and turnout operations.
One strategist summed it up bluntly:
“This ruling blew up everyone’s 2026 map overnight.”
The state has vowed to challenge the ruling, but mid-decade redistricting challenges often stall in the courts long enough to push disputed maps into the next decade.
If Paxton cannot win a fast-track appeal, voters will remain under the court-approved preexisting lines through at least the 2026 cycle.
The next major update will likely come when the court releases its full legal reasoning and timeline for potential appeals.
For now, every Texan’s question is the same: What map will I be voting in next year?
In a stunning escalation that has already sent shockwaves through Texas’ Muslim communities, Gov. Greg Abbott’s sudden order to investigate two Islamic organizations — followed by an unprecedented proclamation labeling them “terrorist organizations” — triggered an immediate lawsuit accusing him of defamation, constitutional violations, and state-sanctioned Islamophobia.
Within hours of Abbott’s announcement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Legal Fund of America asked a federal court to stop what they say is a baseless, retaliatory, and discriminatory attempt to strip Muslims of their right to own property in Texas. Their lawsuit argues that Abbott’s sweeping designation “finds no basis in law or fact” and puts millions of Texas Muslims at direct risk.
Abbott’s directive also empowers the Department of Public Safety — working alongside FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces — to begin criminal investigations into both CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, even though neither organization is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
Abbott’s move came just two days after he issued a proclamation designating the groups as “transnational criminal organizations,” a label usually reserved for cartels and foreign extremist networks. The designation immediately triggers a Texas land-ownership ban, preventing members or affiliates of the groups from purchasing or acquiring property in the state.
That, civil rights groups say, is exactly the point.
The lawsuit — naming Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton — argues the governor is attempting to use an anti-terror statute to police religious identity and political speech.
The proclamation “is defamatory and finds no basis in law or fact,” CAIR and the Muslim Legal Fund wrote.
They warn that Abbott’s order hands Paxton new authority to deny Muslims their constitutional rights, “creating an imminent risk of harm.”
CAIR, a long-established Muslim civil rights organization, blasted Abbott’s announcement.
“Although we are flattered by Greg Abbott’s obsession with our civil rights organization, his publicity stunt masquerading as a proclamation has no basis in fact or law,” CAIR said.
The group said Abbott’s claims rely on “debunked conspiracy theories and made-up quotes,” and vowed to challenge the designation if it becomes enforceable policy.
Abbott accused both organizations of “supporting terrorism across the globe” and “subverting Texas laws through violence, intimidation, and harassment.” He also said the investigation will target groups “who unlawfully impose Sharia law,” which he claims violates the Texas Constitution.
Sharia refers to a set of moral and faith-based principles Muslims follow — including prayer, fasting, charitable giving, and ethical conduct — not the substitution of American law.
Legal experts say Abbott’s framing raises serious constitutional alarms.
Emily Berman, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the proclamation likely collides with the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
“Is it about their religious views? Their viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?” she asked. “You can’t discriminate on someone’s viewpoint.”
She also questioned whether Texas has a legal process for appealing such designations, unlike the federal system — an ambiguity that could strengthen a legal challenge.
“This is in the sort of Islamophobic toolbox that Abbott is picking up,” said Habiba Noor, lecturer at Trinity University. She said the attempt to tie CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood is a conspiracy theory resurfacing since the 1990s.
Noor noted that tensions spiked after controversy surrounding EPIC City, a proposed Islamic residential community near Dallas that faced intense pushback from opponents. Abbott signed a bill aimed at barring “Sharia compounds,” despite there being no evidence the development planned to operate under religious law.
For many Muslim Texans, Abbott’s latest move feels like an extension of that conflict — a message about who is welcome in the state, and who isn’t.
Interviews across Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio reveal growing fear among Texas Muslims who worry Abbott’s order goes beyond policy — and spills into daily life.
Parents say children are asking if they will be removed from their homes. College students report being questioned about their political views on campus. Mosque leaders say requests for security patrols have doubled.
Civil rights groups are warning that the governor’s proclamation risks normalizing suspicion toward Muslims at a time when hate-crime complaints have risen nationally.
“It puts a direct target on the backs of Muslims in Texas,” Houston resident Amatullah Contractor said. “It seeks to intimidate and silence an entire community.”
Others say the order is especially alarming because it appears to connect property rights — one of the most fundamental protections in American law — to religious identity.
“CAIR is literally here to help individuals,” said Houston resident Shayan Sajid, who has attended the Maryam Islamic Center for two decades. “There’s nothing there to be afraid of. Nothing tying them to violence. But now ordinary Muslims feel like we’re under a microscope.”
Advocates warn that the psychological impact may outlast any court battle.
The East Plano Islamic Center’s planned community — featuring homes, a faith-based school, a mosque, and retail — drew fierce opposition and multiple investigations despite complying with state housing laws.
The nonprofit managing it agreed to follow Texas Fair Housing Act guidelines. CAIR is not involved in the project, but its Dallas-Fort Worth office criticized Abbott’s involvement.
Noor said the attempt to connect CAIR to global extremism mirrors longstanding efforts to link Muslim civic organizations to foreign political movements.
“The tie to land goes back to this conflict over EPIC City,” she said. “It’s yet another move to deny Muslims the right to develop properties together as a community.”
State Rep. Cole Hefner, who sponsored the new law granting Abbott expanded property-ban powers, praised the governor’s action, calling it a tool to “stop extremist networks.”
CAIR’s lawsuit argues Abbott’s designation violates the First Amendment, Equal Protection, and exceeds Texas’s authority by intruding into federal national-security powers.
Civil-rights lawyers say the state lacks any formal legal process for labeling groups as terrorist organizations, making the proclamation vulnerable to constitutional challenge. The case now hinges on whether Texas can restrict property rights or launch criminal investigations based solely on a governor’s unilateral designation.
Scholars say Abbott’s proclamation may push Texas into legally murky territory.
Unlike the federal government, Texas lacks a formalized process for labeling an organization a terrorist entity. The state also has limited authority over national security matters, which are traditionally federal responsibilities.
Whether CAIR — or any other group — can appeal a state-level designation remains unclear.
Berman said CAIR could argue that Texas is overstepping into an exclusive federal domain.
That fight now moves to the courts.
➡️ Latest: Encore Slams Online Gambling Bill as a ‘Bad Bet,’ Warning Mass. Lawmakers It Will Cost Jobs and Gut Casinos ⬅️
In a stunning post-election twist that state leaders say could delay life-saving medical research for years, a last-minute lawsuit has frozen Texas’ $3 billion dementia research initiative, even though nearly 70% of voters approved it. The legal challenge—filed by three voters acting without attorneys—accuses Texas’ voting machines of being “unlawful,” a claim that echoes past debunked allegations but now carries enormous financial stakes.
The pause comes just as the state was preparing to launch one of the most ambitious dementia-focused research efforts in U.S. history—one that lawmakers promised would make Texas a national leader in Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and brain-disease innovation.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who championed the measure, blasted the lawsuit as a direct hit on the half-million Texans living with dementia, calling the effort “disgusting,” “frivolous,” and a “cruel distraction” from the urgent need for medical breakthroughs.
Three Texas voters—Shannon Huggins, Lars Kuslich and Jose Silvester—filed the lawsuit on Nov. 13 in Travis County, directly targeting the Texas Secretary of State’s Office.
They argue that some voting machines used in the November election were not properly certified under federal law and therefore the results approving Proposition 14, which created the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT), should be tossed out.
Notably, the plaintiffs did not challenge the other 16 propositions on the ballot, even though those measures relied on the same machines. Instead, they focused solely on blocking the dementia fund, pointing to its financial scale:
“As Texas taxpayers, Contestants suffer a distinct injury from the $3 billion diversion of general revenue…” the lawsuit claims.
Lt. Gov. Patrick criticized the lawsuit sharply, saying the plaintiffs appear to be weaponizing election doubts to delay medical funding voters clearly wanted.
“This attack on DPRIT is disgusting and is a disservice to the roughly 500,000 Texans who suffer from dementia, and their families who suffer along with them,” Patrick said.
Patrick urged the courts to act quickly, saying the delay is harming families who “cannot afford to wait years for hope.”
Texas law currently prevents constitutional amendments from taking effect when an election is under active court challenge.
Although lawmakers passed House Bill 16 earlier this year to stop exactly this kind of procedural freeze, the law doesn’t become effective until Dec. 4.
Because the lawsuit was filed before that date, the entire $3 billion research effort is now stalled—with no clear timeline for resolution.
Texas has seen an uptick in post-election challenges involving voting machines.
In 2023, multiple lawsuits—also driven by right-wing activists—attempted to halt constitutional amendments based on allegations of faulty or insecure voting equipment. Those claims were later found to be unsupported by evidence.
Two of the current plaintiffs, Huggins and Kuslich, have filed similar lawsuits in past elections.
Patrick labelled this one “abuse of the legal system.”
If allowed to proceed, DPRIT would become one of the nation’s most aggressive state-funded efforts to tackle brain disease. The initiative would:
Recruit leading physicians, neuroscientists, and researchers
Fund breakthrough investigations into dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and related disorders
Support prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs
Invest in new medicines, cutting-edge facilities, and clinical trials
Establish a governing board of top-tier medical and scientific experts
Texas leaders have framed the move as both a medical mission and an economic strategy—a way to attract major research talent, biotech companies, and innovation hubs.
The initial $3 billion investment would come from the state’s surplus or rainy-day fund.
While the lawsuit focuses on voting machines, families living with dementia say the real harm is the months—or even years—of delay that could follow if courts allow the case to drag on.
Advocates note that dementia research is already underfunded nationally and that Texas had finally taken a historic step to change that. Several medical groups have warned that every year of stalled progress represents lost opportunities, lost data, and lost lives.
Doctors with the Alzheimer’s Association and Texas Neurological Society have emphasized in previous public statements (unrelated to this lawsuit) that early intervention and research funding are crucial, especially in states with rapidly aging populations.
For families, the concern is simple:
the longer the fight over machines continues, the longer scientific breakthroughs are pushed out of reach.
The Texas Tribune contacted the plaintiffs for comment but did not receive immediate responses.
Meanwhile, state leaders are bracing for a legal fight that could stretch deep into 2026 unless resolved quickly.
Patrick, for his part, wants a rapid ruling:
“This frivolous lawsuit has prevented the DPRIT constitutional amendment from taking effect, despite nearly 70% of the vote!”
Until a court acts—or HB 16 takes effect—Texas’ most ambitious public-health initiative in decades remains in limbo.
Millions of Amazon Prime customers across the U.S. are about to get unexpected money back — and most people don’t even know they qualify.
After a massive $2.5 billion settlement with federal regulators, Amazon has begun issuing refunds to customers who were allegedly signed up for Prime through misleading enrollment flows or experienced difficulty when trying to cancel.
The payout is one of the largest consumer settlements in the company’s history.
The best part?
Most eligible customers don’t have to do anything to receive their money.
Below is a simple guide to checking whether you qualify — and how to make sure you don’t miss your payment.
You may be eligible if you signed up for Amazon Prime through any of Amazon’s “challenged enrollment flows” between:
This includes signups made through:
the universal Prime decision page
shipping selection pages
single-page checkout
Prime Video enrollment pages
These were the flows the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged were designed in ways that pushed customers toward Prime without clearly presenting options or making cancellation straightforward.
Payments will be up to $51 per customer, depending on your account history and the type of enrollment Amazon has on file for you.
Amazon is notifying customers directly, so you don’t have to hunt down a claims form.
Here’s how the notifications work:
Emails began going out on November 12
Emails will continue through December 24
Payments will be sent via PayPal or Venmo
If you’re eligible but not automatically approved, a second notice between Dec. 24, 2025 – Jan. 23, 2026 will explain how to submit your claim
That’s it — no third-party website, no forms to search for.
Check the email linked to your Amazon account
Look for messages from Amazon or PayPal/Venmo confirming a refund.
Search keywords like:
Prime refund
Amazon settlement
Your refund is ready
Check your PayPal or Venmo balance
If your account is linked to your Amazon email, you may have been paid already.
Watch for the second round of notices
These go out after Dec. 24 for customers who need to file a claim manually.
Most people: No.
According to the FTC, automatic payments are required for individuals Amazon’s records show were enrolled through the disputed flows.
If Amazon cannot confirm your eligibility automatically, the company must notify you and give you a chance to claim manually.
The 2023 FTC lawsuit accused Amazon of:
using "dark patterns" to push Prime signups
making the cancellation process intentionally complicated
hiding alternative options behind multiple screens
Amazon denied wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to resolve the case.
Millions of Prime customers will get small but meaningful refunds — and the process is far easier than most federal settlements.
If you think you might qualify, just:
keep an eye on your email
check PayPal or Venmo
watch for claim notices into January
It’s that simple.
The refunds stem from a $2.5 billion settlement resolving the Federal Trade Commission’s 2023 lawsuit accusing Amazon of violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices. Regulators alleged Amazon used “dark patterns” — design tactics that nudge users into choices they didn’t intend — to steer customers into Prime memberships and make cancellation difficult.
According to the complaint, Amazon’s enrollment flows obscured alternatives, required excessive clicks to opt out, and created friction in the cancellation process. While Amazon denied wrongdoing, the company agreed to a record-setting settlement that requires:
Automatic refunds for customers enrolled through disputed flows
Clearer disclosures about Prime enrollment and cancellation
A streamlined cancellation process
Ongoing oversight by the FTC
The agreement also mandates Amazon notify and compensate customers without requiring them to search for or submit external claims — a key consumer-protection provision.
Bottom line: The settlement enforces federal standards for fair online signups and ensures Prime members who were unknowingly or improperly enrolled get their refund automatically.
➡️ Latest: Encore Slams Online Gambling Bill as a ‘Bad Bet,’ Warning Mass. Lawmakers It Will Cost Jobs and Gut Casinos ⬅️
For months there have been rumors that JD Vance has been trying to shape conversations in Washington far beyond what a vice president-elect normally does, and his latest off-the-cuff admission only added more fuel to that fire. During a casual chat with Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle, Vance mentioned that he once texted Jeff Bezos about the Washington Post — not about a specific hire, but about the direction of the place, which has been wobbling its way through an identity crisis for years.
He laughed as he told the story, almost brushing it off like a joke he barely remembered. But the way Washington works, nothing is ever that casual. The moment the words left his mouth, reporters, staffers, and media insiders began turning it over like a puzzle piece that suddenly didn’t fit where they thought it should.
What caught people wasn’t that Vance said he admired Boyle’s sourcing or that he’d nudged Bezos about it — that’s political small talk. It was the fact that he said it out loud, in public, with a certain ease that suggested he knew exactly what kind of reaction it would provoke. For someone who’s spent the last two years positioning himself as the intellectual spine of the Trump movement, it felt like a deliberate move: a reminder that the old media power map has been redrawn, and he intends to be one of the people holding the pen.
Bezos, for his part, has never shown any real intention of dragging the Post into a right-wing makeover. If anything, he’s tried to stay publicly detached from editorial decisions — even as the newsroom churned through leadership shakeups, layoffs, subscriber declines, and the existential question of what the paper is supposed to be in a post-Trump political climate. The text Vance described probably landed on Bezos’ phone the same way most unsolicited advice does for billionaires: politely ignored and half-forgotten.
But the symbolism of it matters. Bezos bought the Post to prove a point about reinvention and civic duty; Vance is trying to prove a point about representation and power. Boyle, whether you love him or hate him, represents a part of the country legacy media has never fully known what to do with. And this tiny anecdote about a text message suddenly became a proxy battle for a much bigger fight — who gets to shape political storytelling in the years ahead.
It didn’t help that the timing landed in a Washington already buzzing with questions about Bezos’ re-emergence in Trump-era social circles. He showed up at Trump’s second inauguration, was spotted at White House dinners, and has been photographed alongside the same tech titans who once tried to keep a healthy distance from the administration. His public posture hasn’t changed much, but his proximity certainly has, and that alone has been enough to make people nervous.
So when Vance revived his “you should hire Boyle” anecdote, it hit a nerve — not because anyone believes Bezos would hand over a newsroom to a Breitbart editor, but because it highlighted how blurry the lines have become between political influence, media ownership, and the awkward reality that every major institution in Washington is trying to figure out how to survive the Trump-Vance era without becoming collateral damage.
It’s the kind of story that doesn’t sound like much at first. Just three men, one newsroom, and a text message. But in this town, that’s usually where the real drama starts.
Jen Shah is preparing to walk out of federal custody on 10 December, bringing a dramatic close to a turbulent three years that reshaped both her public image and her financial future. The decision by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to approve her latest reduction follows more than two years of good behavior, rehabilitation programs and steady progress on her restitution obligations. It also arrives at a moment when renewed interest in her personal fortune has cast fresh attention on the real estate holdings that helped build, and now sustain, her brand.
Those close to her say the early release carries emotional weight. Her manager Chris Giovanni confirmed that the news means she will make it home in time for the holidays, something she has been hoping for quietly while working through the daily realities of incarceration. “Jen will be able to reunite with her family for the holidays,” Giovanni told PEOPLE, adding that she has spent her time away “reflecting” and “growing into a different woman than the one who walked in.”
Shah, 52, has been serving her sentence at the minimum security Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, the same facility that has housed high profile inmates like Elizabeth Holmes and Ghislaine Maxwell. She reported there in February 2023 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud connected to a long running telemarketing scheme that targeted thousands of victims, including seniors. Her sentence has been reduced several times, with the most recent reduction moving her release date forward once again.
She has begun making payments toward the $6.5 million restitution order and has expressed remorse publicly, telling the court at her sentencing that she was “doing all I can to earn the funds to pay restitution” and acknowledging that her actions caused harm to innocent people.
What remains unclear is where she will go on 10 December. In cases like hers individuals may either transition directly home or move to a halfway house for the final supervised portion of their sentence. That decision will be finalised closer to the date.
Throughout her time inside, her husband Sharrieff “Coach” Shah has continued to visit and support her, something she acknowledged during their 31st wedding anniversary in August, sharing a photograph from a recent visit and describing him as the anchor of her life. She has written openly about the emotional toll of incarceration, from missing family traditions to learning from the stories of other women at the facility. Her February 2024 reflection described her first year behind bars as “unrelenting” but also transformational, with therapy, prayer and daily routines helping her navigate the challenges.
With her release now only weeks away, interest in her post-prison plans has risen sharply, especially around the financial side of her comeback. That renewed attention has placed the spotlight on the real estate assets that form the backbone of her long term wealth and may now become the heart of her reinvention.
Behind the headlines about early release and restitution payments sits a quieter financial story that is defining the next phase of Jen Shah’s life. While her public profile was built on reality television, her long term financial stability has always rested on real estate. Industry analysts note that privately held property offers a protective layer that televised income never could, particularly after a scandal.
According to analysis reviewed by Lawyer Monthly, the structure of Shah’s pre-incarceration holdings mirrored a strategy often used by public figures who need dependable cash flow even when their on screen career becomes volatile. These assets can support refinancing, generate rental yields and form the collateral for future business ventures.
Shah’s situation demonstrates that principle in real time. Property value appreciation over the past decade has given many investors significant equity cushions even as their public income fluctuates. For someone re-entering the world with a restitution bill stretching into the millions, real estate can function as both a safety net and an engine for rebuilding.
Her expected return to the market comes at a moment when rental demand is high in certain metropolitan areas and multifamily properties continue to see competitive occupancy rates. Investors who purchased before the pandemic often hold double digit appreciation, a powerful advantage when negotiating new financial arrangements or restructuring debts.
For Shah that means the homes tied to her brand identity may now serve a practical purpose far beyond lifestyle aesthetics. If she chooses to monetise them more aggressively, options include rental conversions, refinancing based on current valuations or leveraging equity to launch controlled business ventures designed to rebuild trust with the public.
A financial pathway like this is not fast, but it is proven. Analysts often cite anonymous examples where television personalities who suffered reputational crises managed to stabilise their finances through rental income and property flips, in some cases recovering within three to five years. The key factor is discipline, transparency and a willingness to let real estate rather than celebrity drive the financial comeback.
Shah’s upcoming release aligns with a period of strong property performance in several regions, something that may play in her favor as she works to satisfy restitution requirements and support her family. If the emotional tone of her recent letters is any indication, she intends to approach this next chapter with both humility and determination.
With her early release now confirmed, Shah enters a phase that blends personal healing with financial recalibration. Family will remain her priority and her husband’s consistent presence throughout her incarceration has shaped the emotional foundation of this transition. The practical side of her future will lean heavily on the real estate assets she held before her conviction, assets that now represent her most durable route back to stability.
Industry experts say the combination of strong property markets, rising rental demand and the long term reliability of housing as an asset class make real estate one of the few areas where a post scandal comeback is genuinely feasible. For someone in her position it provides time, income and space to rebuild her reputation slowly and with intention.
This blend of personal resilience and financial strategy is likely to define the next stage of her story, offering a path that is grounded, steady and capable of supporting the fresh start she has said she hopes for.
Her primary income is expected to come from the real estate holdings she controlled before incarceration, which can generate rental income, refinancing opportunities and long term equity growth. The stability of property based wealth often allows public figures to rebuild gradually without relying on immediate television work.
Restitution payments can influence how aggressively she may need to monetise her real estate. Many individuals facing similar obligations use rental income, refinancing or partial liquidation to stay current. The strength of the property market will play a significant role in how comfortably she manages those payments.
A return is possible but not guaranteed. Some executives prefer to wait until a public figure has shown consistent personal growth and financial stability. If she does return her real estate story and rehabilitation journey may form part of a new narrative that appeals to viewers interested in resilience, accountability and second chances.
New York City’s mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani will walk into the Oval Office on Friday for his first face-to-face with President Donald Trump — a meeting that has stunned political insiders given the president’s relentless attacks on him throughout the mayoral race.
Trump has repeatedly branded Mamdani “my little communist mayor”, threatened to cut off federal funding, and even suggested deporting him. But the incoming mayor insists he’s unfazed and determined to confront the city’s spiraling affordability crisis directly with the president.
Speaking to reporters in City Hall Park on Thursday, Mamdani said he requested the White House sit-down to discuss what he calls his top priorities: public safety, affordability, and the economy — the very issues he says pushed many New Yorkers to vote for Trump last year.
“They wanted a leader who would take on the cost-of-living crisis,” Mamdani said. “This meeting is about the people I represent.”
When asked if he planned to bring up the president’s threats of increased immigration enforcement in New York, Mamdani attempted to pivot back to his affordability argument.
“I think affordability was at the core of our campaign, and also it was affordability based on the value of protecting each and every New Yorker,” he said. “That means protecting them from price gouging in their lives, but it also means protecting them from ICE agents and making it clear that I will look to representing every single person.”
True to form, Trump couldn’t resist taking a swipe ahead of the visit. In a Wednesday post on Truth Social, he wrote:
“Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran ‘Kwame’ Mamdani, has asked for a meeting. We have agreed that this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday, November 21st.”
Trump savaged Mamdani throughout the campaign’s final stretch, even endorsing independent candidate and former governor Andrew Cuomo. Just days before the election, Trump warned on Truth Social that Mamdani would turn New York into a “Complete and Total Economic and Social Disaster.”
👉 In Focus: Zohran Mamdani Net Worth 2025: The Rent-Stabilized Mayor Challenging New York’s Billionaire Class 👈
Mamdani hasn’t held back either. On election night, he declared that if any city could show the country how to defeat Trump, “it is the same city that gave rise to him.” He later labeled the president a “despot” and vowed to dismantle the conditions that allowed Trump to rise to power.
But on Thursday, the incoming mayor struck a more diplomatic tone.
“It’s not about myself,” he insisted. “It’s about the relationship between New York City and the White House.”
Whether that détente survives Friday’s meeting is another matter.
One topic Mamdani dodged: a planned surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations across New York City.
Tom Homan, Trump’s hardline border czar, told Fox News this week:
“We’re going to do operations in New York City.”
He linked the crackdown to “public-safety threats” he claims stem from the city’s sanctuary policies. While Mamdani didn’t confirm whether ICE will be on his agenda, he said the city’s affordability crisis “also means protecting [New Yorkers] from ICE agents.”
Mamdani has made cost-of-living issues the cornerstone of his transition — promising to fight price-gouging, housing instability and wage stagnation. He argues immigration raids only worsen the crisis for vulnerable families.
“Affordability was the core of our campaign,” he said. “Protecting each and every New Yorker means protecting them from price-gouging — and from ICE.”
Whether that argument will land in the Oval Office remains to be seen.
A quick plain-English breakdown of what is and isn’t legally possible:
No.
Deportation laws apply only to non-citizens. U.S. citizens cannot be deported under any circumstances. Trump’s threats fall into political rhetoric, not legal reality.
Only partially — and with limits.
Presidents cannot unilaterally pull most federal funds. Congress controls appropriations. Agencies can restrict some grants tied to specific conditions (e.g., immigration cooperation), but sweeping cuts would immediately spark lawsuits and likely be blocked by federal courts.
Yes.
Federal immigration enforcement does not require local approval. While New York’s sanctuary policies prevent local agencies from assisting ICE in certain ways, they cannot stop ICE from conducting its own operations.
Possibly — but indirectly.
The mayor cannot block federal agents, but the city can challenge certain policies in court or expand legal defense funds for residents targeted by ICE.
A well-known Indian restaurant in the heart of Park Slope is facing a massive $3 million tab after New York State investigators concluded the owner systematically underpaid her staff for years — with some employees allegedly working 75–80 hour weeks without a single day off.
Mariam Khandakar, who owns Indian Spice on Seventh Avenue, was slapped with the eye-watering bill after a Department of Labor probe found years of minimum-wage violations, missing overtime, and nonexistent meal breaks, according to agency records. The state says she now has mere days to appeal before officials can move to place a lien on her property under new enforcement powers granted this year.
Khandakar did not respond to repeated calls or emails — and it’s unclear whether she has legal representation. Online reviews paint the restaurant as a neighborhood favorite, with TripAdvisor calling it “perhaps one of the most popular dining spots for local area residents.”
The huge payout includes roughly $915,000 in unpaid wages and overtime, an equal amount in liquidated damages owed directly to workers, 16% interest, and over $1 million in civil penalties. While uncommon, cases of this size aren’t unheard of; nearly 30 New York businesses have faced more than $1 million in back-wage claims over the last decade.
According to the Order to Comply, five former employees — a dishwasher, busser, waiter and two chefs — were affected. Investigators said some violations stretched more than eight years, from 2016 through 2024.
The largest single claim belongs to Raju Ahmed, a former waiter and manager owed $308,000. He says he routinely worked seven days a week and only ever saw a break on major holidays.
“There is no official day off for me,” Ahmed told WNYC/Gothamist.
Workers often clocked 11- to 12-hour shifts, according to the Workers Justice Project, which helped file the claims. Advocates say wage-theft cases involving immigrant workers are widespread — and some employers allegedly threaten to call immigration authorities if staff push back. State officials stress that immigration status does not block workers from recovering unpaid wages.
Ahmed said staff were paid erratically and never received overtime. All the workers involved are from Bangladesh.
“Not all of us has a green card and everything,” he said.
Brooklyn Councilmember Shahana Hanif, whose office assisted the workers, said she is seeing an alarming rise in labor exploitation — often involving newly arrived immigrants employed by longer-established immigrant business owners.
Hanif welcomed the Labor Department’s findings and urged other workers to come forward.
“I really hope that we're able to get the word out about this case,” she said, pointing workers to the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection.
As the deadline for appeal approaches, the fate of Indian Spice — and whether the state moves to seize assets — now hangs in the balance.
State investigators say Indian Spice violated several core New York labor laws, and the combination of long hours, missing records, and years of underpayment is what pushed the case into multi-million-dollar territory.
Below-minimum wages paid over multiple years
No overtime pay despite 75–80 hour workweeks
No weekly day of rest as required under Labor Law §161
No meal breaks under Labor Law §162
No payroll records, making unemployment and wage claims far harder to process
$915,000 in unpaid wages and overtime
$915,000 in liquidated damages to workers
16% interest on the unpaid amounts
Over $1 million in civil penalties for long-running violations
Under New York law, these damages can double when violations are considered willful — and the missing records didn’t help the employer’s case.
Thanks to new state legislation, the Labor Department can now place liens on property, freeze assets, block business sales, or even pursue personal liability if an employer refuses to pay. Khandakar has only a short window to appeal. If she doesn’t, the state can move immediately to enforce the order — including filing liens, referring collection to the Attorney General, or publicly listing the business as non-compliant.
New York law requires full payment of earned wages regardless of immigration status, and any threats involving immigration authorities are considered retaliation and carry additional penalties.
