Elizabeth Potter Graham, JD

@elizabethpgraham.bsky.social

4657 Followers 3357 Following

Retired juvenile, family & criminal court attorney. Photos were taken in 1978 and c. 1926. Married with adult children. Don't follow me just to ask for money or show your naked body. Quote skeet at your own risk.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that evidence produced so far in the litigation brought by police officers and Democratic lawmakers indicated that Trump’s speech at the Ellipse that day was political in nature and not subject to the immunity the Supreme Court has found for a president’s official acts. “President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”
1 2 ‘‘ARTICLE— 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS ‘‘SECTION 1. The President shall transmit a notifica tion of a grant of a Reprieve or Pardon within 3 days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speak er of the House of Representatives. Upon receipt of such notification, Congress may, within 30 days, introduce a Bill to nullify the Reprieve or Pardon. Upon introduction of a Bill to nullify, Congress may pass, within 60 days, the Bill by two-thirds vote of both Houses. If a Bill to nullify a Reprieve or Pardon is not passed by Congress, the Reprieve or Pardon shall become effective on the date that is 90 days after the date in which the President noti fies the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of a Reprieve or Pardon. ‘‘SECTION 2. Any Bill to nullify a Reprieve or Pardon that is signed by 20 Representatives or 5 Senators shall be voted on. ‘‘SECTION 3. If the President fails to notify the Presi dent pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of a grant of a Reprieve or Par don within 3 days, the Reprieve or Pardon shall have no force or effect. •HJ 135 IH VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:03 Dec 19, 2025 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ135.IH HJ135 1 3 ‘‘SECTION 4. The President may not grant a reprieve 2 3 4 5 6 ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS or pardon of an offense against the United States that was previously nullified by Congress. ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to en force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this arti cle.’’. •HJ 135 IH
The Future Investment Initiative Institute, or FII Institute, is a non-profit organisation run by the Public Investment Fund, Saudi Arabia's main sovereign wealth fund. The Future Investment Initiative was announced in September 2017 by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, to "host an annual event bringing people together to invest in the most promising solutions".[1] This has to be seen in the context of the Saudi Vision 2030 program of economic and social reform.
US District Judge Rossi D. Alston Jr., a Trump appointee.
Taibbi’s Case In my opinion, Taibbi’s lawsuit against Higgins has the marks of a SLAPP case: an abuse of the legal system by a powerful person or organization in order to silence a critic of much less power and influence. Based on publicly available evidence, it is extremely difficult to accept Taibbi’s claim that Higgins’s book has brought “harm” to his journalistic career and caused him a million dollars in damages. First of all, there is a vast asymmetry and power and influence between Higgins and Taibbi. Higgins is a relatively obscure left wing journalist whose work has previously been confined to such outlets as The New Republic, Common Dreams and Counterpunch; his book on Taibbi and Greenwald has not received wide discussion in the mainstream media (although it has had some). In contrast, Taibbi, with his move to the right politically, has become a visible presence on widely viewed right wing media and has attracted favorable publicity from some of the most influential right wing personalities in the world; for example, in June (five months after Higgins published his book), Joe Rogan, on his hugely popular podcast, singled out Taibbi and Greenwald as journalists he trusts for “unbiased news.” Taibbi was picked by the world’s richest man, Musk to work on the Twitter Files; and as Higgins notes in his book, in 2022 Taibbi sat on a stage with Greenwald and beamed as he was interviewed in highly friendly fashion by David Sacks, the Silicon Valley billionaire who is now the AI and cryptocurrency czar for the Trump administration. During the interview, Sacks lavished Taibbi and Greenwald with praise as iconoclastic journalists.
In November of last year, in an egregious abuse of defamation law, former progressive journalist (and current right wing influencer) Matt Taibbi launched a lawsuit–presently ongoing–claiming to have been defamed by leftist journalist Eoin Higgins (and Higgins’s publisher Hachette Book Group), ludicrously alleging “reputational and financial damages”, according to the official legal complaint, “in excess of $1,000,000.” Taibbi claims that his integrity as a journalist was defamed by Higgins’s book Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. The book–released in February 2025–alleges that Taibbi and another previously progressive journalist, Glenn Greenwald, have moved to the right politically in recent years as a result of developing professional connections with pro-MAGA Silicon Valley billionaires like Elon Musk and David Sacks. Taibbi’s lawsuit focuses on the book’s statements that Taibbi was “owned” and “bought” by Elon Musk after he participated in Musk’s Twitter Files campaign of 2022-23– the latter being where Taibbi and half a dozen other journalists received from Musk tens of thousands of internal company documents produced under Twitter’s pre-Musk owners. In their published analysis on Twitter threads, Taibbi and the other journalists handpicked by Musk (like the right wingers Michael Shellenberger and Bari Weiss) offered support for Musk’s contention that the documents proved that pre-Musk Twitter was immensely biased against conservatives and even secretly collaborated with the Biden administration in suppressing pro-Trump voices and anti-vaxxers. Taibbi insists he didn’t receive a dime from Musk for his work.
Lambert — a Michigan lawyer who was indicted for allegedly trying to tamper with voting machines used in the 2020 election and who was previously disqualified from representing Byrne in a Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit for "relentless misconduct" — and Florida's Ticktin — one of the attorneys sanctioned in Donald Trump's failed RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton — unsuccessfully maintained that Byrne should be allowed to have his "counsel of choice" or else suffer "a severe violation of his constitutional rights."
Wilson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, opted to reschedule trial for October to give Byrne time to find new counsel rather than issuing a default judgment, but he ultimately refused to allow Lambert and Ticktin on the case.
While it seemed to case was ready to go to trial in July, Byrne fired his lawyers Michael Murphy and Carmen Rosa Selame believing they were trying to "throw the fight" and tried to replace them with Stefanie Lambert and Peter Ticktin — neither of whom was licensed to practice in California and both of whom needed permission to appear pro hac vice.
Undated photo of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2026) SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PRISCILLA VILLARREAL v. ISIDRO R. ALANIZ, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 25–29. Decided March 23, 2026 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the denial of certi orari. Petitioner Priscilla Villarreal is a reporter who was ar rested for doing something journalists do every day: posing questions to a public official. Specifically, Villarreal twice texted with a police officer to corroborate information Vil larreal already knew about events that had occurred within her community. That officer voluntarily provided the infor mation Villarreal sought, and Villarreal published those facts, consistent with her role as a journalist. Six months later, Villarreal was arrested for asking those questions. Making matters worse, Villarreal alleges that the arrest fol lowed a months-long effort by a police department and dis trict attorney’s office to retaliate against her because they disliked much of her reporting on their activities. Of course, that reporting was often critical of them. It should be obvious that this arrest violated the First Amendment. Yet the Fifth Circuit held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and now Villarreal is left without a remedy. The Court today makes a grave error by declining to hear this case. I Because this case comes to the Court on a motion to dis miss, the facts as stated in Villarreal’s complaint, recounted here, and relied on in the analysis below, are assumed to be true. Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U. S. 799, 802, n. 1 (2010). Doc uments incorporated by reference in the complaint also
“Nothing appears so clear,” he wrote, “as that a graceful and refined simplicity is the highest achievement of taste and art.” American buildings should be “chaste and simple,” and to ornament them just for the sake of surface attraction was folly. “We find ornaments increase in proportion as art declines, or as ignorance abounds,” he maintained.
Though it failed to bring about a revolution, May 68 had profound long-term consequences. The events weakened de Gaulle's authority, and he resigned the following year. The movement led to increased state investment in education and social policies, though radical leftist politics declined in electoral influence. The strikes forced major concessions in labor rights, including wage increases, better working conditions, and expanded social protections. The May 68 movement also contributed to the growth of feminist, environmentalist, and LGBTQ activism, and inspired radical thought in philosophy, media, and academia, influencing figures like Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard. In France, the movement's slogans and imagery remain touchstones of political and social discourse.
In a 2010 case, Burton v. State of Florida, Ms. Burton was twenty-five weeks pregnant when her membranes ruptured and she showed premature signs of labor. She went to a hospital where a doctor ordered bed rest and refused to let Ms. Burton leave the hospital to obtain a second opinion. The doctor contacted the State Attorney who filed a petition in the circuit court. Ms. Burton was not afforded legal counsel, and no second medical opinion was obtained. A hearing was held by telephone from Ms. Burton’s bedside in the hospital. The circuit court ordered Ms. Burton to submit to any medical treatment deemed necessary by the hospital physician (who was not her regular OB/GYN) including detention in a hospital for enforcement of bed rest, administration of intravenous medication, and a possible Cesarean section Ms. Burton complied with the order. Three days later a Cesarean section was performed. Her fetus was deceased. Ms. Burton obtained legal representation and an appeal was taken to the Florida Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The appellate court ruled in favor of Ms. Burton and against the State. The Florida Constitution, unlike Alabama’s, recognizes the right to privacy. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that “a competent person has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment, and that right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one’s health.” [Emphasis added.]
H. THE CARDER CASE & PATIENTS’ RIGHTS In June, 1987, a chilling case which pitted the health of a pregnant woman against the health of her fetus was heard by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals en banc after the death of Angela Carder. The case was discussed by Terry E. Thornton and Lynn Paltrow in Vol. 8, №5 (1991) issue of Healthspan. Angela Carder had twice survived cancer. Three years into remission, she married and became pregnant. Her obstetrical care was provided by the George Washington University Medical Center High Risk Pregnancy Clinic. Ms. Carder told her obstetrician that she wanted to be watched for any recurrence of cancer, and she wanted to be sure her own health was not compromised by her pregnancy. During the 25th week of pregnancy, Ms. Carder was admitted to GWUMC and diagnosed with a lung tumor. Surgery was ruled out, leaving chemotherapy and radiation as her only hope of prolonging her life. The fetus was considered to be too premature to be born and have a good chance of survival until the 28th week of pregnancy. Ms. Carder was told that chemotherapy and radiation were risky to the fetus. Knowing this, Ms. Carder decided to proceed with cancer treatment. Her husband, parents, the obstetrical department, and its legal counsel supported her decision. That night, Ms. Carder’s condition worsened; she and the fetus were deprived of oxygen for hours.