(VOR News) – On Monday, five men who were wrongfully incarcerated as minors filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump in the Central Park Five Jogger rape case.

They allege that the Republican presidential candidate defamed them by falsely asserting their involvement in the rape and a guilty plea.

The lawsuit, which was submitted to a federal court in Philadelphia, references numerous statements that Donald Trump made about the individuals during his debate with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris on September 10.

Harris criticized Donald Trump for airing a 1989 ad supporting juvenile executions.

Defendant Donald Trump made a false claim during the debate that the Plaintiffs had committed homicide and had confessed to the crime. The civil complaint alleges that “These statements are categorically false.”

The plaintiffs were never convicted of any offenses and were subsequently exonerated of all accusations. Additionally, the complaint asserted that the individuals who were assaulted in Central Park were able to survive.

Trump’s behavior toward the men at the debate “constituted a continuing tort” according to the lawsuit, as it “was part of a persistent pattern of extreme and outrageous behavior spanning several years.” Together referred to as “the Exonerated Five,” the litigants in the action are Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown, and Korey Wise. Salaam is a council member from New York City.

Their lawsuit seeks damages exceeding $75,000, with the aggregate of compensatory and punitive damages to be determined during the trial. The accusations encompass intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light, and defamation.

In a statement released by the Donald Trump campaign, spokesman Steven Cheung asserted that “this lawsuit is merely another frivolous instance of election interference, initiated by desperate leftist activists to divert the American public’s attention from Kamala Harris’ perilously liberal agenda and unsuccessful campaign.”

Cheung thinks American President Donald Trump would triumph historically on November 5.

He also argued that Kamala Harris’ associates’ futile legal maneuvers to interfere in the election are ineffective.

The lawsuit asserts that the individuals were convicted as adolescents for a series of assaults that took place in Central Park, New York City, in April 1989. The individuals, who were 14 to 16, were convicted and sentenced to years of incarceration.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump financed a full-page advertisement in New York newspapers that referenced the assaults in Central Park without explicitly naming the suspects.

The advertisement urged the City of New York to “… [send a message unequivocally to those who would kill our citizens and instill fear in New York—REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY AND RESTORE OUR POLICE,” shortly after a sexual assault on a jogger in the park for which the teenagers were charged.

The allegation of sexual assault on the jogger was dismissed by recent DNA evidence in 2002, which cleared all five men. One year later, the men sought legal action against New York City, alleging a conspiracy motivated by racial animus, malevolent prosecution, and wrongful arrest. The city agreed to a settlement of $41 million for the men more than a decade after the lawsuit was filed.

In an editorial published that year, Donald Trump referred to the agreement as a “disgrace.”

Harris pointed out during the September presidential debate, “Let us recall that this is the same individual [Trump] who published a full-page advertisement in The New York Times advocating for the execution of five innocent young Black and Latino boys, known as the Central Park Five.”

Harris, as per the lawsuit, “took out a full-page ad calling for their execution.”

Donald Trump responded to Harris by stating, “They confessed, they pleaded guilty; they acknowledged it.” I added, “If they acknowledged culpability, they ultimately caused a fatality and severely harmed another individual.” The president stated, “If they plead guilty, then they assert their innocence.”

Trump was previously found legally culpable for defaming Carroll in two distinct proceedings following E. Jean Carroll’s public allegation that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store dressing room during the mid-1990s.

Jurors awarded Carroll $88.3 million in damages during his trials in those cases, which included compensation for the writer’s sexual abuse. Donald Trump is contesting the verdicts in the cases that were filed in federal court in Manhattan.

SOURCE: CNBC

SEE ALSO:

A Helicopter Strikes a Houston Radio Tower, Killing Four People, Including a Child.

People Still Wondering Who Won the BC Election

HONG KONG — Nine monkeys died in Hong Kong’s oldest zoo in two days this week after contracting an endemic disease, probably as a result of digging near their cages, officials said on Friday.

Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Culture, Sports, and Tourism, stated in a news briefing that the animals at the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens contracted melioidosis, which led to sepsis.

Yeung emphasized that such infections are mainly caused by contact with polluted soil and water and that there is often no risk to humans from contact with diseased animals or people.

“We’re saddened by the passing of the nine monkeys,” he told me.

Eight monkeys were discovered dead on Sunday, and another died Monday after exhibiting odd behavior. The creatures that died were a De Brazza’s monkey, a common squirrel monkey, four white-faced sakis, and three cotton-top tamarins, all of which are severely endangered according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

9 Monkeys Who Died In Hong Kong’s Zoo In 2 Days Had Been Infected With Melioidosis, Officials Say

Melioidosis is caused by the bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, which can be found in soil and muddy water.

Yeung stated that in early October, the park dug to fix some irrigation lines under the flower bed near the monkey cages and that the deaths could be related to this.

He speculated that the monkeys may have come into touch with the disease after park officials stepped into their cages wearing possibly contaminated shoes. Another possibility is that some infected monkeys came into close touch with other monkeys, he said.

“The incubation period for melioidosis in primates is about a week and this matched with the period after the soil digging work,” he told me.

According to Edwin Tsui, the center’s controller, the incident occurred in a single zone and will have a minimal impact on Hong Kong residents.

9 Monkeys Who Died In Hong Kong’s Zoo In 2 Days Had Been Infected With Melioidosis, Officials Say

Yeung convened an urgent interdepartmental meeting on Monday with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, and the Department of Health to discuss the deaths.

Another De Brazza’s monkey demonstrated strange behavior and hunger, but officials reported its condition was stable on Friday.

The Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens, the former British colony’s oldest park, officially opened to the public in 1871. It is a unique urban oasis in the financial hub’s central Central District, which was reclaimed by China in 1997.

SOURCE | AP

Every Christmas growing up in Minnesota, Jimmy Dart’s parents gave him $200 in cash: $100 for himself and $100 for a stranger. With over 12 million TikTok followers and several million more on other platforms, philanthropy has become his full-time profession.

Darts, whose real surname is Kellogg, is one of the most prolific providers of “kindness content,” a type of social media film dedicated to assisting strangers in need, frequently with funds raised through GoFundMe and other crowdfunding platforms. An increasing number of creators, including Kellogg, give out thousands of dollars – often more – on video while encouraging their massive followings to donate.

“The internet is a pretty crazy, pretty nasty place, but there’s still good things happening on there,” Kellogg told The Associated Press.

However, not everyone appreciates these videos, with some viewers describing them as theatrical at best and exploitative at worst.

Critics believe that it is inappropriate to record a stranger, often inadvertently, and share a video of them online to earn social media clout. Beyond clout, content providers can profit from the views they receive on particular videos. Kellogg and his contemporaries frequently earn enough money to work full-time as content creators when their views reach millions of people.

‘Kindness’ Influencers On TikTok Give Money To Strangers. Why Is That Controversial?

As one of the most prominent critics of “kindness content,” comedian Brad Podray, sometimes known online as “Scumbag Dad,” crafts parodies to illustrate the flaws he sees in this content — and its proponents.

“Many young people have a highly utilitarian worldview. “They only think of things in measurable terms: ‘It doesn’t matter what he did, he helped a million people,'” Podray remarked.

Recording procedures raise ethical concerns.
From the recording gear and procedures to the subject selection, “kindness content” exists on a continuum, just like everything else on social media.

Some creators approach others and ask for guidance or a favor; if they bite, they get a prize. Others opt to praise strangers who do a good deed. Kellogg completes a “kindness challenge,” asking a stranger for something and repaying it in like.

Many of these strangers are unaware that they are being filmed. Some producers use hidden cameras to discreetly record subjects. Kellogg stated that he wants to be as “secret about it as possible,” but requests permission to share the video following the interaction. Kellogg stated that most people agree since they look “like a superhero” after completing his challenge.

Josh Liljenquist, another humanitarian content artist, said he uses a GoPro camera and attempts to make a recording “extremely noticeable,” adding, “Consent’s the biggest thing.”

Regardless of the recording method, some people view the practice as predatory.

“These guys always find someone with cancer or always find someone who can’t pay their bills because they’re stalking through underserved and poor areas and they’re just sort of waiting,” according to Podray. “Looking through the parking lot like, ‘He looks pathetic enough’.”

Karen Hoekstra, marketing and communications manager at the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, investigates TikTok-based influencer philanthropy and believes the films sometimes exploit their subjects.

“The model of the man on the street walking up and approaching a stranger and handing them money is — we’ve all heard this phrase, terrible as it is — it just strikes me as poverty porn,” Hoekstra told CNN. “It’s exploitation.”

Calls for exploitation are common when filmmakers feature the same persons in repeated videos, particularly if they look to be homeless or addicted to drugs. Liljenquist routinely features certain persons and describes them as his “best friends.”

One user commented on an Oct. 5 video that Liljenquist’s latest content appears to be “playing case worker for views,” as he aired multiple films of a woman who followers believe is battling with drug addiction. He tapes himself bringing her meals, driving her around in his Tesla, and asking her questions, frequently resulting in one-word responses.

Liljenquist stated that criticism does not disturb him because he knows his intentions are good.

“I love these people,” he said. “They love me.”

Absence of checks and balances
Some criticize the showmanship of “kindness content,” yet visibility is critical for the concept, which is primarily reliant on crowdsourcing. Kellogg is notorious for starting GoFundMe fundraising for his video subjects, which typically generate tens of thousands of dollars in viewer donations.

Kellogg, Liljenquist, and many more producers accept donations through their accounts on payment applications such as Venmo, CashApp, and PayPal.

Tory Martin, the Johnson Center’s director of communications and strategic partnerships, stated that transparency regarding donations is “not an option if it’s just going to an individual.”

Although these producers are not subject to the same standards and regulations as NGOs, Liljenquist believes donor monies travel far further in his hands than in traditional organizations, which he describes as “designed for failure.”

“Nonprofits — not all of them, there are some good ones — but I would just suggest you do your homework on the nonprofits that you are giving money to because there’s a good amount of them who take advantage of the system,” stated the governor.

Some inventors have established nonprofit organizations or foundations to fund their work, but this is not a common practice.

‘Kindness’ Influencers On TikTok Give Money To Strangers. Why Is That Controversial?

Podray stated that he is “100% sure” that certain creators “take a rake or that there’s some sort of nonsense going on.” He also claims some creators provide bogus money to capitalize on the craze.

Kellogg said witnessing fake or exploitative videos is difficult for him, and he worries, “My gosh, every Facebook mom just fell for this and thinks it’s real.”

New Wave of Philanthropy
While these films have sparked criticism in some online circles, they are part of a massively popular social media trend that has millions of admirers and thousands who feel motivated to donate after watching.

Although Hoekstra is concerned about certain producers’ techniques, she believes the exposure to charity giving these movies provides for young people is beneficial.

“Anything that can present philanthropy to them in a new way and make it accessible and make it exciting I think is a good thing,” according to her. “Obviously, there’s going to be a learning curve, but I think it’s really exciting to see philanthropy be so accessible and understandable and embraced in these new spaces and in new ways.”

Some skeptics have turned into supporters. Kyle Benavidez said he used to believe “kindness content” on social media was false. However, after his mother was featured in one of Kellogg’s latest videos and a GoFundMe Kellogg set up for her to earn over $95,000 to help their family while her husband was in the hospital with cancer, he stated that Kellogg’s online persona is genuine to his real-life personality.

“There’s a chapel in the hospital, and I go there every morning to pray.” ‘I hope something happens.’ “And then Jimmy came into our lives,” Benavidez, 20, explained. “It’s like God sent him.”

Kellogg shows no signs of slowing off his charity work, posting videos on his social media accounts practically daily. Still, he believes that doing good on camera is only important if he and his peers continue to do it when the cameras are not rolling.

“You can fool people all day and you can make money and do this and that, but God sees your heart,” according to him.

SOURCE | AP