Connect with us


Kevin Spacey Found Not Guilty in 1986 Sexual Abuse Charge



Kevin Spacey Found Not Guilty

On Thursday, a jury ruled in favour of Kevin Spacey in one of the lawsuits that have dogged the actor’s career, concluding that he did not sexually abuse Anthony Rapp, then 14, while both were relatively unknown actors in Broadway shows in 1986.

The judgement in the civil trial was delivered in record time. Jurors in a federal court in New York debated for slightly more than an hour before concluding that Rapp’s allegations had not been substantiated.

Spacey bowed his head and hugged his attorneys when the decision was read. He didn’t say anything to reporters as he walked out of the courthouse.

“We’re grateful to the jury for seeing through these baseless charges,” his lawyer, Jennifer Keller, said.

“What happens next is that Mr. Spacey will be proven innocent of all charges against him.” That none of the allegations were true,” she continued, referring to past sexual misconduct allegations against the actor, including criminal proceedings in England.

kevin spacey, anthony rapp

Rapp Wanted 40 Million from Kevin Spacey

Rapp stated during the trial that Spacey invited him to his residence for a party, then approached him in a bedroom after the other attendees had departed. He claimed that the actor, then 26, scooped him up and laid partially on top of him on a bed before wriggling away and fleeing when a drunken Spacey asked him if he was sure he wanted to go.

Spacey told the jury in sometimes heartbreaking testimony that it never happened and that he would never have been attracted to someone who was 14. The lawsuit demanded $40 million in restitution.

Rapp and his attorneys also left without interacting with reporters. Rapp’s lawyer, Richard Steigman, accused Spacey of lying on the witness stand in his closing comments to the jury on Thursday.

“He lacks credibility,” remarked Steigman. “Sometimes the straightforward truth is the best.” The basic fact is that this occurred.”

During the three-week trial, Rapp, 50, and Spacey, 63, testified for several days.

Rapp’s and others’ claims shattered what had been a booming career for the two-time Academy Award winner, who was fired from the Netflix series “House of Cards” and had other prospects dry up. Rapp has appeared on “Star Trek: Discovery” and was a member of the original Broadway cast of “Rent.”

In Massachusetts, Spacey was accused of groping a man in a pub, claims that were eventually dropped by prosecutors.

Kevin Spacey house of cards

He pleaded not guilty in London three months ago to charges that he sexually abused three men between 2004 and 2015 while serving as creative director of the Old Vic theatre.

This summer, a judge in Los Angeles upheld an arbitrator’s decision to force Spacey to pay $30.9 million to “House of Cards” producers for breaching his contract by sexually assaulting staff members.

The Associated Press normally does not name persons accused of sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Rapp has.

During the trial, Spacey testified that he was certain the contact with Rapp did not occur, partly because he was living in a studio apartment rather than the one bedroom mentioned by Rapp, and he had never hosted a gathering other than a housewarming party.

“I knew I wouldn’t have sexual feelings towards Anthony Rapp or his children.” “I knew that,” he told the jury.

Keller provided reasons why Rapp imagined or made up the incident with Spacey during her final remarks to the jury.

She speculated that Rapp invented it after seeing him appear in “Precious Sons,” a play in which actor Ed Harris lifts up Rapp’s character and lays on top of him, mistaking him for his wife until realizing it is his son.

She also claimed that Rapp was envious of Spacey’s success as a megastar while he had “minor roles in small productions” following his breakout performance in Broadway’s “Rent.”

Keller stated, “Fame did not follow him.” “Mr. Rapp’s coach has become a pumpkin.”

“So here we are today, and Mr. Rapp is receiving more publicity from this trial than he has throughout his acting career,” Keller explained. She claims Rapp is well-known now because he took down one of Hollywood’s most famous stars.

During two days of evidence, Spacey expressed contrition for a 2017 statement he released when Rapp initially went public, in which he stated that he didn’t recall the encounter but that if it did occur, “I offer him the most heartfelt apology for what would have been extremely inappropriate intoxicated behaviour.”

VOR News

Kevin Spacey, wiping tears with a tissue, said publicists and lawyers pressed him to deliver a sympathetic statement when the #MeToo movement was making everyone in the industry uneasy.

“I’ve learnt a valuable lesson: never apologize for something you did not do,” he remarked.

He also cried as he regretted openly declaring his sexual orientation on the same day Rapp’s charges appeared since some viewed his declaration as an attempt to alter the subject or detract from Rapp’s discoveries.

Spacey stated that he spoke about very personal topics during the trial, telling the jury that his father was a white supremacist and neo-Nazi who berated him for being gay because he admired the theatre.

Spacey also offered the trial a taste of his acting abilities when he imitated his Broadway costar, Jack Lemmon. He has previously stated that his ability to do impressions helped him in his acting profession.

Geoff Thomas is a seasoned staff writer at VORNews, a reputable online publication. With his sharp writing skills and deep understanding of SEO, he consistently delivers high-quality, engaging content that resonates with readers. Thomas' articles are well-researched, informative, and written in a clear, concise style that keeps audiences hooked. His ability to craft compelling narratives while seamlessly incorporating relevant keywords has made him a valuable asset to the VORNews team.


2024: Supreme Court Rules California Man Can’t Trademark ‘Trump Too Small’



Trump | Pixa Bay Image

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court decided unanimously on Thursday against a man seeking to trademark the oblique phrase “Trump too small.”

The court maintained that the government had the right to refuse Steve Elster, a Californian who wanted to use the slogan only on T-shirts and maybe other products, a trademark. It is one of many legal proceedings involving former President Donald Trump, including significant ones about the bloody assault on the Capitol in 2021. The court established guidelines earlier in the current term enabling public officials to be sued for removing detractors from their social media accounts. These instances had to do with Donald as well.


trump | AP News image

Supreme Court Rules California Man Can’t Trademark ‘Trump Too Small’

The Justice Department backed President Joe Biden’s presumed opponent in the 2024 election, his predecessor. According to government representatives, the phrase “Trump too small” may still be used, but as Donald had not given his approval, it could not be trademarked. You can already buy “Trump too small” T-shirts online.

Elster’s attorneys had contended that the ruling infringed his right to free speech, and a federal appeals court agreed.

Chief Justice John Roberts warned at arguments that if Elster prevailed, individuals would rush to trademark “Trump too this, Trump too that.”

While the nine judges unanimously agreed to reject Elster’s First Amendment argument, their reasoning varied and comprised 53 pages of opinions.

In the last six years, the justices have twice overturned federal law clauses that denied trademarks deemed scandalous or immoral in one case and insulting in another.


Trump | PixaBay Image

Supreme Court Rules California Man Can’t Trademark

Elster’s case addressed a different rule that states that unless the person has provided “written consent,” a trademark application containing a name, photograph, or signature “identifying a particular living individual” will be denied.

The core of the lawsuit refers to a conversation Donald had with Florida Senator Marco Rubio during the 2016 campaign. At the time, Rubio was vying for the Republican presidential nomination.

At a speech, Rubio started the verbal sparring by telling supporters that Donald, who claims to be 6 feet 3 inches tall, had disproportionately small hands and that Donald had always called him “little Marco.” Had you looked at his hands? And you are aware of the saying regarding males with little hands, Rubio added. “You can’t rely on them.”


Trump | Pixa Bay Image

Supreme Court Rules California Man Can’t Trademark ‘Trump Too Small’

Donald later brought up the remark during a televised debate on March 3, 2016.

Stare at those hands. Are those little hands? And he said something about my hands being small, so something else had to be, too. There is no difficulty, I promise you. You have my word,” he declared.


Continue Reading


Yellen Says China’s Trade Policies Could ‘Interfere Significantly’ With US Bilateral Relationship




Chinese “overconcentrated supply chains” threaten American jobs and recent investments intended to strengthen the country’s green energy industry, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. The Asian superpower’s trade policies “may interfere significantly with our efforts to build a healthy economic relationship.”

Yellen endorsed Biden administration initiatives meant to boost American economic competitiveness in a prepared speech she gave to Wall Street and corporate executives at the Economic Club of New York on Thursday afternoon.


Yellen | AP News Image

Yellen Says China’s Trade Policies Could ‘Interfere Significantly’ With US Bilateral Relationship

“When foreign subsidies threaten the viability of domestic firms” in important industries like green energy, she added, the United States should react. China’s green energy products are especially feared to undercut significant climate-friendly investments made possible by the Democrats’ August 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law.

Former President Donald Trump is making his argument to the Business Roundtable in Washington, an organization of over 200 CEOs, on why the economy would be better if he were back in the White House while Yellen is speaking.

Voters have heard from Biden and Trump, his likely Republican opponent, that they will be harsh on China.

The United States imposed major new duties this month on Chinese electric cars, cutting-edge batteries, solar cells, steel, aluminum, and medical equipment. On Wednesday, the European Union also acted to increase import duties, or tariffs, on Chinese-made electric vehicles after preliminary findings of a continuing inquiry into Chinese EV subsidies revealed that the nation’s battery electric vehicle “value chain” benefited from “unfair subsidization” that damaged EU competitors.


Yellen | Forbes Image

Yellen Says China’s Trade Policies Could ‘Interfere Significantly’ With US Bilateral Relationship

Chinese companies can charge as little as $12,000 for an electric vehicle. Chinese officials contend that their manufacturing keeps costs low and would support a shift to a green economy. They also claim that their solar cells and steel and aluminum mills have enough capacity to supply most of the world’s demand.

Among other concerns, Yellen mentioned in her statement on Thursday the proportion of Chinese manufacturing companies that are losing money, the high savings rates compared to other OECD nations, and the stringent investment regulations.

Yellen listed industries where Chinese government subsidies have fueled fast output growth, including the production of electric cars and their batteries and solar energy equipment, which the U.S. administration is attempting to boost domestically.


Yellen | CNN Image

Yellen Says China’s Trade Policies Could ‘Interfere Significantly’ With US Bilateral Relationship

“I reject the idea that ‘decoupling’ would help the US economy in any way,” she stated. Concurrently, a level playing field is necessary for us to fully enjoy the possible advantages of our economic partnership.

Her trip to Guangzhou and Beijing earlier this year was centered on industrial strategy and what the United States and Europe call China’s manufacturing overcapacity.


Continue Reading


President Joe Biden Faces First Lawsuit Over New Asylum Crackdown At The Border



Biden Administration Plans for Potential Presidential Transition

Washington, D.C. On Wednesday, a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups sued the Biden administration, claiming that President Joe Biden’s recent order to essentially stop asylum claims at the southern border is no different from a similar action by the Trump administration that was thwarted by the courts.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Centre and the Refugee and Immigrant Centre for Education and Legal Services, or RAICES. It is the first legal challenge to Biden’s broad border crackdown, which followed months of internal White House deliberations and is intended in part to fend off political criticism of the president’s immigration policy.


Joe Biden | AP News Image

President Joe Biden Faces First Lawsuit Over New Asylum Crackdown At The Border

“We were forced to file this lawsuit by enacting an asylum ban that is legally indistinguishable from the Trump ban we successfully blocked,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt.

The directive Biden issued last week will restrict the processing of asylum applications once 2,500 people are encountered between ports of entry each day. The current estimates were significantly higher, at almost 4,000 daily, so it went into effect right away.

The limits would remain in place for two weeks following the seven-day average of those daily encounter counts at or below 1,500. When the numbers might fall that low, though, is unclear; the last time was in July 2020, during the COVID-19 epidemic.

When the order entered into force on June 5, officials of the Biden administration stated they anticipated record numbers of deportations.

Advocates counter that, among other issues, suspending asylum for refugees who fail to show up at a predetermined point of entry—as the Biden administration is attempting to do—violates current federal immigration law.

For a long time, the United States has welcomed refugees seeking protection from persecution. That national commitment became legally codified with the Refugee Act of 1980. The groups said in their case filed on Wednesday that although Congress has, throughout time, imposed certain restrictions on the right to seek asylum, it has never allowed the Executive Branch to outright prohibit asylum based on where a noncitizen enters the nation.

Biden cited Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the same legal basis that the Trump administration used to justify its asylum restriction. Under this clause, a president may restrict the number of migrants admitted if it is judged “detrimental” to the country’s interests.

While running, Biden has frequently attacked the immigration policy of former President Donald Trump. His government counters that his order is unique because it has multiple humanitarian exclusions. Limits would not apply, for instance, to victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors, or people experiencing serious medical difficulties.

“The Securing the Border rule is legal, important to enhancing border security, and is already having an impact,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said, declining to comment on the complaint. We shall keep putting the contested actions into practice; they are still in force.


Joe Biden | AP news Image

President Joe Biden Faces First Lawsuit Over New Asylum Crackdown At The Border

The immigrant rights organisations contend in the complaint that exceptions are “extremely limited.”

The White House forwarded questions regarding the complaint to the Justice Department, which declined to comment. According to White House spokesman Angelo Fernández Hernández, Biden’s action was required because congressional Republicans thwarted a bipartisan agreement that “would have provided critical resources, statutory changes, and additional personnel to the border.”

As per Biden’s decision, migrants who show up at the border without expressing a fear of going back to their own countries will be deported from the US in a few days or even hours. Sanctions for those migrants can include a five-year ban on entering the country again or criminal prosecution.

Proponents of the lawsuit contended that it is the migrants’ responsibility to exhibit fear, which is sometimes known as displaying fear.

“In practice, noncitizens who have just crossed the border, and may be hungry, exhausted, ill, or traumatised after fleeing persecution in their home countries and danger in Mexico, are likely to be intimidated by armed, uniformed Border Patrol officers, and are thus unlikely to ‘manifest’ their fear of return,” the lawsuit states.

However, a U.S. asylum officer will evaluate anyone who indicates fear or a desire to seek asylum, but to a higher level than is now in place. Should they clear the screening, they are eligible for more restricted humanitarian protection, such as the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which forbids sending someone back to a nation where they are likely to be subjected to torture.


Joe Biden | NY Times Image

President Joe Biden Faces First Lawsuit Over New Asylum Crackdown At The Border

These revised, more stringent asylum limitations do not apply to migrants who utilise the CBP One app while in Mexico to make an appointment to present themselves at an official border crossing point to seek admission. The app is a component of the administration’s attempts to persuade migrants to attempt to enter the nation through its preferred routes rather than just crossing the border, locating a Border Patrol agent, and turning themselves in.

Advocates did, however, provide a laundry list of grievances against the app in the case. Many immigrants, for instance, lack the Wi-Fi connectivity or cellphone data plan required to use it. While some migrants are illiterates, others do not speak any of the languages the programme offers. And compared to the amount of migrants wishing to enter the nation, there are only a few spots open each day.

“As a result, numerous asylum seekers have been forced to wait indefinitely under precarious conditions in Mexico in the hope of obtaining scarce appointments,” the lawsuit says.

Together with the ACLU, additional organisations filing the complaint were the Texas Civil Rights Project, Jenner & Block LLP, National Immigrant Justice Centre, Centre for Gender & Refugee Studies, and ACLU of the District of Columbia.


Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

People Reading