There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member casesinto a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299. On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mcand a Bambu Lab X1C. Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12. Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mcand a Bambu Lab X1C. Image by 3D Printing industry. #new #court #order #stratasys #bambu

monkey abuse The “online monkey torture video” arrests just keep coming Authorities continue the slow crackdown. Nate Anderson – Jun 14, 2025 7:00 am | 34 Credit: Getty Images Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Today's monkey torture videos are the products of a digitally connected world. People who enjoy watching baby animals probed, snipped, and mutilated in horrible ways often have difficulty finding local collaborators, but online communities like "million tears"—now thankfully shuttered—can help them forge connections. Once they do meet other like-minded souls, communication takes place through chat apps like Telegram and Signal, often using encryption. Money is pooled through various phone apps, then sent to videographers in countries where wages are low and monkeys are plentiful.There, monkeys are tortured by a local subcontractor—sometimes a child—working to Western specs. Smartphone video of the torture is sent back to the commissioning sadists, who share it with more viewers using the same online communities in which they met. The unfortunate pattern was again on display this week in an indictment the US government unsealed against several more Americans said to have commissioned these videos. The accused used online handles like "Bitchy" and "DemonSwordSoulCrusher," and they hail from all over: Tennessee, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. They relied on an Indonesian videographer to create the content, which was surprisingly affordable—it cost a mere to commission video of a "burning hot screwdriver" being shoved into a baby monkey's orifice. After the money was transferred, the requested video was shot and shared through a "phone-based messaging program," but the Americans were deeply disappointed in its quality. Instead of full-on impalement, the videographer had heated a screwdriver on a burner and merely touched it against the monkey a few times. "So lame," one of the Americans allegedly complained to another. "Live and learn," was the response. So the group tried again. "Million tears" had been booted by its host, but the group reconstituted on another platform and renamed itself "the trail of trillion tears." They reached out to another Indonesian videographer and asked for a more graphic version of the same video. But this version, more sadistic than the last, still didn't satisfy. As one of the Americans allegedly said to another, "honey that's not what you asked for. Thats the village idiot version. But I'm talking with someone about getting a good voto do it." Arrests continue In 2021, someone leaked communications from the "million tears" group to animals rights organizations like Lady Freethinker and Action for Primates, which handed it over to authorities. Still, it took several years to arrest and prosecute the torture group's leaders. In 2024, one of these leaders—Ronald Bedra of Ohio—pled guilty to commissioning the videos and to mailing "a thumb drive containing 64 videos of monkey torture to a co-conspirator in Wisconsin." His mother, in a sentencing letter to the judge, said that her son must "have been undergoing some mental crisis when he decided to create the website." As a boy, he had loved all of the family pets, she said, even providing a funeral for a fish. Bedra was sentenced late last year to 54 months in prison. According to letters from family members, he has also lost his job, his wife, and his kids. In April 2025, two more alleged co-conspirators were indicted and subsequently arrested; their cases were unsealed only this week. Two other co-conspirators from this group still appear to be uncharged. In May 2025, 11 other Americans were indicted for their participation in monkey torture groups, though they appear to come from a different network. This group allegedly "paid a minor in Indonesia to commit the requested acts on camera." As for the Indonesian side of this equation, arrests have been happening there, too. Following complaints from animal rights groups, police in Indonesia have arrested multiple videographers over the last two years. Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate is the deputy editor at Ars Technica. His most recent book is In Emergency, Break Glass: What Nietzsche Can Teach Us About Joyful Living in a Tech-Saturated World, which is much funnier than it sounds. 34 Comments #online #monkey #torture #video #arrests

The alleged shooter is a 57-year-old white male; according to his ministry's website, he “sought out militant Islamists in order to share the gospel and tell them that violence wasn't the answer.” #suspect #minnesota #shooting #linked #security

Three former executives at the French video game company Ubisoft used their position to bully or sexually harass staff, leaving women terrified and feeling like pieces of meat, a French court has heard.The state prosecutor Antoine Haushalter said the trial of three senior game creators for alleged bullying, sexual harassment and, in one case, attempted sexual assault was a “turning point” for the gaming world. It is the first big trial to result from the #MeToo movement in the video games industry, and Haushalter said the case had revealed “overwhelming” evidence of harassment.In four days of hearings, female former staff members variously described being tied to a chair, forced to do handstands, subjected to constant comments about sex and their bodies, having to endure sexist and homophobic jokes, drawings of penises being stuck to computers, a manager who farted in workers’ faces or scribbled on women with marker pens, gave unsolicited shoulder massages, played pornographic films in an open-plan office, and another executive who cracked a whip near people’s heads. The three men deny all charges.Haushalter said “the world of video games and its subculture” had an element of “systemic” sexism and potential abuse. He said the #MeToo movement in the gaming industry had allowed people to speak out.“It’s not that these actions were not punished by the law before. It’s just that they were silenced, and from now on they will not be silenced,” he said.Ubisoft is a French family business that rose to become one of the biggest video game creators in the world. It has been behind several blockbusters including Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry and the children’s favourite Just Dance.The court in Bobigny, in Seine-Saint-Denis, heard that between 2010 and 2020 at Ubisoft’s offices in Montreuil, east of Paris, the three executives created an atmosphere of bullying and sexism that one member of staff likened to a “boys’ club”. One alleged victim told the court: “The sexual remarks and sexual jokes were almost daily.”Tommy François, 52, a former vice-president of editorial and creative services, is accused of sexual harassment, bullying and attempted sexual assault. He was alleged once to have tied a female member of staff to a chair with tape, pushed the chair into a lift and pressed a button at random. He was also accused of forcing one woman wearing a skirt to do handstands.“He was my superior and I was afraid of him. He made me do handstands. I did it to get it over with and get rid of him,” one woman told the court.At a 2015 office Christmas party with a Back to the Future theme, François allegedly told a member of staff that he liked her 1950s dress. He then allegedly stepped towards her to kiss her on the mouth as his colleagues restrained her by the arms and back. She shouted and broke free. François denied all allegations.Another witness told the court that during a video games fair in the US, François “grabbed me by the hair and kissed me by force”. She said no one reacted, and that when she reported it to her human resources manager she was told “don’t make a big thing of it”.The woman said that later, in a key meeting, another unnamed senior figure told staff he had seen her “snogging” François, “even though he knew it had been an assault”.She said François called her into his office to show her pictures of his naked backside on his computers and on a phone. “Once he drew a penis on my arm when I was in a video call with top management,” she said.The woman said these incidents made her feel “stupefied, humiliated and professionally discredited”.François told the court he denied all charges. He said there had been a “culture of joking around”. He said: “I never tried to harm anyone.”Serge Hascoët told the court: ‘I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.’ Photograph: Xavier Galiana/AFP/Getty ImagesSerge Hascoët, 59, Ubisoft’s former chief creative officer and second-in-command, was accused of bullying and sexual harassment. The court heard how at a meeting of staff on an away day he complained about a senior female employee, saying she clearly did not have enough sex and that he would “show how to calm her” by having sex with her in a meeting room in front of everyone.He was alleged to have handed a young female member of staff a tissue in which he had blown his nose, saying: “You can resell it, it’s worth gold at Ubisoft.”The court heard he made guttural noises in the office and talked about sex. Hascoët was also alleged to have bullied assistants by making them carry out personal tasks for him such as going to his home to wait for parcel deliveries.Hascoët denied all the charges. He said: “I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.”The former game director Guillaume Patrux, 41, is accused of sexual harassment and bullying. He was alleged to have punched walls, mimed hitting staff, cracked a whip near colleagues’ faces, threatened to carry out an office shooting and played with a cigarette lighter near workers’ faces, setting alight a man’s beard. He denied the charges.The panel of judges retired to consider their verdict, which will be handed down at a later date. #harassment #ubisoft #executives #left #female

Elon Musk is contemplating decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, responding to President Donald Trump's apparent intent to terminate government subsidies and contracts with the billionaire's companies. It looks like the feud between the former allies has quickly turned vicious.SpaceX's CEO initially announced that the company would retire its Dragon spacecraft in an X post on Thursday, with Musk sharing a screenshot of a post published on Trump's Truth Social account earlier in the day."The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," said Trump in the screenshotted post. "I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!" You May Also Like "In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk wrote on X.SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft are a family of vehicles designed to carry passengers and cargo. The National Aeronautics and Space Administrationhas previously relied upon them to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Mere hours prior to Musk's announcement, SpaceX posted on X that it was preparing to launch a Dragon next Tuesday.For a few hours, it seemed reasonable to assume that this launch would now not go ahead. However, Musk then appeared to quickly walk back his decision. Responding to an X user advising him to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days," the billionaire subsequently stated that Dragon will not be decommissioned after all.It's unclear whether Musk's initial announcement was sincere, or whether his apparent about-face might be sarcastic. Musk has a history of making flippant comments online with no apparent regard to their consequences. What is clear is that Musk and Trump's relationship is well past the honeymoon phase, and now looks much more like an ugly divorce.If Trump does terminate government contracts with Musk's companies, it would deal a significant blow to the billionaire. According to a Washington Post investigation, NASA has invested over billion in SpaceX alone. When put together with Musk's other companies such as EV automaker Tesla, his various businesses have received at least billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. Mashable Trend Report: Coming Soon! Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Musk and Trump go through messy public breakup Credit: Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images Musk's relationship with Trump has significantly deteriorated in recent days. The billionaire announced that he was leaving his position as de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiencylast Wednesday, just one day after he criticised Trump's tax bill as undermining its work. The split was presented as amicable at the time, with Trump presenting Musk with a golden key and words of praise. However, their love affair has quickly turned sour.Musk continued to lambast Trump's bill after his departure from DOGE, arguing that it will increase government debt by trillions of dollars. Strongly disagreeing with the president's characterisation of the proposed legislation as a "Big Beautiful Bill," Musk labelled it a "disgusting abomination" and has been calling for lawmakers to crush it.For his part, Trump has claimed that Musk is simply throwing a tantrum because the bill supposedly cut an alleged "EV mandate." The president stated on Thursday that he had asked the billionaire to leave his administration, and that Musk had been "wearing thin.""I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted, and he just went CRAZY!" Trump claimed. Despite Trump's assertions, he did not abolish any EV mandate as there has never been any U.S. law which makes switching to an electric car mandatory. However, Trump has taken several anti-EV measures since his inauguration, including abolishing incentives encouraging EV adoption, pausing billion in funding for a U.S. charging network, and introducing a annual fee for EV users in his recent tax bill. Related Stories Trump's claim about Musk is an interesting contrast to his statements in March, when he praised the billionaire for not complaining about the supposed end of the non-existent EV mandate. The president made the comments while he and Musk co-hosted a Tesla ad on the White House lawn in an effort to boost the company's cratering stock prices.Tesla's struggling share value has now fallen again amidst Musk's feud with Trump, plummeting more than 14 percent on Thursday to wipe out over billion in value."I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago," Trump wrote on Thursday.Meanwhile, Musk went all-in attacking Trump on Thursday, claiming that the president is linked to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and sharing posts calling for him to be impeached. Musk has also hit out at Trump's tariffs on international trade, predicting that they will "cause a recession in the second half of the year.""Without me, Trump would have lost the election," Musk alleged on X. "Such ingratitude." #spacex #retire #dragon #amidst #musk

The murder of John Forde was the culmination to years of political, social, and criminal intrigue.   Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Researchers have uncovered handwritten letters, court documents, and a coroner’s report related to the nearly 700-year-old cold case murder of a medieval priest. Published on June 5 in the journal Criminal Law Forum, the investigation draws on direct archival evidence from Cambridge University that is helping fill in the gaps to a high-profile true crime scandal that would make headlines even today. But despite a mountain of firsthand accounts, the murder’s masterminds never saw justice. The ‘planned and cold-blooded’ crime On Friday, May 3, 1337, Anglican priest John Forde began a walk along downtown London’s Cheapside street after vespersshortly before sunset. At one point, a clergyman familiar to Forde by the name of Hasculph Neville approached him to begin a “pleasant conversation.” As the pair neared St. Paul’s Cathedral, four men ambushed the priest. One of the attackers then proceeded to slit Forde’s throat using a 12-inch dagger as two other assailants stabbed him in the stomach in front of onlookers. The vicious crime wasn’t a brazen robbery or politically motivated attack. It was likely a premeditated murder orchestrated by Ela Fitzpayne, a noblewoman, London crime syndicate leader—and potentially Forde’s lover. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” Cambridge University criminology professor Manuel Eisner explained in a statement. The location of the murder of John Forde on May 3, 1337. Credit: Medieval Murder Maps / University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology / Historic Towns Trust. A longstanding feud To understand how such a brutal killing could take place in daylight on a busy London street, it’s necessary to backtrack at least five years. In January 1332, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent a letter to the Bishop of Winchester that included a number of reputation-ruining claims surrounding Fitzpayne. In particular, Archbishop Simon Mepham described sexual relationships involving “knights and others, single and married, and even with clerics in holy orders.” The wide-ranging punishments for such sinful behavior could include a prohibition on wearing gold and other precious jewelry, as well as large tithes to monastic orders and the poor. But the most humiliating atonement often came in the form of a public walk of shame. The act of contrition involved walking barefoot across Salisbury Cathedral—England’s longest nave—in order to deliver a handcarried, four-pound wax candle to the church altar. What’s more, Archbishop Mepham commanded that Fitzpayne must repeat this penance every autumn for seven years. Fitzpayne was having none of it. According to Mepham’s message, the noblewoman chose to continue listening to a “spirit of pride”, and refused to abide by the judgment. A second letter sent by the Archbishop that April also alleged that she had since absconded from her husband, Sir Robert Fitzpayne, and was hiding in London’s Rotherhithe district along the Thames River. Due to this, Archbishop Mepham reported that Ela Fitzpayne had been excommunicated from the church. Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Credit: Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. Raids and rats But who tipped the clergy off to her indiscretions? According to Eisner’s review of original documents as part of the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project, it was almost certainly her ex-lover, the soon-to-be-murdered John Forde. He was the only alleged lover named in Archbishop Mepham’s letters, and served as a church rector in a village located on the Fitzpayne family’s estate at the time of the suspected affair.  “The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” Eisner said. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” But Forde’s relationship with the Fitzpaynes seems to have extended even more illicit activities. In another record reviewed by Eisner, both Ela Fitzpayne and John Forde had been indicted by a Royal Commission in 1322. The crime–assisting in the raid of a Benedictine priory alongside Sir Fitzpayne. They and others reportedly assaulted the priory a year earlier, making off with around 18 oxen, 30 pigs, and 200 sheep. The monastery coincidentally served as a French abbey’s outpost amid increasing tensions between France and England in the years leading up to the Hundred Years’ War. Archbishop Mepham was almost certainly displeased after hearing about the indictment of one of his own clergy. A strict administrator himself, Mepham “was keen to enforce moral discipline among the gentry and nobility,” added Eisner. He theorizes that Forde copped to the affair after getting leaned on by superiors, which subsequently led to the campaign to shame Ela Fitzpayne as a means to reassert the Church’s authority over English nobility. Forde, unfortunately, was caught between the two sides. “John Forde may have had split loyalties,” argued Eisner. “One to the Fitzpayne family, who were likely patrons of his church and granted him the position. And the other to the bishops who had authority over him as a clergy member.” Archbishop Mepham ultimately wouldn’t live to see the scandal’s full consequences. Fitzpayne never accepted her walk of shame, and the church elder died a year after sending the incriminating letters. Eisner believes the Fitzpaynes greenlit their hit job on Forde only after the dust had seemingly settled. It doesn’t help their case three bystanders said the man who slit the rector’s throat was none other than Ela Fitzpayne’s own brother, Hugh Lovell. They also named two family servants as Forde’s other assailants. Archbishop Mepham died four years before Forde’s murder. Credit: ampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council Turning a blind eye Anyone waiting for justice in this medieval saga will likely be disappointed. “Despite naming the killers and clear knowledge of the instigator, when it comes to pursuing the perpetrators, the jury turna blind eye,” Eisner said. Eisner explained the circumstances surrounding an initial lack of convictions were simply “implausible.” No one supposedly could locate the accused to bring to trial, despite the men belonging to one of England’s highest nobility houses. Meanwhile, the court claimed Hugh Lovell had no belongings available to confiscate. “This was typical of the class-based justice of the day,” said Eisner. In the end, the only charge that ever stuck in the murder case was an indictment against one of the family’s former servants. Five years after the first trial in 1342, Hugh Colne was convicted of being one of the men to stab Forde in the stomach and sentenced to the notorious Newgate Prison. As dark and sordid as the multiyear medieval drama was, it apparently didn’t change much between Ela Fitzpayne and her husband, Sir Robert. She and the baron remained married until his death in 1354—when she subsequently inherited all his property. “Where rule of law is weak, we see killings committed by the highest ranks in society, who will take power into their own hands, whether it’s today or seven centuries ago,” said Eisner. That said, the criminology professor couldn’t help but concede that Ela Fitzpayne was an “extraordinary” individual, regardless of the era. “A woman in 14th century England who raided priories, openly defied the Archbishop of Canterbury, and planned the assassination of a priest,” he said. “Ela Fitzpayne appears to have been many things.” #medieval #cold #case #salacious #tale

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Boardhears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the jobtheir unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More: #federal #courts #novel #proposal #rein

TL;DR: Canberra authorities are embracing a tough approach to ransomware threats. A new law will require certain organizations to disclose when and how much they have paid to cybercriminals following a data breach. However, experts remain unconvinced that this is the most effective way to tackle the problem. Companies operating in Australia must now report any payments made to cybercriminals after experiencing a ransomware incident. Government officials hope the new mandate will help them gain a deeper understanding of the issue, as many enterprises continue to pay ransoms whenever they fall victim to file-encrypting malware. Originally proposed last year, the law applies only to companies with an annual turnover exceeding million. This threshold targets the top 6.5 percent of Australia's registered businesses – representing roughly half of the country's total economic output. Under the new law, affected companies must report ransomware incidents to the Australian Signals Directorate. Failure to properly disclose an attack will result in fines under the country's civil penalty system. Authorities are allegedly planning to follow a two-stage approach, initially prioritizing major violations while fostering a "constructive" dialogue with victims. Starting next year, regulators will adopt a much stricter stance toward noncompliant organizations. The Australian government has implemented this mandatory reporting requirement after concluding that voluntary disclosures were insufficient. In 2024, officials noted that ransomware and cyber extortion incidents were vastly underreported, with only one in five victims coming forward. Ransomware remains a highly complex and growing phenomenon, with attacks reaching record levels despite increased law enforcement actions against notorious cyber gangs. Although several governments have proposed similar regulations, Australia is the first country to formally enact such a law. // Related Stories Jeff Wichman, director of incident response at cybersecurity firm Semperis, cautions that mandatory reporting is a double-edged sword. While the government may gain valuable data and insights into attacker profiles, the law may not reduce the frequency of attacks. Instead, it could serve mainly to publicly shame breached organizations – while cybercriminals continue to profit. A recent Semperis study found that over 70 percent of 1,000 ransomware-hit companies opted to pay the ransom and hope for the best. "Some companies, they just want to pay it and get things done, to get their data off the dark web. Others, it's a delayed response perspective, they want negotiations to happen with the attacker while they figure out what happened," Wichman explained. According to the study, 60 percent of victims who paid received functional decryption keys and successfully recovered their data. However, in 40 percent of cases, the provided keys were corrupted or ineffective. #australia #becomes #first #country #force