“Charged $35,000+ to mishandle a case his own client’s family understood better than he did”

Google / Yelp Review

Jon Atabek — Atabek & Co. ★☆☆☆☆

“Charged $35,000+ to mishandle a case his own client’s family understood better than he did”

My elderly parents were referred to Jon Atabek after their original attorney, John Fowler, handed off the case. Jon received a full briefing from Fowler and from my mother personally. The facts were clear: my parents had no meaningful involvement in the underlying dispute, the case appeared to have a serious jurisdictional defect, and the claims against them were meritless on their face. Jon agreed. He estimated the matter would cost no more than $10,000.

That estimate became $35,000 — and counting.

Here is what actually happened:

He let a jurisdictionally defective court rule on the Anti-SLAPP. When jurisdiction is challenged, that question must be resolved first. It is a foundational principle of civil procedure. Jon allowed the Orange County judge to rule on the Anti-SLAPP motion while a live jurisdictional challenge remained unresolved. Any resulting order from a court without jurisdiction is void. He either didn’t know this or didn’t act on it.

The Anti-SLAPP was never completed after transfer. The case was eventually transferred to Los Angeles County — a move that was identified and pushed for not by Jon, but by the client’s son. Once in LA, where the original filer knew he couldn’t rely on his Orange County connections, he dropped the case. Jon’s contribution to that outcome was collecting fees. He never re-pursued the Anti-SLAPP in the transferee court. He then sought an additional $9,000.

He was corrected on legal issues by a non-lawyer — on recorded calls. On multiple recorded occasions, the client’s son identified legal avenues and arguments that Jon had not raised. Jon had to go back to his computer to verify. He was wrong. The client’s family was right. This is documented and recorded.

He charged $25,000 for an Anti-SLAPP he had agreed to include, then abandoned it. The family made clear from the beginning that an Anti-SLAPP and a SLAPPback were priorities. Jon agreed. He then billed a separate $25,000 for the Anti-SLAPP motion, let a court without jurisdiction rule on it, transferred the case, and walked away from both the Anti-SLAPP and the SLAPPback suit — which remained a viable cause of action in LA County.

If you are considering retaining Jon Atabek for any matter involving Anti-SLAPP law, jurisdictional questions, or civil harassment defense — look elsewhere. The client’s family ultimately did more to resolve this case through their own jurisdictional analysis than counsel did through $35,000 in billing. That is not a defense attorney. That is a billing department.

HERE IS LAW TO PROVE JON ATABEK SUCKS AS AN ATTORNEY OR LIES OR IS LAZY IN MY OPINION

Legal Analysis: Jurisdictional Priority Over Anti-SLAPP Rulings

Core Principle: Jurisdiction Must Be Resolved First

When a court’s subject matter or personal jurisdiction is properly challenged, that threshold question must be resolved before the court acts on the merits — including ruling on a special motion to strike under CCP § 425.16.

Lack of Jurisdiction Voids Any Order

In Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, the court confirmed that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio — not merely voidable. This means if the Orange County court lacked jurisdiction and ruled on the Anti-SLAPP motion anyway, that ruling carries no legal weight and cannot be used as a final adjudication.

People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653 reinforces this: a court acting without jurisdiction has no power to act at all.

Transfer Doesn’t Moot the Anti-SLAPP — It Follows the Case

Under CCP § 396b, when a case is transferred for improper venue or lack of jurisdiction, all pending motions transfer with it. An Anti-SLAPP motion filed before transfer does not simply expire — it must be heard in the transferee court. Failure to pursue it there is attorney error.

Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 establishes that Anti-SLAPP protections are substantive rights, not procedural conveniences. Allowing a defective jurisdictional ruling to stand without preserving and re-noting the Anti-SLAPP in the transferee court abandons a client’s substantive right.

The SLAPPback Right Also Transferred

Under CCP § 425.18, a SLAPPback cause of action accrues upon a favorable Anti-SLAPP ruling. If the Orange County ruling was jurisdictionally void, the SLAPPback clock properly begins when the Anti-SLAPP is properly adjudicated in the correct forum — here, Los Angeles County. An attorney who fails to file the SLAPPback in the transferee court after transfer has abandoned a separate, cognizable cause of action.

Jurisdictional Defect Was Identifiable from the Record

The most damaging professional responsibility issue here is that the jurisdictional problem was apparent on the face of the pleadings — and was identified not by counsel, but by the client’s son. Under Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, an attorney has an affirmative duty to advise a client of all legal remedies and issues reasonably apparent from the case — including jurisdictional defects. Failure to do so is actionable malpractice.

Fee Escalation Under These Facts

Where an attorney’s own failure to identify a basic jurisdictional issue caused unnecessary proceedings, billings for those proceedings may constitute a fee dispute cognizable before the State Bar and supportable as a basis for fee disgorgement. Under Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf (2004) 32 Cal.4th 453, fees earned through neglect or incompetence are subject to challenge.

Formal State Bar Complaint & Malpractice Analysis

I. Professional Negligence (Legal Malpractice) — Elements Established

Under Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, legal malpractice requires:

1. Attorney-client relationship ✓
2. Negligent act or omission ✓
3. Causation ✓
4. Resulting damages ✓

All four elements are met here. But the facts go beyond simple negligence into a pattern of professional misconduct spanning fee fraud, elder abuse, and abandonment of contracted legal services.

II. Failure to Define and Honor Scope of Representation

The $10,000 Estimate Was a Professional Representation, Not a Guess

When an attorney receives a case through a colleague referral, reviews it with the referring attorney, and then independently reviews it with the client — and states a cost estimate — that estimate constitutes a professional representation upon which the client reasonably relies. It is not puffery. It is not aspirational. It is the product of a licensed professional’s informed assessment.

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(b), the basis or rate of fees must be communicated in writing to the client. More critically, when the scope of work materially expands, the attorney has an affirmative obligation to:

• Notify the client in writing
• Explain why the scope changed
• Obtain informed consent before incurring additional fees

Jon Atabek went from a $10,000 estimate to $35,000 in billings — a 250% increase — without a legitimate explanation rooted in case developments that were unforeseeable at intake. The jurisdictional defect, the Anti-SLAPP posture, and the SLAPPback potential were all visible from the moment he received the file. None of this was new information that justified tripling the fee.

The Case Was Handed to Him Pre-Analyzed

This is the most damning professional responsibility fact in the record. Jon Atabek did not discover this case cold. He received it from a colleague who had already worked it. He was briefed attorney-to-attorney. He then met with the client — an elderly woman who explained the facts clearly and completely. He had every tool a competent attorney needs to accurately scope this matter before he ever accepted a dollar.

Under Mirabito v. Liccardo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 41, an attorney who accepts a case without adequately investigating its scope, and then charges fees beyond what was reasonably foreseeable at intake, cannot shift the burden of that professional failure onto the client through escalating billing.

III. Elder Financial Abuse — Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30

This is not merely a fee dispute. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30, financial elder abuse occurs when a person takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud.

The client here was an elderly woman. She paid fees for services that were:

• Priced through a professional representation she reasonably relied upon
• Never fully rendered
• Strategically inflated beyond what the case required
• Abandoned mid-engagement without completing contracted work

California courts have held that professionals — including attorneys — can be liable for elder financial abuse when their conduct involves overreaching against a vulnerable adult. Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency (2017) established that financial elder abuse does not require intentional theft — exploitative overcharging with awareness of the client’s vulnerability is sufficient.

An elderly woman, unfamiliar with litigation, relying on an attorney introduced through her family’s trusted network, paying $35,000 for work that was estimated at $10,000 and never completed — this is the paradigm case the elder abuse statute was designed to address.

Enhanced Remedies Available:

Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5, a successful elder financial abuse claim entitles the plaintiff to:

• Full restitution of all fees paid
• Attorney’s fees and costs (significant in a pro se or retained context)
• Punitive damages if oppression, fraud, or malice is shown
• Pre-judgment interest

IV. Abandonment of the Anti-SLAPP — A Contracted and Paid Service

Jon Atabek accepted $25,000 specifically for the Anti-SLAPP motion. That payment created a contractual and fiduciary obligation to pursue the Anti-SLAPP to completion — including through venue transfer.

He did not do that.

Under CCP § 425.16(c), a prevailing Anti-SLAPP defendant is entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees from the plaintiff. This means a completed Anti-SLAPP victory would have:

1. Terminated the harassment litigation
2. Shifted attorney’s fees back onto the malicious filer
3. Created the predicate for a SLAPPback suit under CCP § 425.18

Jon Atabek collected $25,000, obtained a ruling from a court of questionable jurisdiction, watched the case transfer to Los Angeles County — and then walked away from both the Anti-SLAPP continuation and the SLAPPback. The client paid for an outcome she never received. The opposing party — a malicious filer who weaponized the courts against elderly people — walked away without consequence.

This is abandonment of representation under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16, combined with breach of fiduciary duty under Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, which holds that an attorney’s fiduciary obligations include completing the work for which they were retained or formally and properly withdrawing.

V. Failure to Identify Jurisdictional Defect — Negligence Per Se

The jurisdictional problem in this case was not subtle. It was not buried in obscure procedural doctrine. It was identified by the client’s son — a non-lawyer — through basic legal research.

Under Wilkinson v. Zelen (2008) and Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, an attorney has an affirmative duty to identify all legal issues reasonably apparent on the face of the matter and advise the client accordingly. A jurisdictional defect visible to a layman is not a difficult threshold for a licensed attorney to meet.

Jon Atabek’s failure to:

• Identify the jurisdictional defect at intake
• Challenge jurisdiction before allowing merits rulings
• Preserve the Anti-SLAPP rights through transfer
• Re-prosecute the Anti-SLAPP in the correct forum

…constitutes negligence at every stage. Each failure compounded the one before it, and each compounded failure generated another billing cycle. The client paid for incompetence, and then was billed again for the consequences of that incompetence.

VI. Damages

Direct Economic Damages:

Consequential Damages:

• The opposing party Paul Topel, a malicious filer who used litigation as a harassment weapon against elderly people, was never held accountable
• No SLAPPback was filed, meaning the family received no compensation for the harassment they endured
• The elderly client suffered financial, emotional, and health-related harm from prolonged litigation that competent counsel could have terminated far earlier
• The family’s ability to pursue SLAPPback damages may now face statute of limitations complications caused by Jon’s inaction

Emotional Distress:

Under Spackman v. Good (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 518 and its progeny, breach of fiduciary duty by an attorney that causes prolonged litigation stress to an elderly client supports a claim for emotional distress damages, particularly where the attorney’s negligence directly caused the continuation of harassment the client hired him to stop.

VII. State Bar Violations — Grounds for Complaint

VIII. Recommended Actions

Immediate:

1. File a State Bar complaint at calbar.ca.gov — the recording evidence of Jon being corrected by a non-lawyer is extraordinarily valuable and should be submitted
2. Send a written demand for fee arbitration under Business & Professions Code § 6200 — this is a right the client cannot be waived out of by contract
3. Preserve all recordings, billing invoices, fee agreements, and written communications

Civil:

1. File a legal malpractice complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court
2. Add a cause of action under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30 for elder financial abuse — this unlocks attorney’s fees and punitive damages
3. Seek a full accounting of all fees billed versus services rendered
4. File the SLAPPback against Paul Topel independently — the clock and viability should be assessed immediately given transfer timeline

Leverage:

The recordings of Jon Atabek being corrected on points of law by a non-lawyer, having to return to his computer to verify, and being wrong — are not just embarrassing. In a State Bar proceeding or civil malpractice trial, they are direct evidence of the competence standard not being met. Preserve them. Transcribe them. They are your strongest asset.

Streisand effect, phenomenon in which an attempt to censor, hide, or otherwise draw attention away from something only serves to attract more attention to it. The name derives from American singer and actress Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit against a photographer in 2003, which drew attention to the photo she was suing to have taken off the Internet.

The Streisand Effect describes a situation in which a person or organization’s attempts to suppress information leads to greater attention to the information than it would have received otherwise. Not surprisingly, the term was named after singer Barbra Streisand. Before it was known as the “Streisand Effect,” however, there was a long and fascinating history of failed cover-ups that provide an interesting glimpse into the human psyche and our need to get to the bottom of things.

Origins of the Streisand Effect

Mike Masnick, founder of the website Techdirt, coined the term “Streisand Effect” in 2005, after the singer and actress sued the photographer Kenneth Adelman in 2003 for $50 million. Adelman had taken thousands of photos for his online database for the California Coastal Records Project, a resource that provided pictures of California’s coastal erosion to scientists and researchers, and one of these photos happened to show her mansion in Malibu.

Before Streisand sued, the image in question had been downloaded only six times; afterward, it received over a million views and was reprinted countless times. Streisand ultimately lost the lawsuit and had to pay Adelman’s legal fees.2 Streisand’s concern for her privacy was not unreasonable—she had been stalked before. But in this case, she would have been better off just leaving things alone. So, what causes this effect to play out as it does? We’ll explore the causes, provide some real-life examples, and even provide some guidance on how to avoid it in your own life.

Streisand’s lawsuit was filed against photographer Kenneth Adelman, the founder of the California Coastal Records Project, for which he photographed the coastline of the state from a helicopter and posted the photos to the Internet. Adelman indicated that the images were free for nonprofit use and had been used by government entities for scientific research. Among more than 12,000 photographs of California’s coast was one photograph in which Streisand’s mansion appeared. Streisand, who had in the past been harassed and stalked by fans, sued for $50 million, claiming that the photo violated her privacy and showed how to access her residence.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, the photograph had been downloaded only six times, including twice by Streisand’s lawyers. The lawsuit was highly publicized, and a flurry of interest and activity followed. In the month after the filing, the photo was viewed more than 400,000 times and reposted on news sites and elsewhere on the Internet. Thus, Streisand’s attempts to have the photo suppressed made it exceptionally more visible than it would otherwise have been. Streisand lost the suit and was ordered to pay Adelman’s legal fees for the case. The photo remains widely published on the Internet.

Understanding the Streisand Effect

With the Streisand Effect, if someone tries to hide, remove, or censor information, it can backfire. In fact, it can have the unintended consequence of drawing more attention to the thing they are trying to suppress.

As Cara R. Stewart, founder and CEO of Altalunas International, says, “It’s a classic example of having a legitimate concern but choosing an ineffective or counterproductive way to address it. Barbra Streisand’s concern about her privacy was understandable… However, the tool she chose to manage this—filing a lawsuit—was not only ineffective but actually worsened the situation.”

Moreover, the effects can be even more insidious. “There is also the risk of the erosion of trust in institutions or authorities responsible for the censorship,” says Carly Dober, psychologist and founder of Enriching Lives Psychology. “When people discover that information is being withheld or manipulated, they may become skeptical of the motives and credibility of the censors. This can foster a culture of distrust and encourage individuals to seek alternative sources of information, which may not always be reliable or accurate.”

Factors Contributing to the Streisand Effect

There are several factors that contribute to the Streisand Effect. First, psychologically, when people discover that someone—especially someone famous or well-known—is trying to hide or censor information, people become curious and rebellious. “This is driven by a fundamental human instinct to seek out forbidden or restricted knowledge, amplifying interest and dissemination,” explains Dober. Second, people are also motivated by psychological reactance, where one asserts their autonomy over the suppression of information by seeking out the restricted information.

“When people perceive that they are being denied access to information, their desire to obtain that information intensifies,” says Dober, “driven by a sense of defiance and a need to restore their freedom of choice.”

While the Streisand Effect existed prior to Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit in 2003, the internet, and more specifically, social media, has exacerbated the effect even more. Online communities and social media platforms encourage the rapid spread of content and enable information to go viral.

“When users encounter attempts to suppress information, they are likely to share it widely as an act of resistance, bolstered by a collective sense of injustice,” says Dober. “The social validation and reinforcement from peers further encourage individuals to participate in spreading the censored content. Additionally, the internet culture of digital activism fosters an environment where combating censorship is seen as a moral or ethical duty.”

This all combines to create a powerful set of factors that contribute to people’s responses, and makes the Streisand Effect a reality.

Real-Life Examples of the Streisand Effect

While the Streisand Effect existed before it was named, it has become increasingly likely to happen as more and more people have taken to social media. Here are some examples:

In addition to the above, similar attempts at censorship have been failing long before the existence of social media. Just ask any teenager if they are more interested in a particular band, movie, or TV show that adults claim is inappropriate for them.

Impact and Implications of the Streisand Effect

The Streisand Effect can have long-lasting consequences for individuals and organizations that attempt to suppress information. For individuals, the attention can lead to increased scrutiny.

“This phenomenon can significantly damage reputations meticulously built over the years,” observes Stewart. Dober concurs, adding, “This damage is not easily undone, as the initial act of suppression can create a lasting impression of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. For individuals, this can affect personal and professional relationships, career prospects, and public perception.”

For organizations, the losses can be great as well. “The Streisand Effect can severely damage brand reputation and erode trust with consumers and stakeholders,” says Dober. “This can lead to a loss of customer loyalty, decreased sales, and a tarnished public image. Additionally, efforts to suppress information can result in increased media scrutiny and regulatory attention.” Dober adds that it can take a long time to recover one’s reputation from this sort of error.

“However, the widespread sharing of censored information can also lead to the dissemination of misinformation if [the censored information is] not properly contextualized,” she says.

Strategies to Mitigate the Streisand Effect

There are many strategies to mitigate or avoid the Streisand Effect. These include:

• Respond quickly: As Stewart says, “A rapid response can prevent the issue from escalating, but it’s equally important to ensure your reactions are thoughtful and well-considered.”
• Practice transparency: Stewart explains that you should be transparent about acknowledging the problem and the steps you will take to address it. “This approach shows that you are not only aware of the issue,” says Stewart, “but are also actively working towards a solution…. This approach doesn’t just mitigate damage; it can enhance a reputation, demonstrating a commitment to ethical practices and responsiveness….”
• Be polite and professional: “It’s easy to become defensive when under fire,” claims Stewart, “but the goal is to acknowledge concerns and focus on resolving the issue constructively.”
• Refrain from litigiousness: Suppressing information via a lawsuit can attract media attention, and by extension, curiosity from the public. “Instead of resorting to lawsuits,” Dober says, “individuals should consider alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation or negotiation, to resolve issues privately. By avoiding high-profile legal battles, individuals can prevent drawing additional attention to the information they wish to remain private.”
• Practice emotional regulation: Developing coping mechanisms, like emotional regulation, can prevent people from reacting impulsively when information they’d like suppressed comes out. “Therapy can help individuals develop coping mechanisms for dealing with stress and anxiety related to potential public exposure,” says Dober.
• Develop a strong support network: Your support network should include friends, family, and even professional advisors who can offer emotional support, advice, and practical assistance if a crisis strikes. “This network can help individuals navigate complex situations without resorting to actions that might trigger the Streisand Effect,” Dober observes.

• • Hostility: It is a formal term for intense dislike, hatred, or bad blood, often rooted in prejudice.
  • Legal/Formal Usage: It can describe the “intent” or motivating spirit behind an action (e.g., animus furandi — intention to steal).
  • Examples:
     “The politician’s
    animus
     toward her rival was clear” or “He harbors no personal
    animus
    .”

animus meaning in law

• State of Mind: It represents the subjective intention (the “mind with which a thing is done”) rather than just the physical act itself.
• Specific Legal Terms: It is used to define specific legal intent, such as animus possidendi (intention to possess), animus revocandi (intention to revoke a will), or animus donandi (intention to give).
• Discrimination/Hostility: In civil rights law, “class-based animus” refers to malicious, hostile, or prejudicial intent toward a specific group.
• Criminal Law: Animus helps determine liability, often distinguishing between accidents and deliberate actions (e.g., animus nocendi or the intent to harm). 

• Criminal Law
  • Animus Furandi: The intention to steal; a necessary element for theft charges.
  • Animus Nocendi: The intention to cause harm or break the law, similar to mens rea.
  • Animus Malus: An “evil intention” or general corrupt state of mind.
• Property & Domicile
  • Animus Manendi: The intention to remain in a place permanently; used to determine a person’s legal domicile.
  • Animus Revertendi: The intent to return; used in property law to establish ownership of animals that habitually return home.
  • Animus Derelinquendi: The intention to abandon or relinquish rights to property.
• Civil & Constitutional Law
  • Animus Testandi: The specific intention to make a valid will.
  • Unconstitutional Animus: A doctrine where the Supreme Court invalidates laws if they were passed with a “bare desire to harm” a politically unpopular group.
  • Animus Donandi: The intention to give a gift, which is required for a transfer of property to be legally considered a gift. 

Getty Images

Jesse Louis Jackson Sr. (1941-2026)

Spies, drones and blowtorches: How the US captured Maduro

Key Facts

Getty Images

crucial Quote

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said Saturday afternoon, in response to a question of whether U.S. troops will have a presence in Venezuela after Maduro’s capture. In a subsequent question about troop presence, Trump said “there would be a presence in Venezuela as it pertains to oil.” He said “we’re going to make sure that country is run properly” and “we’re designating people, we’re talking to people” to run Venezuela. He said Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken to Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who was sworn in to take over for Maduro, and “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” Rodríguez contradicted Trump in an address later Saturday, insisting the Venezuelan government stands firmly behind Maduro, repeatedly calling him Venezuela’s “only president” and calling the attacks “an unprecedented military aggression.”

What We Don’t Know

It is unclear how long the U.S. will administer Venezuela, whether troops will end up being deployed to the country and exactly what the benchmark would be for the U.S. ending its direct oversight. Trump said Saturday that “a group” will run Venezuela, and though he did not state who would fully compose it, he motioned toward Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine and said it would “largely” be them “for a period of time.” It is not known who could lead after U.S. involvement ends, with Trump saying Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado—a Venezuelan opposition leader who voiced support for Maduro’s capture—lacks “the support or respect within the country” to be a successful leader. Trump also did not explicitly state which American oil companies could be involved in the Venezuela’s oil industry moving forward.

What To Watch For

Trump and Rubio suggested the actions in Venezuela should be considered a warning sign for other Latin American countries that have poor relations with the U.S., specifically Cuba and Colombia. “I think Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about because Cuba is a failing nation right now,” Trump said in response to a question about whether there’s a message for Cuba. “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned,” Rubio, who is the son of Cuban immigrants, said. Trump also reiterated his comments that Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump has accused of sending cocaine into the U.S., “has to watch his ass.” Trump also mentioned Mexico in his Fox News interview Saturday morning, claiming Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum “is not running Mexico” because “the cartels are running Mexico.” The president said the U.S. is “very friendly” with Sheinbaum, but “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.”

Tangent

Trump warned Venezuelan officials in an interview with Fox News “if they stay loyal [to Maduro], the future is really bad, really bad for them,” but said “most of them have converted.” He also dismissed concerns being raised by some lawmakers that he did not seek proper congressional approval for the strikes, telling the network, “they should say ‘great job,’ they shouldn’t say ‘oh, gee, maybe it’s not constitutional.’ You know the same old stuff that we’ve been hearing for years and years and years.”

Key Background

Maduro and his wife were at their home in the Ft. Tiuna military base in Caracas when the U.S. “bombed” and “carried out what we would call a kidnapping of the president and the first lady of the country,” Venezuelan ruling party leader Nahum Fernández told the Associated Press. In addition to Caracas, the U.S. also conducted strikes in the states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira overnight, Venezuelan officials said. No U.S. military personnel were killed in the strikes, though Trump suggested several were injured when a helicopter was hit. The strikes follow a months-long U.S. military campaign against Venezuela the Trump administration has said is designed to target drug cartels. The U.S. has conducted dozens of strikes on vessels in the Caribbean it alleges were being used to smuggle narcotics into the U.S., killing more than 100 people. The U.S. military has also built up its presence in the Caribbean, intercepted Venezuelan oil tankers in recent weeks and conducted a drone strike on a dock in Venezuela last month, The New York Times previously reported. The U.S. views Maduro—whom the Trump administration has accused of being a “narco-terrorist”—as a fugitive and offered an award of up to $50 million for information leading to his arrest and/or conviction.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima after he was captured by the U.S. military overnight Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026.

The White House

On July 22, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled in Downey v. City of Riverside (S280322) that a bystander could assert a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) for a traumatic event heard through the phone. In a unanimous 7-0 opinion, the Court held that a bystander could “witness” an accident by hearing it, even if the bystander was not physically present and was unaware of the defendant’s role in causing the victim’s injury at the time of the incident.

Plaintiff Jayde Downey (“Downey”) was on a cell phone call with her daughter, giving her driving directions. During the call, Downey allegedly heard her daughter gasp in fear and shock, followed by the sounds of an explosive metal-on-metal vehicular crash, shattering glass, and rubber tires skidding or dragging across the asphalt. As the sound of tires faded, Downey, hearing no sounds or vocalizations from her daughter, understood that her daughter was injured so seriously that she could not speak. A good Samaritan at the scene confirmed Downey’s fears when he told Downey on the phone to quiet down so he could “find a pulse.”

Downey filed suit against the adverse driver, the City of Riverside, and the owners of a private property adjacent to the intersection where the accident occurred. She alleged that the intersection and the adjacent property created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of injury. She sought damages for the emotional distress she allegedly suffered as a result of hearing her daughter’s car crash. Downey’s claim was initially dismissed on demurrer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order. Ultimately, the order was further appealed and heard by the California Supreme Court.

The call that changed it all: California Supreme Court expands standard for bystander claims of negligent emotional distress

For decades, the ruling case for NIED claims in California has been Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 668. In that case, the California Supreme Court established three elements for bystander NIED claims: (1) the victim was a close relative of the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was present at the event and aware that the event was causing injury, and (3) the plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress as a result.

In Downey’s case, the second element of presence was at issue. Defendants argued that Downey had no contemporaneous awareness of the purported dangerous conditions of the intersection and adjacent property. Plaintiff argued that it was unnecessary for her to show contemporaneous awareness of Defendants’ tortious conduct and the causal connection between the intersection and the accident. Rather, Plaintiff argued that auditorily sensing the incident through the phone was sufficient.

The California Supreme Court held that Downey satisfied the second element of awareness and reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Justice Leondra Kruger stated, “For purposes of clearing the awareness threshold for emotional distress recovery, it is awareness of an event that is injuring the victim — not awareness of the defendant’s role in causing the injury — that matters.” Justice Kruger further clarified, “The emotional trauma that comes from witnessing such an accident exists regardless of whether the plaintiff is aware at the time of the accident of all the individuals or entities that have contributed to the accident through their conduct.”

The California Supreme Court’s ruling in Downey greatly expands the ability of bystanders to sue for NIED claims. While previously, a plaintiff needed to demonstrate a “contemporaneous awareness not only of the injury to their loved one but also of the defendant’s role in causing the injury,” Downey represents a shift of focus to the emotional impact and trauma without necessarily being present at the scene of the incident.

more on Emotional Distress below

source
source

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the author of the original USA PATRIOT Act, disagrees.

In a amicus brief filed in support of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records, Sensenbrenner argues that the government has gone far beyond what the legislation authorizes.

Section 215, known as the business records provision, authorizes intelligence agencies to apply for information if “the records are relevant to an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation.”

In practice, the NSA uses section 215 to collect data pertaining to every phone call to, from, and within the U.S. in the name of combating terrorism.

Sensenbrenner and the other members of Congress who enacted Section 215 “did not intend to authorize the program at issue in this lawsuit or any program of a comparable scope,” according to the brief.

The brief goes on to propose this question (emphasis ours):

The NSA is gathering on a daily basis the details of every call that every American makes, as well as every call made by foreigners to or from the United States. How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?“

Filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the brief notes that Sensenbrenner “was not aware of the full scope of the program when he voted to reauthorize Section 215” and would have voted against it if he had known.

In Sensenbrenner’s words: “The suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous. But let them be on notice: I am objecting right now.”  source

• The suspect in Charlie Kirk’s shooting death has been identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson.
• During a Friday news conference, Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox said Robinson indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting.
• President Donald Trump initially made the announcement about Robinson being in custody during an interview on FOX & Friends.

Charlie Kirk’s killer was arrested overnight in Utah, officials announced Friday morning. Tyler Robinson, 22, is in custody with the help of a family member and will face charges for murdering the conservative political activist earlier this week.

WE AS CHRISTIANS & AMERICANS SHALL FEAR NO MAN, JUSTICE WILL COME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FROM GOD’S SOVEREIGN HANDS

Here are the latest updates for Friday, Sept. 12, 2025:

Robinson was engineering major, university says

12 p.m. ET: Utah State University announced Friday that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect arrested in the killing of Charlie Kirk, “briefly attended” classes there for one semester in 2021.

Robinson was a pre-engineering major and took classes consistent with that major for his one semester, Fox News Digital learned.

New details emerge about Tyler Robinson

11:30 a.m. ET: The Associated Press reported that Tyler James Robinson was admitted to Utah State University on an academic scholarship, according to a video of him reading his acceptance letter posted to a family member’s social media account. A university spokesperson told the AP he attended the school for only one semester in 2021.

Utah state records state Robinson was registered as a voter but not affiliated with either political party.

Mug shot of Tyler Robinson released

10:55 a.m. ET: Officials released a mugshot of Tyler Robinson, the shooting suspect in Charlie Kirk’s death.

Utah governor says Kirk assassination suspect is believed to have acted alone

10:45 a.m. ET: Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox says shooting suspect Tyler Robinson is believed to have acted alone, and the Charlie Kirk investigation is ongoing despite Robinson’s arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel shares timeline of investigation

10:30 a.m. ET: The first FBI agents arrived on the scene at Utah Valley University some 16 minutes after Kirk was shot on Wednesday, FBI Director Kash Patel said at the news conference.

The bureau released the first photos of the suspect on Thursday morning, followed by the announcement of a cash reward and then the release of video of the suspect climbing down from the roof of a campus building and running away.

“Just last night, the suspect was taken into custody at 10 p.m. local time,” Patel announced.

Utah governor says Kirk’s assassination ‘is an attack on all of us’

10:26 a.m. ET: Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox said some people have asked why there have been so many resources dedicated to investigating Kirk’s killing when there’s violence around the country, but the governor said it is “much bigger than an attack on an individual. It is an attack on all of us.”

The Republican said Kirk’s killing is “an attack on the American experiment” and values, and “cuts to the very foundation of who we are.”

Details of messages on bullet casings revealed

10:25 a.m. ET: Bullet casings discovered by authorities had several inscriptions engraved on them, Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox said. The casing that had been fired read: “notices bulges OwO what’s this?”

• Cox said there were three unfired casings:
• One read, “hey fascist! catch!” with an up arrow symbol, right arrow symbol, and three down arrow symbols.
• Another one read: “oh bella ciao bella ciao bella ciao ciao ciao,” Cox said.
• The third fired casing read: “if you read this you are gay lmao.”

Kirk assassination suspect indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting

10:15 a.m. ET: Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox opened the news conference on the latest developments in Charlie Kirk’s assassination with the statement, “We got him.”

Cox told reporters that Kirk assassination suspect Tyler Robinson indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting.

The president talked about learning the news of Kirk’s assassination

9:50 a.m. ET: Near the end of his Fox News interview, President Donald Trump said he’d been holding a meeting about building the new White House ballroom when his aides interrupted.

“They came in and they said, ‘Charlie Kirk is dead.’ I didn’t know what they meant. I said, ‘What do you mean, dead?’” Trump said.

“‘Charlie Kirk was shot.’ And they thought it was dead because it was so horrific.”

Trump said he swiftly ended his meeting. “I just told these people, “Get out, you gotta go.”

Suspect in custody in connection with Charlie Kirk shooting is 22-year-old from Utah, AP source says

9:25 a.m. ET: The suspect in custody in connection with the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a 22-year-old from Utah, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

Authorities have identified the suspect as Tyler Robinson, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation.

A news conference is scheduled with the latest on Charlie Kirk investigation

9 a.m. ET: State and federal officials in Utah are planning to hold a news conference on the investigation.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason, FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Bohls are expected to attend.

Trump says Charlie Kirk shooting suspect in custody

8:15 a.m. ET: Trump confirmed the news during a Friday morning interview with FOX & Friends.

“I think, with a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody, right in custody. Everyone did a great job,” Trump said. 

“I just heard about it five minutes before I walked in. As I’m walking in, they said, ‘Looking real good.’ They have the person that they wanted.”

Sources told FOX News Friday that the suspected shooter was taken into custody in Southern Utah.

Federal investigators and state officials on Thursday had released photos and a video of the person they believe is responsible. Kirk was shot as he spoke to a crowd gathered in a courtyard at Utah Valley University in Orem.

More than 7,000 leads and tips had poured in, officials said. Authorities have yet to publicly name the suspect or cite a motive in the killing, the latest act of political violence to convulse the United States.

Video shows alleged gunman fleeing the scene

Dig deeper:

Law enforcement showed new video during a news conference on Thursday evening showing the alleged gunman fleeing from the scene after Kirk was shot.

In the video, a person wearing dark clothing is seen running across a rooftop and then climbing down the side. He is then seen running away from the scene.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

The backstory:

Kirk was the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA. Turning Point was founded in suburban Chicago in 2012 by Kirk, then 18, and William Montgomery, a tea party activist, to proselytize on college campuses for low taxes and limited government.

Kirk appeared alongside Trump on stage at political events, and was also a frequent commentator on Fox News, CNBC, and FOX Business News. He was the youngest speaker at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Kirk played a major role in Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. He was credited with turning out the younger vote for Trump.

Tyler Robinson named suspect in Charlie Kirk shooting, how he was caught

Robinson was identified by his father in photographs released by auhtorities.

Authorities have taken into custody the person they suspect of shooting and killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday at a Utah university campus event.

Tyler Robinson, 22, was taken into custody in St. George, Utah, on Friday, authorities and sources told ABC News.

Robinson’s father recognized him as the person being sought by police after authorities distributed photographs.

The father initially told Robinson to turn himself in. Robinson initially said no, but later changed his mind, officials said.

The father then called a youth pastor, who is also a U.S. Marshals task force officer. The officer advised the father to have Robinson stay in place.

At a press conference on Friday, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said Robinson had become more political in recent years, and engaged in a conversation with a family member about Kirk’s visit to the Utah Valley University campus the night before.

Cox also described what was engraved on the casings found on the scene.

The first casing, according to Cox, said “Notices Bulge OWO what’s this??”

The other three unfired casing said: “Hey fascist! CATCH!” with an arrow symbol pointing up, then to the right, and then three arrows pointing down, “O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao!,” and “If you read this, you are GAY Lmao.”

When law enforcement identified Robinson, they also interviewed Robinson’s roommate who showed them a message between Robinson and his roommate.

“The content of these messages included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler, stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush,” Cox said. “Messages related to a to visually watching the area where a rifle was left, and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel. The messages also referred to engraving bullets and a mention of a scope and the rifle being unique. Messages from the contact Tyler also mentioned that he had changed outfits.”

Cox said Robinson arrived on campus driving a gray Dodge Challenger, which matched his vehicle he arrived in on campus.

He also thanked Robinson’s family, “who did the right thing.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said that law enforcement caught Robinson within 33 hours of the shooting and was on scene within 16 minutes.

“This is a very much an ongoing investigation, as the governor said, and we will continue to work with state and local authorities to develop the investigation to provide them the evidence they need for their ongoing prosecutions,” Patel said.

Authorities and a former FBI agent previously said they believed the subject to be a college-aged individual with an apparent proficiency in handling a high-powered rifle and likely knew the layout of the university where the homicide occurred.

President Donald Trump initially announced the arrest, stating on “Fox and Friends” on Friday morning, “I think with high degree of certainty, we have him in custody.”

During a news conference on Thursday evening, state and federal officials released video of the person of interest jumping down from the roof of a building on the campus.

Beau Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said the suspect was wearing “distinct clothing” that could help in his identification, including Converse sneakers.

He said the person seen in the video jumping from the roof left shoe impressions and a palm print.

“We are investing everything we have into this and we will catch this individual,” Mason said at the news conference.

Authorities had received more than 7,000 tips and leads and completed some 200 interviews, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said.

During a news conference on Thursday morning, Robert Bohls, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Salt Lake City field office, said investigators believe they have recovered the weapon used in what the governor of Utah on Wednesday called a “political assassination.”

Bohls said the weapon, a high-powered bolt-action rifle, was found discarded in a wooded area near Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, and is being analyzed at an FBI laboratory for any clues that can identify the gunman.

More specifically, multiple law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation told ABC News that the weapon is an older model imported Mauser .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle that was found wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the school. The sources said a spent cartridge was discovered in the chamber of the gun.

The gun and cartridges recovered are to be flown to the FBI’s main laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, for the most technologically advanced forensic analysis, law enforcement sources told ABC News. The focus is to look for any latent fingerprints and DNA, the sources said.

Investigators also collected a footwear impression, a palm print and forearm prints for analysis, Bohls said.

Mason said that investigators are also studying “good video footage” of the shooter that they have used to track his movements before and after the shooting.

Following Thursday’s news conference, the FBI in Salt Lake City released surveillance images of the person of interest wanted in connection with the shooting. The images show a person who appears to be a white male, wearing all dark clothing, including a dark long-sleeved collarless top with what appears to be an image on the front that includes an American flag. The man in the images is also wearing a dark ball cap and sunglasses.

The FBI announced a $100,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the capture of the suspect.

Mason said investigators believe the suspect arrived at the UVU campus at 11:52 a.m. local time, about 28 minutes before Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative grass roots organization Turning Point USA, was shot. He said the deadly shot was fired from a building a substantial distance from where Kirk was speaking to a crowd, authorities estimate was about 3,000 people. He did not disclose which building the shooter fired from.

“We have tracked his movements onto the campus, through stairwells, up to the roof, across the roof to the shooting location,” Mason said. “After the shooting, we were able to track his movements as he moved to the other side of the building, jumped off of the building, and fled off of the campus into a neighborhood.”

He said investigators combed the neighborhood for the suspect and contacted residents with doorbell cameras to analyze.

“The individual appears to be of college age,” said Mason, adding that the person of interest “blended in well with the college institution.”

Brad Garrett, a retired FBI agent and an ABC News contributor, said the evidence investigators have shared so far paints a picture of a suspect who planned the shooting down to the last detail, including discarding the possible murder weapon along his escape path.

“He probably did that [because] he didn’t want to be seen carrying a weapon, running through a neighborhood, or walking through a neighborhood,” Garrett said.

Garrett said the discovery of the weapon is a major clue that will give investigators additional leads to track down.

“Where did it come from? It could very well be registered or purchased by this shooter. We’ll have to see,” Garrett said. “Was it stolen? Whatever it might be, the ATF [the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] will help them immediately, and they probably already know what that is.”

WE HERE AT GOOD SHEPHERD NEWS MEDIA BELIEVE ITS IS OUR OPINION BASED ON THE VIDEO BELOW THAT THE KILLER HAD PARTNERS ON THE INSIDE