A second unfair labor practice complaint was filed Tuesday against the NCAA, this one attempting to capitalize on a September ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that could eventually lead to college athletes becoming employees of their universities.

The California-based National College Players Association (NCPA) filed the complaint with the NLRB naming not only the NCAA but the Pac-12, UCLA, USC, and all Division I football, men's basketball and women's basketball programs as complainants.

"The goal is to affirm college athlete employee status for every FBS football player and Division I basketball player at every public and private university in the nation," the NCPA said in a statement.

The NCPA's move comes three months after the College Basketball Players Association (CPBA) filed a similar unfair labor charge against the NCAA for classifying college players as "student-athletes".

An obscure portion of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that public officials cannot serve in any future federal, state, or military office if they engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.” Would that apply to people who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress?

Some legal experts say the clause could be used against former officeholders — up to and including former President Donald Trump — who supported the events of that day.

While the 14th Amendment is best known for enabling African Americans to become citizens of the United States, Section 3 says that no person “shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military” who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The language was included “to prevent current and former U.S. military officers, federal officers and state officials who served the Confederacy from serving again in public office unless their disability was removed by at least a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress,” wrote Gerard N. Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University.

Originally published on Feb. 28, 2021; updated on Jan. 4, 2022.

On both the criminal and civil litigation fronts, former President Donald Trump faces a bevy of lawsuits and investigations, with more cases likely to follow. Some are civil suits stemming from his pre-presidential business dealings. Others are defamation claims from women he allegedly assaulted. More still are criminal probes and civil actions that scrutinize his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Chart below tracks all these cases. It will be continually updated as major legal developments occur.

These cases bear on two pressing questions. First, will Trump maintain his long streak of eluding legal liability in the face of so many lawsuits? Second, if Trump is held to account for illegal conduct, what impact will such a development have on his—and his family’s—political and business fortunes?

Criminal charges—one would think—would be among the most damaging outcomes. After all, a criminal prosecution of a former president would be a singular event in American history. No former president has ever been indicted, much less convicted. Trump lost any immunity from indictment that he may have possessed as president the moment he left office on Jan. 20. To be sure, most of the criminal probes detailed below are in their infancy, so the odds of an actual conviction at this time remain improbable. Even so, the mere stigma of criminal charges against the former president could reshape the American political landscape and the historical understanding of Trump’s behavior.

The civil cases could certainly do their fair share of damage as well, directly or indirectly. If Trump falters in one of his business-related suits, his companies may be subject to massive penalties, or worse. Even apart from such sanctions, his empire is reportedly struggling under looming debt obligations and reduced revenues, a slump which could worsen if his reputation continues to deteriorate.

Florida reported 430,297 new coronavirus cases over the seven-day period from Jan. 7-13, an average of about 61,471 infections per day. That’s over 2 percent of Florida’s total population infected in the past week.

It’s the third week in a row the state has shattered previous infection records. The seven-day average of omicron variant infections is more than double the 25,000 daily average the delta wave hit this past summer. Florida’s first omicron case was detected on Dec. 6, when daily cases were less than 2,000 infections per day on average.

HOSPITALIZATIONS: Florida had 11,160 confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospitals as of Friday, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That’s up over 30 percent from the week before.

TALLAHASSEE — The Supreme Court has ruled. The Biden administration’s vaccine mandate on health care workers will go into effect.

Except Florida won’t do its part to enforce it.

The rule requires employees at federally regulated health care facilities like hospitals and long-term care facilities to be vaccinated. It conflicts with a state law passed in November that limited employers’ ability to mandate vaccines.

If health care companies decide not to abide by the Biden administration’s requirement that 100 percent of workers be vaccinated or qualify for an approved exemption, they risk losing Medicare or Medicaid funding. Both federal programs are major funding sources for health care providers.

John Kuczwanski, the 53-year-old Legislative Affairs Director for the State Board of Administration, died on Jan. 6, 2022 after a road rage shooting incident. The other person involved in the incident was taken into custody but subsequently released.

Sources with knowledge of the investigation told Florida Politics that the shooting incident began as an auto accident caused by Kuczwanski that escalated into a road rage shooting between Kuczwanski and another man. Just north of Tallahassee, Kuczwanski’s black BMW reportedly drifted out of its lane and into a white Prius. Both cars then pulled into the parking lot of a Circle K. It is here where events became deadly.

Anonymous sources tell Florida Politics that the driver of the Prius got out of his car and “confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him,” and then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival (ostensibly to file a report for insurance purposes). At this point Kuczwanski reportedly rammed his BMW into the Prius’ driver-side door and “began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.” At this point sources told Florida Politics that Kuczwanski shot a gun at the Prius, at which time the Prius driver, also a gun owner, pulled out a gun and shot Kuczwanski through the windshield. The Prius driver slipped out of the passenger side door and hid, not knowing whether or not Kuczwanski was going to continue shooting.

Fear of upsetting state officials is pervasive among faculty at the University of Florida, to the point that race-related references have been edited out of course materials and researchers felt pressure to destroy COVID-19 data, according to a report released Monday by a Faculty Senate committee.

The six-person panel was convened three weeks ago to investigate academic freedom issues after the university decided to bar three political science professors from testifying in a lawsuit against the state. But its findings go well beyond that episode and were so disturbing — especially regarding COVID-19 research — that the group decided to speed up its work, said Danaya Wright, a constitutional law professor and former Faculty Senate chairperson who served on the committee.

The report discusses several “challenges” faced by UF researchers who were working on COVID-19 with an unidentified state entity. It describes “external pressure to destroy” data as well as “barriers” to accessing, analyzing and publishing the numbers. Taken together, the report said, those problems “inhibited the ability of faculty to contribute scientific findings during a world-wide pandemic.”

The report further states that UF employees were told “not to criticize the Governor of Florida or UF policies related to COVID-19 in media interactions.” It says they were told not to use their UF titles or affiliation in written commentary or to give oral presentations. And faculty at UF Health expressed concerns over funding being in jeopardy if they did not adopt the state’s stance on pandemic regulations in opinion articles, the report says.

Politicians can handle incriminating news in two ways: Come clean, apologize if necessary and defuse the story. Or evade, obfuscate and hope the story goes away.
Gov. Ron DeSantis has chosen the latter with indicted fundraiser Lev Parnas. His problem is Parnas not only isn’t going away, he’s become a focal point in the world’s headline political story.

They met at least six times.
Gov. Ron DeSantis met with one of the Ukrainian-Americans arrested last month amid allegations of scheming to violate campaign finance laws.

Lev Parnas met with DeSantis at least six times, according to the Orlando Sentinel. That’s more meetings than had previously been reported.

Both Parnas and his business partner, Igor Fruman, had ties to President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and were allegedly involved in the pressure campaign to get the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In the wake of their arrests, the media reported that their company gave $50,000 to DeSantis’ campaign a day before Donald Trump endorsed him in Florida’s Republican primary. It also came out that they had invested $20,400 to elect former Gov. Rick Scott to the U.S. Senate and gave $2,432 to Rep. Brian Mast, R-Palm City.

Texts have surfaced between Gov. Ron DeSantis and a right-wing donor indicted for helping Rudy Giuliani siphon foreign cash into American elections from Ukraine.

The texts between the second-year governor and Lev Parnas were turned over, reports The Wall Street Journal, as evidence in Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

Sept 1 (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N) announced on Wednesday new trials of their experimental oral antiviral drugs for COVID-19 as the race to develop an easy-to-administer treatment for the potentially fatal illness heats up.

Pfizer said its latest mid-to-late-stage trial will enroll 1,140 non-hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus infection who are not at risk of severe illness. Patients in the trial will be given Pfizer's pill, known as PF-07321332, and a low dose of ritonavir, an older medication widely used in combination treatments for HIV infection.

Pfizer's drug is designed to block the activity of a key enzyme that is needed for the coronavirus to multiply.

Merck said its new trial will study experimental drug molnupiravir for the prevention of COVID-19 among adults in the same household as someone diagnosed with symptomatic coronavirus infection. Merck and partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics are already conducting a late-stage trial of the treatment in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death.

Merck said Friday that an experimental pill it is developing with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics reduced the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by around 50% in a clinical trial.

Why it matters: An oral antiviral drug designed to prevent or treat COVID-19 could be a key tool to combat the pandemic, since not all people will get vaccinated and because it will take potentially years to vaccinate people in certain countries around the world.

Merck said it will apply for an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration "as soon as possible" to begin distributing molnupiravir because of the results.
It will also submit applications to international regulatory agencies.