Northeast
New York school district hit with lawsuit over 'Spartans' mascot deemed symbol of 'White supremacy'
A Long Island, New York school district is facing a lawsuit from a father and local civil rights leader who claims the school district’s new mascot is a symbol of White supremacy.
William King Moss III, Islip Town NAACP President, former mathematics teacher in Brentwood Union Free School District and father of two Brentwood students, filed the complaint against the district on March 26.
Moss’s complaint accuses the district of selecting the “Spartans” as their new mascot, despite it being “racially problematic,” claiming the ancient Greek warrior is a “symbol of hate” banned by state law.
His complaint contends that in January 2024, the district began collecting ideas from the community for a new mascot through an online survey. The responses were narrowed down to six options, and the district said it selected the “Spartans” after this choice received the most votes.
Brentwood Union Free School District in Long Island, NY, is facing a lawsuit over its new mascot. (NY Post)
NY BOARD OF REGENTS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES POLICY BARRING INDIGENOUS MASCOTS STATEWIDE
Moss argued that the other options chosen, “Green Machine,” “Bears,” “Owls,” “Bulldogs,” and “Eagles,” were not members of an “identifiable or generally perceived protected class,” like the Spartans.
“Spartans are of the identifiable and generally perceived protected classes of White Non-Hispanic in race, White in color, Greek in National Origin, and Spartan or Greek in Ethnicity,” the complaint states.
Moss’s lawsuit questions the survey’s methodology and argues that the district did not act in a democratic manner in selecting the mascot, which was meant to replace its old Native American-themed one that had been banned.
The complaint states that Moss asked the district to conduct another vote. During meetings with the Board of Education last November, Moss warned the district that selecting a mascot that’s based on race would prompt a lawsuit.
Greek Spartan soldier. (Getty Images)
ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTERS WHO WAVE FLAGS LINKED TO TERROR GROUPS COULD BE JAILED IF NY LAW PASSES
The school board defended its decision to Moss, according to an alleged email sent by the school board in December. The board argued the team name was used by over a dozen school districts in New York and denied that Spartans implied any “particular ethnic group.”
Moss says the Spartans are a “symbol of White supremacy,” because it is well-known that they are known to be “White warriors” who conquered other people groups and “enslaved indigenous people called the Helots.”
The complaint also accuses the logo of being a symbol of hate for female enlistment in the military because “Ancient Spartans did not allow females to be soldiers in the military.”
Moss accuses Brentwood Schools of violating state and federal due process clauses in its team selection and violating the state and federal equal protection clauses by selecting a symbol of “White supremacy” and “male misogynists,” among other grievances listed in the complaint.
A lawsuit against a NY school district claims a Spartans logo is “racially problematic” and harms female students. (iStock)
Moss’s complaint asks the district to pick a new mascot and cover attorney’s costs.
Brentwood Schools declined to comment on the pending litigation to Fox News Digital. Moss did not immediately return a request for comment.
Superintendent of Schools Wanda Ortiz-Rivera said in a statement that the selection process was done in an inclusive manner with input from students, staff and the broader community and the Board of Education approved the resolution on November 21, 2024.
The district’s previous team mascot was “The Indians.” It was forced to pick a new mascot last April after a directive from the New York Education Department required school districts to stop using indigenous names, mascots and logos unless they have permission from tribal nations.
Schools that refused to comply with the rule by the end of the 2024-2025 school year were told they could face penalties, including the withholding of state aid.
On Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by four Long Island school districts challenging the state ban, The Long Island Press reported.
Read the full article from Here
Rhode Island
Real Housewives of Rhode Island midseason preview gets even juicier
On Friday, May 1, Bravo posted a mid-season preview to YouTube, giving fans a glimpse at the drama still to come during the franchise’s first season in the Ocean State.
Which ‘Real Housewives of Rhode Island’ stars want to do Season 2?
Reporter Paul Edward Parker asks cast members of the “Real Housewives of Rhode Island” if they’re up for another season of the Bravo TV show.
Paul Edward Parker
Enjoying “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island” so far? Buckle up – it’s about to get even juicier.
On Friday, May 1, Bravo posted a mid-season preview to YouTube, giving fans a glimpse at the drama still to come during the franchise’s first season in the Ocean State. As expected, the season will continue to follow major developing plotlines, including the fallout from Rulla Pontarelli’s reported husband’s affair and the strained relationship between Rosie DiMare and Kelsey Swanson.
However, the trailer also hints that the season will take some unexpected twists and turns, with new arguments rising between friendly cast members and personal issues coming to a head for many of the women.
Here’s a sneak peek at the rest of Season 1 of “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island.”
What happened in ‘The Real Housewives of Rhode Island’ mid-season preview?
According to the mid-season preview, the rest of “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island” Season 1 will include many more fights between the cast members. Swanson and DiMare’s screaming matches will continue, with the trailer showing DiMare telling Swanson “Everyone in f***ing Rhode Island knows you f*** married men.”
Surprisingly, disagreements will also rise between LizMcGraw and Alicia Carmody, as well as McGraw and Jo-Ellen Tiberi. McGraw is shown telling Tiberi to get out of her face, with Tiberi storming after her yelling “what did I do?”
Meanwhile, Ashley Iaconetti will continue to struggle under the financial and emotional burden of Audrey’s, with her and husband Jared Haibon discussing their decision to renew the lease or not. After her breakup, Swanson will have to decide if her new man is worth giving up her financial comfort, while Tiberi will finally have a tough conversation with her mother.
As for Pontarelli, it seems that Tiberi will make good on her episode five promise of finding concrete proof of Brian Pontarelli’s reported affair, with multiple housewives discussing video proof in the trailer. After Pontarelli reveals to the group that Brian was arrested for tracking her, the trailer ends with the question looming over everyone’s heads: “Rulla, what are you gonna do?”.
How to watch ‘The Real Housewives of Rhode Island’
Want to see how all the drama unfolds? “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island” will air every Sunday at 9 p.m. on Bravo.
Watch ‘The Real Housewives of Rhode Island’ on Peacock
Episodes will be available for next-day streaming each Monday on Peacock.
Vermont
A Vermont bill meant to help music fans could do the opposite – VTDigger
This commentary is by David Balto, an antitrust commentator and a former assistant director for policy and evaluation in the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission and trial attorney in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
Supporting small businesses over big companies is in Vermonters’ DNA. The Green Mountain State was the first state to ban roadside billboards, and our tax code is written to support mom-and-pop shops over large corporations. Montpelier is the only state capital without a McDonald’s or a Starbucks. So why, days after a federal jury sided with Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark and more than 30 other states, ruling that Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation were operating an illegal monopoly, is the state Legislature advancing a policy that will help this corporation invade our state while undercutting our attorney general’s antitrust suit?
Live Nation, which owns and operates some of the largest music venues across the country, and Ticketmaster, which controls roughly 80% of the country’s initial ticket sales, merged in 2010. Since then, ticket prices are up 120%.
Since the merger, Live Nation-Ticketmaster has used tactics like the “velvet hammer” — withholding concerts from venues they do not control or work with — to consolidate power. Then they force fans to pay sky-high fees, from marking up parking passes to forcing venues to only sell water from a brand Live Nation owns. In internal messages, employees even bragged about how they “gouge” fans and joked they were “robbing them blind.”
It’s no surprise that, after a decade and a half of antitrust violations, the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly made $25 billion last year.
Now, the company, which doesn’t own any venues in Vermont, appears poised to establish a foothold in the Green Mountain State with the help of a well-intentioned but poorly executed bill working its way through Montpelier.
Lawmakers are considering legislation that would cap the price of event tickets being resold at no more than 10% above face value. The measure was recently approved by the House and is currently moving through the Senate.
On its face, the idea sounds appealing: Cracking down on excessive markups should be a win for fans. But the fact that Live Nation-Ticketmaster, which was just found to be operating an illegal monopoly that harmed fans, venues and artists, has supported price caps like those proposed in H.512 in Washington, D.C., California, New York, Minnesota and Ontario should give Vermonters pause.
This billion-dollar corporation doesn’t support ticket resale price caps because it’s good for fans. The company advocates for this policy because the caps don’t apply to “primary” ticket sales: the original point of sale, of which Ticketmaster controls 80%. Instead, the price caps would only apply to resale marketplaces — hitting the only companies that compete with the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly.
Less competition means more power and higher profits for Live Nation-Ticketmaster.
In most states, price caps would consolidate Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s control and allow it to raise ticket prices even further. In Vermont, H.512 may be the final ingredient it needs to enter the state, and, to quote its executives, “boil the frog” — using monopoly power to slowly squeeze out our independent music venues.
With this legislation moving through the Statehouse, Live Nation-Ticketmaster is already establishing a foothold in the Green Mountain State. Earlier this month, it announced a partnership with CashorTrade, a Vermont-based ticketing platform.
But Live Nation-Ticketmaster doesn’t even need to operate in our state to benefit if Vermont passes this law. If Vermont, which prides itself on pushing back against corporate power, enacts resale price caps, we hand Live Nation-Ticketmaster a powerful talking point to advance its power grab in additional states. We become a critical data point; an example of what “good policy” looks like.
H.512 includes some real, positive policies that help venues and consumers, but the price cap provision that came along for the ride squarely benefits Live Nation-Ticketmaster. Vermont can, and should, have the former without the latter.
Vermont needs to stand up to this corporate bully. If any state knows how to, it’s this one.
New York
Protesters Tried to Block an Eviction. But Was It a Case of Deed Theft?
When activists gathered last week outside a townhouse in Brooklyn, ready to block law enforcement officers from carrying out an eviction, they were there to fight back against something larger than just one case: the nefarious practice of deed theft, which appears to be on the rise in New York City.
The protest and the ensuing arrests of several people, including the local city councilman, underscored just how fraught the topic is, particularly in historically Black areas of the city that are now rapidly gentrifying. Mayor Zohran Mamdani last week created an office dedicated to fighting deed theft.
But while the episode, in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, reflected concerns about a very real problem, the specifics of the case involving the townhouse are anything but clear.
The office of the attorney general, Letitia James, said the case was not an example of deed theft. (When asked about that determination, Ms. James herself said, “It emanated from deed theft”; a spokesman later clarified that she had been referring to the protest and not the case.)
The fact that a woman, Carmella Charrington, was living in the home, which her father had partly owned for decades, is not in dispute. Neither are the facts that an eviction case against Ms. Charrington began nearly two years ago and that she was recently jailed in connection with a separate civil case related to custody of her father, who is 84 and a ward of the State of Georgia.
Still, comments from a number of high-profile city leaders have been confusing and contradictory. The councilman who was arrested, Chi Ossé, has said deed theft took place. So have State Senator Jabari Brisport; Brad Lander, the congressional candidate and former comptroller; and a host of others.
What is the truth? Public records reveal a sad and complicated saga involving several court cases and law enforcement agencies, and spanning generations and at least two states.
What Is Deed Theft?
The term “deed theft” is used to describe fraudulent behavior that can result in longtime homeowners’ losing the rights to their homes. The New York State attorney general’s office received more than 500 complaints of deed theft in New York City last year, more than in the previous two years combined.
The practice can involve thieves misrepresenting themselves as brokers or lenders and tricking someone into signing documents that transfer ownership. Many thieves target older people, sowing confusion over complicated property records or exploiting their trust.
After taking control of the home, the new owner could look to sell it for a profit, rent it out at a high rate, or take out a loan against the property to buy something else.
A Jointly Owned Townhouse
The home at the center of the current debate, at 212 Jefferson Avenue, is a three-story brownstone that was built in 1909, according to Landmarks Preservation Commission records.
At some point in the 1980s, it was owned by two people, property records show: Allman Charrington, Ms. Charrington’s father, and Gertrude Keene, Ms. Charrington’s great-aunt.
Ms. Keene later transferred her share of the property to Clinton Morrison, her son, who in turn passed it to his children when he died.
As recently as 2024, the property was owned jointly by several Morrison children and Mr. Charrington, according to the records.
A Court-Appointed Guardian
In 2020, with Mr. Charrington’s health declining, two of his daughters, including Carmella, filed a petition in probate court in Fulton County, Ga., asking for a court-appointed guardian and conservator to manage his affairs “by reason of mental disability,” according to court records. (Mr. Charrington traveled frequently between New York City and Georgia, where some of his relatives lived.)
Ms. Charrington asserted in the filings that she wanted to be the conservator, saying that her father’s wife, Karen Charrington, was not looking after his best interests. Court records indicate that Mr. Charrington’s wife had signed his property into her name and transferred thousands of dollars out of his bank account. His wife insisted that she had not acted nefariously, but she agreed to return the money and restore the deed, the records show.
Ultimately, the court appointed a lawyer, Luanne Bonnie, in 2021 to be Mr. Charrington’s conservator and to help him manage his property. The court records say that the parties agreed to Ms. Bonnie’s appointment.
Conflict Brews Between Owners
Court records filed in Brooklyn show that in 2019, the Morrison family wanted to sell the Bedford-Stuyvesant home, putting them at odds with Mr. Charrington. Mr. Charrington fired back in court papers that he wanted to be reimbursed for money he had spent over the years on property taxes and maintenance. Both parties failed to show up at court dates and the case was never resolved.
But several years later, with Mr. Charrington under a conservatorship, the probate court in Georgia gave Ms. Bonnie permission to sell the property. In an October 2022 order, Judge Barbara J. Koll said that at least a dozen possible buyers had shied away in previous years because of “the legal difficulties surrounding the existing tenants of the property.” The property had been for sale since 2018, the judge said; it is unclear who listed it, given Mr. Charrington’s opposition.
Property records show that the home was sold in January 2024 to a limited liability company called 227 Group, about which not much is publicly known.
Ms. Charrington, 54, who grew up on the block — in the townhouse and another relative’s home across the street — called the sale fraudulent and unlawful.
She asserts that her father was taken advantage of, and says she brought him to New York in November 2023, without the permission of the state of Georgia, and put him into hiding. She also says that Ms. Bonnie was “unlawfully appointed” and had not followed the proper procedures before agreeing to the sale.
“I think that everything will be able to be peeled back and things will become more concrete,” Ms. Charrington said in an interview. “We want to expose them. I’ve been screaming out for two years that this is deed theft.”
But a lawyer for the Georgia Department of Human Services said in a March 2025 court filing that Ms. Charrington and other relatives had “essentially kidnapped” her father, and were “detaining him against his will.”
Ms. Charrington is still living in the townhouse. It remains unclear where Mr. Charrington is, but his daughter said he was staying with friends and relatives in the New York City area.
She recently posted a video of her father on social media, in which he says he is safe and wants to be left alone.
A Mysterious L.L.C.
According to records filed with the New York Secretary of State, 227 Group is associated with the investors Simon Blitz and Daniel Gazal. Property records list one of its leaders as Andrew Kastein, who is also associated with the investment group P11 Management.
One point of intrigue is that the property records appear to show that 227 Group shares an address with another limited liability company, Brooklyn Gates. That company is linked to a group of investors known to target properties in gentrifying, historically Black and Latino neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant.
An investigation by the news website The City found that while Brooklyn Gates’s practices were largely legal, the company had ended up displacing “dozens of longtime city residents.”
Property records indicate that Brooklyn Gates had moved to buy the townhouse at 212 Jefferson Avenue from the Morrison children in 2021. Video and photographs that Ms. Charrington provided to The New York Times show a man, who Ms. Charrington said is one of the owners of Brooklyn Gates, trying to gain entrance to the property, and then leaving when Ms. Charrington threatens to call the police. The contract was later canceled, and the sale did not go through.
Through a spokesman, 227 Group denied any association with Brooklyn Gates, saying it had been made aware that the property was for sale by a lawyer for the Morrisons and Ms. Bonnie.
The company said in a statement that it had never interacted directly with the Morrison family or with Ms. Bonnie. It also said it does not share an address with Brooklyn Gates, and that the fact that the property records show the same address for both entities stemmed from a filing error.
“We are weighing our legal options against those who are spreading the false and malicious ‘deed theft’ narrative,” the statement reads.
The company said Ms. Charrington had continued “to illegally occupy the property rent-free for over two years” and had prevented representatives of the company from gaining access to it.
A Neighborhood Watch, and a Protest
Before the protest, neighbors and activists had been keeping watch outside the home for months in case officers showed up to evict Ms. Charrington. But the conflict last week involving Mr. Ossé, who said he sustained a concussion after officers wrestled him to the ground for blocking the gate, put a public spotlight on her story.
The announcement of the city’s new office to fight deed theft — though it was already planned when the protest took place — also fueled interest in the case.
And Mr. Ossé has continued to publicly push Gov. Kathy Hochul to issue a moratorium on evictions in cases where deed theft is suspected.
“The community has come together in a way that shows that they are scared,” said William McFadden, Ms. Charrington’s son, who also lives at the Bedford-Stuyvesant house. “How did so much deed theft happen under our noses?”
-
Rhode Island5 minutes agoReal Housewives of Rhode Island midseason preview gets even juicier
-
South-Carolina11 minutes ago1 injured in motorcycle crash near Carolina Forest
-
South Dakota17 minutes agoSouth Dakota’s budget is ahead of revenue targets
-
Tennessee23 minutes agoHeading to the the Tennessee Renaissance Festival? What to know
-
Texas29 minutes agoSmall plane crash in Texas Hill Country leaves five dead
-
Utah35 minutes ago‘It’s past the eleventh hour’: Utah and other Colorado River states call for mediation as current plans near expiration
-
Vermont41 minutes agoA Vermont bill meant to help music fans could do the opposite – VTDigger
-
Virginia47 minutes ago
Developers seek to revive data center next to Virginia battlefield