Thousands sign petition to remove judge who sentenced blind child rapist to probation

A petition to remove an Oklahoma judge who sentenced a convicted child rapist to 15 years of probation is gaining serious momentum online.

Benjamin Lawrence Petty, 36, was recently handed the lenient sentence by Judge Wallace Coppedge for a crime he committed while working as a cook at Falls Creek church camp in June 2016.

Petty, who is blind, allegedly told his 13-year-old victim that he wanted to show her a new type of device he brought to the camp to lure the young girl into his cabin.

Petty then “closed the door to his bedroom, tied [the victim’s] hands behind her back, pulled down her jeans, pushed her face down on his bed, and violently raped and sodomized her,” court records show.

Petty was arrested following the attack and charged with forcible sodomy, first-degree rape and rape by instrumentation, all three of which he pleaded guilty to in January 2018.

Despite the guilty plea, Judge Coppedge sentenced Petty to just 15 years probation, partially due to his physical disability

While Petty will have to wear a GPS ankle monitor for two years and register as an aggravated sex offender, he won’t serve any time behind bars for his crime unless he violates that probation, a sentence which has sparked outrage.

In response to the case, Julie Mastrine, a Care2 spokesperson, said her team decided to start a petition to have Judge Coppedge removed from his bench.

“This was one of those kinds of outrageous stories where we thought people are clearly angry about this, so we should get a petition out,” Mastrine told KFOR. “It really just shows you that people all over the world want to see justice. Even if it’s not an issue that’s directly tied to their community, they still have big hearts.”

Currently, Mastrine’s petition has received over 61,000 signatures and is less than 4,000 away from its goal of 65,000.

However, legal expert Joi Miskel told KFOR that takes much more than a widely-supported petition to get a judge ousted from his bench.

“It’s all well and good to file a petition online to get kind of, get some movement going,” Miskel told the station. “It’s not that easy just to snap your fingers and remove a judge. There’s a lot more to it.”

Miskel said that in order to get a judge removed, a complaint has to be filed with the state’s council on judicial complaints. From there, an investigator will look into the claims and proceed to make recommendations to several different entities, including the state’s Supreme Court.

While Miskel said that she does not personally agree with the sentence, she said it’s rare for a judge to go against a plea deal when all parties are in agreement.

“In a sense, he was just doing his job,” she sad. “He was going along with what the state and defense agreed upon. However, I think people are upset about the sentence itself. And, he didn’t determine that sentence. That was the state of Oklahoma.”

Source Article from

Libertarian Party Blocks Ron Paul & Judge Nap—Revealing Neocon Takeover


This week, The Free Thought Project was contacted by Michael Heise, founder of the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus who provided us with evidence that leaders within the Libertarian party have blocked Libertarian icon Ron Paul from appearing at their national convention, over comments he made about how the party needed to stick to principles instead of playing politics as usual.

This past year, Heise has been on a mission to shake up the Libertarian Party and steer it back in the direction of its origins—towards the principles of peace and economic freedom that he learned from people like Ron Paul.

“The LPMC has never been shy about our goal of shaking up the leadership of the party to give it a fresh look and principled direction that the majority of libertarians would be motivated to support. In fact, it is our first major milestone goal. We knew this would draw the ire of party leadership and it’s supporters. However, we feel, as most libertarians do, that it is badly needed and much overdue,” Heise said in a statement on Thursday.

One of the main strategies in this plan for change is to bring advocates of the non-aggression principle and true libertarianism into positions of power and influence in the party. This includes promoting principled candidates who are running for leadership positions, as well as booking influential people to speak at conventions and libertarian events.

“It is only natural that we would want to feel represented at the convention and to have a voice both on the convention floor and the stage. Nobody in leadership seems to be championing and putting issues like foreign policy, specifically the absolute humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, blockchain solutions to statist problems and the Federal Reserve fraud on the forefront!” Heise said.

“We found success in this pursuit after connecting Jim Cantrell, part of the founding team for SpaceX, and CEO of Vector Space Systems, with Daniel Hayes, the chair of the LP’s convention committee,” he added.

In recent weeks, Heise attempted to follow up with Hayes about the upcoming National Convention, which he is in charge of, in hopes of getting Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano booked for the event. After getting the cold shoulder for several weeks, Heise finally received the following messages, stating that Ron Paul was “definitely out,” and that he “has no idea what the LP represents.”

Hayes linked an article titled “Good News: Young Americans Want a New Political Party” that Ron Paul wrote where he was slightly critical of the direction that the LP was headed, as proof that he had no idea what they represented.

In the article, Paul said that,

“Unfortunately the Libertarian Party has failed to live up to what should have been its role as an ideological alternative to Washington’s one-party system. As was quite obvious in the 2016 presidential election, the Libertarians yielded to prevailing attitudes on war, welfare, the Federal Reserve, and more. In believing that winning was more important than standing for something, they ended up achieving neither. I would still like to have some hope for the Libertarian Party, but to really fill its role as a challenger to our two-party system (that is actually a one-party system) it would need a major overhaul. It would need to actually embrace the core libertarian principles of non-aggression and non-intervention in the affairs of others.”

Perhaps it is the Libertarian Party that does not understand Libertarian Values.

In further dialogue between Heise and Hayes, Hayes said that Judge Napolitano “would make a terrible chairman” and suggested Neocon Glen Beck as a potential speaker instead.

Heise says that the party is likely trying to avoid criticism over the change in direction that they have taken in recent years to appeal more to liberals and conservatives, and his assumptions were later confirmed when LP Chairman Nicholas Sarwark was questioned on Twitter about the party’s rejection of Paul at the convention.

“We all know very well that this isn’t actually about Ron Paul, it’s about what he represents. This member of the Libertarian National Committee would rather hold a grudge over legitimate criticism than let Dr. Paul speak, just like the Republican Party tried to do to him. This type of pettiness is why this caucus (Mises) exists,” Heise said.

It seems that the libertarian party has been co-opted with people who want to water down the radical principles of freedom that have been at the core of the libertarian brand for centuries, well before the existence of the US Libertarian political party.

Source Article from


TOPEKA, Kan. — The American Civil Liberties Union won an early victory today in its federal lawsuit arguing that a Kansas law requiring a public school educator to certify that she won’t boycott Israel violates her First Amendment rights.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the case filed in October proceeds. It is the first ruling addressing a recent wave of laws nationwide aiming to punish people who boycott Israel.

The law, which took effect on July 1, requires that any person or company that contracts with the state submit a written certification that they are “not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The ACLU is also currently fighting a case filed in December against a similar law in Arizona.

“The court has rightly recognized the serious First Amendment harms being inflicted by this misguided law, which imposes an unconstitutional ideological litmus test,” said ACLU attorney Brian Hauss, who argued the issue in court. “This ruling should serve as a warning to government officials around the country that the First Amendment prohibits the government from suppressing participation in political boycotts.”

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree wrote, “[T]he Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.”

Other Supreme Court decisions have established that the government may not require individuals to sign a certification regarding their political expression in order to obtain employment, contracts, or other benefits.

The ACLU represents Esther Koontz, who belongs to the Mennonite Church USA. In accordance with calls for boycott made by members of her congregation and her church, Koontz decided not to buy consumer products made by Israeli companies and international companies operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Koontz participates in this boycott in order to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and to pressure the country to change its policies.

Having served as a public school math teacher for nine years, Koontz now develops her school’s math curriculum and trains teachers on how to implement it. She is also qualified to train teachers statewide as a contractor with the Kansas Department of Education’s Math and Science Partnerships program. When Koontz was asked to certify that she does not participate in a boycott of Israel, she said that she could not sign the form in good conscience. As a result, the state refuses to contract with her, and she is unable to participate as a trainer in the state’s program.

Judge Crabtree wrote in his opinion, “She and others participating in this boycott of Israel seek to amplify their voices to influence change.”

The lawsuit argues that the Kansas law violates the First Amendment for several reasons: it compels speech regarding protected political beliefs, associations, and expression; restricts the political expression and association of government contractors; and discriminates against protected expression based on its content and viewpoint. The lawsuit asks the court to strike down the law and bar the Kansas Department of Education from requiring contractors to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel.

The Kansas law is similar to legislation that has been passed in other states. The ACLU does not take a position on boycotts of foreign countries, but the organization has long supported the right to participate in political boycotts and has voiced opposition to bills that infringe on this important First Amendment right. In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the ACLU represents an attorney and his one-person law office, which contracts with the government to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals.

In July, the ACLU sent a letter to members of Congress opposing a bill that would make it a felony to support certain boycotts of companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. As a result, Senate sponsors of the bill are considering changes.

Today’s ruling is here:

Also documents filed in the case are here:

Source Article from

Idaho Nullify’s SCOTUS Judge Roberts Tax Clause On Obamacare: Allows Insurance Companies To Offer Insurance That Do Not Comply

Johnny Roberts

BOISE, Idaho (Jan. 29, 2018) – New insurance regulations in Idaho will allow health insurance companies to offer less costly plans that do not comply with all of the Obamacare mandates and requirements, taking a big step toward nullifying the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act in the state.

Idaho Department of Insurance Director Dean Cameron released details of the plan on Wednesday. According to an AP report, insurers can now cap their own costs at $1 million a year per individual and can charge customers separate out-of-pocket maximums for different services. insurers can also offer plans that deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for up to 12 months unless the customer had continuous prior coverage. Insurers will no longer be required to cover pediatric dental or vision care.

Although they must offer at least one plan with maternity and newborn coverage, other plans can exclude those benefits. Under the new rules, insurance carriers can also charge people more for these stripped-down plans based on where they live, their health history and their age.

These noncompliant plans will not qualify for any Obamacare subsidies. Any company doing business in Idaho still must offer ACA compliant policies.

In effect, the new rules will expand the market and allow consumers greater choice. Those willing to settle for more limited coverage at a lower premium will have that option.

Cameron said the new rules were necessary to keep the state’s individual health insurance marketplace from collapsing as healthy residents choose to go uninsured rather than pay for expensive plans that comply with the federal law.

Unsurprisingly, supporters of Obamacare condemned the plan and there is already talk of lawsuits. They claim the state can’t ignore ACA mandates because of the supremacy clause.

“The bottom line is federal law pre-empts state law … state standards can only apply when they are more demanding than the federal standards,” health policy consultant Robert Laszewski said.

Under the original Constitution, as ratified, the power to regulate the healthcare system left to the states. ACA usurps state power and is unconstitutional, despite the pronouncements of politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. Since Obamacare was not established pursuant to the Constitution, the supremacy clause does not apply. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78, “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”

Nevertheless, in today’s legal climate, Idaho may well face legal challenges to its new insurance rules. The question is can the federal government compel the state insurance commissioner to enforce its mandates, or even implement Obamacare at all?



In effect, the Idaho Department of Insurance will simply stop enforcing certain aspects of Obamacare. It will no longer penalize carriers for offering plans that don’t comply with [unconstitutional] federal law [rule] – as long as they comply with state law. This would leave enforcement completely in the hands of the federal government.

Obamacare was predicated on state cooperation. By ending state actions that support the ACA and refusing to enforce any of its mandates, a state can make it nearly impossible to run Obamacare within its borders. The federal government never intended to run the healthcare system alone, and ultimately, it can’t do it without state help. We’ve already seen the difficulties created for the Act by the number of states that simply refused to set up exchanges for the federal government.

“The federal government can barely manage running a website,” Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin said.

This follows James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46. He advised a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” when states engage in unwarrantable acts.

Judge Andrew Napolitano noted that if a number of states were to refuse to participate with the ACA in a wholesale fashion, that multi-state action would “gut Obamacare.”

it will gut ObamaCare because the federal government does not have the resources or the wherewithal […] to go into each of the individual states.”

This strategy rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Idaho’s plan to simply not enforce certain aspects of Obamacare stands on firm legal ground. The question is whether or not the federal government can pressure insurers into compliance. According to an email written by the insurance commissioner, there is concern that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services can penalize insurance providers as much as $100 per insured, per day. Whether the agency could effectively investigate, impose and collect this fine with its limited resources remains questionable.

The other concern was that the feds would try to strip Idaho of its regulatory authority.

“The only other penalty is the feds could declare that we (Idaho DOI) are not enforcing the individual market requirements and therefore attempt to take away our regulatory authority on the individual market,” Cameron wrote. “Of course we would strongly fight that in court.”

Idaho would seem likely to win this challenge based on the anticommandeering doctrine.

The feds may be able to crack down on insurers in Idaho, but if other states follow the lead and simply stop enforcing all of the mandates, it could effectively collapse Obamacare. This would represent the repeal the Republican in Congress can’t seem to deliver.

Tenth Amendment Center

Related News:

  1. SCOTUS John Roberts: Tax On Dissent!
  2. Americans Give No Credence To The Lenin Obamacare Rule: Obamacare Violates Constitutional Tax Clause!
  3. States Enforcing The United States Constitution: Florida Moves To Nullify Obamacare & Supreme Court Justice Roberts!
  4. Did Justice (sic) Roberts Sell His Soul To The Devil: The 16th. Amendment Constitutionally Prohibits The IRS Taxing Personal Income Because One Does Not Purchase A Government Insurance & Is Therefore Legally Avoidable!

Source Article from

Judge denies transgender student’s request to change in girls’ locker room

transgender gender neutral restroom


An Illinois judge denied a transgender student’s request Thursday to change clothes with female students in the girls’ locker room at a public high school.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which represents Nova Maday, a biologically male student at Palatine’s Township High School District 211, had petitioned a trial court last year, arguing the student should be treated like other females and not be forced to change clothes behind a curtain.

But on Thursday, Judge Thomas Allen rejected the request, leaving the ACLU to consult with its client on how to move forward with the case.

“Clearly, we are disappointed in this decision. We continue to believe that the school is wrong to discriminate against our client. There is no exception under our nondiscrimination laws that allows a school to treat transgender students differently because of lack of understanding or discomfort about transgender people,” said John Knight, LGBTQ policy director at the ACLU.

“To me, this is a simple question – am I going to be treated just like any other girl in my school. All I want is to be accepted by my school for who I am – a girl – and be able to take gym and use the locker room to change clothes like the other girls in my class,” the student said after the judge’s decision.

Comment: The question is, should society accept that a boy is really a girl because he says so?

The ACLU had cited the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination, in its argument. But Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said that’s a “baseless” claim.

“That law specifically allows facilities like locker rooms to be reserved for girls, whose desire for privacy is both important and understandable, particularly in the post-Weinstein era,” said Ms. Fiedorek, referencing disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Dozens of women came forward last year, alleging Mr. Weinstein sexually assaulted them.

ADF, along with the Thomas More Society, represented a group of concerned parents and students who intervened in the ACLU’s lawsuit.

Schools should never be forced to give male students unrestricted access to areas where girls are changing clothes. Claiming a female gender identity doesn’t change that,” said Thomas Brejcha, chief counsel at the Thomas More Society.

ADF’s press release noted the transgender student continues to have access to the female locker room, but is required to change behind a curtain.

Source Article from

Federal judge drops sex charge against doctor in first female genital mutilation case

genital mutilation


A federal judge has dismissed the most serious charge of ‘criminal sexual activity’ against a Michigan doctor charged in the first female genital mutilation (FGM) case in the US.

US District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman dropped the count – the most severe charge Dr Jumana Nagarwala was facing as it carried a sentence of up to life in prison – reducing the counts from seven to six.

The prosecution alleges that Nagarwala performed FGM on two 7-year-old girls from Minnesota last February 2017 in Livonia, Michigan. Eight people have been charged in relation to the case, one of which is Dr Fakhruddin Attar, who allegedly allowed Nagarwala to perform the procedure in his clinic.

Nagarwala’s defense attorneys argued the government was using the definition of ‘criminal sexual conduct’ under state law and ‘sexual act’ from another federal statute to characterize FGM as a ‘criminal sexual activity.’

Judge Friedman agreed with the defense that the alleged conduct does not qualify as sexual activity because the doctors did not touch the girls’ genitalia for sexual gratification or to abuse, humiliate or degrade the victims.

“We’re thrilled for our clients that the law was followed,” Attar’s lawyer Mary Chartier told Detroit News on Sunday. “This is going to be a long fight, but we’re confident they’ll be vindicated.”

The other defendants include four mothers accused of subjecting their daughters to the procedure, and Dr Attar’s wife, who is accused of holding the girls’ hands during the procedures and lying to investigators.

The group is accused of conspiracy to carry out FGM on the girls as part of a religious procedure practiced by an Indian Muslim sect, the Dawoodi Bohra. Prosecutors in the case say the girls were cut, while the defense argues the procedure performed on them was benign and not FGM.

One girl told the FBI that Nagarwala “pinched the place [where] she goes pee,” according to a court filing. Medical examinations meanwhile found the girls’ genitals did appear to have been altered, with some scar tissue and healing lacerations.

Nagarwala is suspected of using Attar’s clinic to carry out the procedure for more than a decade. The government estimates the doctor performed as many as 100 FGM procedures throughout her career and allege that she tried to cover up her crimes by telling her religious community to “deny everything.”

Both Nagarwala and Attar face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of the other remaining charges.

Source Article from

Judge Upholds $15M Verdict Against Lakewood in Killing of Unarmed Man

Leonard Thomas, a 30-year-old father and unarmed black man, was killed by police in 2013. A jury awarded more than $15 million to his family, and a judge has upheld the jury verdict.

A federal judge has upheld a $15.1 million jury verdict against the city of Lakewood in Pierce County, Police Chief Mike Zaro and two other Lakewood officers for killing Leonard Thomas during a 2013 SWAT operation, taking the opportunity to scold the defense for suggesting the jury was motivated by fear of racial backlash if it exonerated the officers for killing an unarmed black man.

In a blistering 69-page order published Thursday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein rejected a string of post-trial motions by Lakewood, Zaro and two other officers — Sgt. Brian Markert and Officer Mike Wiley — asking her to either reduce or set aside the verdicts, grant the officers immunity from liability or order a new trial.

Instead, Rothstein swept aside the defense’s stubborn rejection of the verdict and insistence in the face of all evidence that the unarmed Thomas, a 30-year-old father who was having an emotional crisis, posed a threat to police or his 4-year-old son when he was shot by Markert, a SWAT sniper, after a four-hour standoff at Thomas’ home in Fife.

Rothstein found there was ample evidence for the jury to have concluded that Zaro and the others acted outrageously, unreasonably and with malice and callous indifference to the life of Thomas, or the impact their actions would have on his young son and parents.

Thomas’ mother, Annalesa Thomas, said she’s grateful: “I am speechless and in tears and thankful beyond words,” she wrote in an email. “Leonard’s justice prevailed.”

Instead of trying to help Thomas, the judge wrote, every step police took that night made it more likely he would die.

But Rothstein reserved her sharpest comments to chastise the city’s lawyers for repeatedly implying that the case — and the jury’s verdict — was influenced by race.

In pleadings and during a Dec. 5 hearing, attorneys from the Seattle firm Keating Bucklin and McCormack — hired to represent the city — argued that community sentiment about police use of excessive force against African Americans improperly influenced the verdict.

At the hearing, attorney Richard Jolley told the court that “what the jury found here is that they weren’t going to go back to their individual communities and tell the people that they associate with, we found in favor of white cops that shot an unarmed black man.”

Rothstein took judicial umbrage at those remarks and the defense contention.

“Without any evidence — without any factual foundation whatsoever — defendants have chosen to malign one of this country’s most sacred civic institutions, the impartially selected petit jury,” she said.

“The suggestion that this jury flouted its charge and colluded to hold government officials liable merely to advance the jurors’ individual reputations is not simply frivolous; it is insulting to our constitutional order,” she wrote.

“And the notion that the American justice system can be characterized by an illegitimate solicitude for black victims of alleged police misconduct is so painfully ahistorical that one wonders whether Defendants advance this argument seriously,” she said.

She found the argument particularly vexing, she said, since it was the defense that successfully persuaded her to preclude showing prospective jurors a video about unconscious bias, that they helped pick and approved the jury, and “notwithstanding the fact, should it even matter, that none of the jurors were African American.”

In addition to $8.6 million in compensatory damages, the jury imposed $6.5 million in punitive damages: $3 million against Zaro, who was in command that night and who gave the orders that led to the shooting; $2 million against Markert, the sniper who shot Thomas in the stomach with a precision high-powered rifle; and $1.5 million against Wiley, who led an assault team that blew down the back door of Thomas’ house and killed the family dog, Baxter.

The city has argued that those damages would amount to a “financial death sentence” for the officers, since they are not covered by the city’s insurance.

“The jury’s conclusion that the Defendants’ escalation and use of force resulting in the death of Leonard exhibited malice, recklessness, or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights was a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented to them,” the judge found.

The city of Lakewood declined to comment on the judge’s ruling.

“The city continues to have no comment as this is active litigation,” Brynn Grimley, communications manager for the city, said in an email.

For full story visit:

If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

Source Article from

Nets Applaud Lefty Judge’s Injunction Blocking Trump Action on DACA

On Wednesday, a federal judge from the radical Ninth Circuit issued an injunction blocking the White House from reversing the Obama-era executive order that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). And like the good little liberal cheerleaders that they were, the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) welcomed the ruling with open arms despite the fact that it was dubious at best.

What made Judge William Alsup’s ruling so questionable was several key facts. First, DACA was unconstitutionally enacted, meaning it was not an act passed by Congress but created via an executive order. So, his ruling meant that he was forcing President Trump to commit an unconstitutional act, or basically act in an illegal manner. In addition, the ruling meant that a president couldn’t touch a previous president’s executive orders, which was just a ridiculous notion, to begin with.

But despite those facts, which were not covered, the networks sang the praising of the questionable legal maneuver.

’Outrageous’ is the word the White House used today to describe the injunction imposed by San Francisco Judge William Alsup, who ruled that the administration made a ‘mistake of law’ last fall when it decided to roll back the Obama-era DACA order,” Chief Congressional Correspondent Cordes hyped as she began her report on CBS Evening News later that night.



While she highlighted the judge’s “mistake of law” remark, Cordes failed to mention that DACA was not a law at all, but a unilateral edict. But that didn’t stop her from worrying about how and when the federal government would begin taking DACA applications again: “It is still unclear tonight how the Department of Homeland Security plans to handle the judge’s ruling, whether and when it will start accepting DACA applications again.

During ABC’s World News Tonight, sensationalist anchor David Muir praised the judge’s ruling and seemed worried about it holding. “We turn next here to the battle over immigration and the Dreamers, and in particular the nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought here as children by their parents. Overnight, a federal judge preventing President Trump from taking action to end protections for them, at least for now,” he announced before a larger report on immigration negotiations.

Adding to the uncertainty, a federal judge’s decision overnight to temporarily block the administration’s action to end the DACA program,” touted White House correspondent Peter Alexander on NBC Nightly News during a report on a medley of Trump-related news items. “The White House blasting the move as ‘outrageous,’” he added.

Because of DACA’s unconstitutional nature and the fact that President Trump was merely ending an executive order by the previous administration, many people believe that the when the Ninth Circuit order is examined by the Supreme Court it will fail to pass legal muster. And the liberal networks will probably bemoan that result.

Transcripts below:


Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!


CBS Evening News
January 10, 2018
6:38:03 – 6:40:13 PM Eastern

JEFF GLOR: We will have much more here from Santa Barbara County later in the broadcast, but first, there is other big news tonight. A federal judge here in California has blocked the Trump administration from ending DACA. That is the program that protects children brought into the country illegally as children from being deported. More now on this from Chief Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes.

[Cuts to video]

NANCY CORDES: “Outrageous” is the word the White House used today to describe the injunction imposed by San Francisco Judge William Alsup, who ruled that the administration made a “mistake of law” last fall when it decided to roll back the Obama-era DACA order, allowing so-called “Dreamers” to go to school and find work without fear of deportation. Dreamers like Hector Suarez.


CORDES: President Trump hit back at the ruling on Twitter, saying, “It just shows everyone how broken and unfair our court system is,” but the judge wrote that the President’s own past tweets, like this one, show he supports DACA protections, too. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated, and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really? “


[Cuts back to live]

CORDES: It is still unclear tonight how the Department of Homeland Security plans to handle the judge’s ruling, whether and when it will start accepting DACA applications again. What is clear is that there is now new urgency after several false starts here on Capitol Hill to find a permanent legislative fix. Jeff?


World News Tonight
January 10, 2018
3:39:50 PM Eastern

DAVID MUIR: We turn next here to the battle over immigration and the Dreamers, and in particular the nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought here as children by their parents. Overnight, a federal judge preventing President Trump from taking action to end protections for them, at least for now. 24 hours ago, the President inviting cameras in, signaling a willingness to work with Democrats on the Dreamers before anything else. But tonight, the White House with a major clarification on that.


NBC Nightly News
January 10, 2018
7:05:51 PM Eastern


PETER ALEXANDER: Adding to the uncertainty, a federal judge’s decision overnight to temporarily block the administration’s action to end the DACA program.

XAVIER BECERRA: Nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.

ALEXANDER: The White House blasting the move as outrageous. Even as lawmakers insist they’re increasingly optimistic they’ll get a deal on DACA, before dawn today, federal immigration agents stormed nearly 100 7-eleven convenience stores nationwide. An aggressive search for undocumented workers. More than 20 arrests in all.


Source Article from

BREAKING: Judge Dismisses ALL Charges Against Bundy Family, Bars Retrial

US District Court Judge Gloria Navarro ruled Monday that the government committed “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” in the process against Bundy and his sons in relation to the 2014 armed standoff with federal agents over grazing rights.

Federal prosecutors willingly withheld evidence from defense attorneys, violating the Brady rule, Navarro said. She dismissed all charges against the Bundys and their co-defendant Ryan Payne “with prejudice,” meaning that the government will not be able to prosecute the case again.

“A universal sense of justice was violated,” Navarro said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

On December 21, Navarro declared a mistrial, finding the prosecutors in violation of the defendants’ due process rights. The government refused to turn over FBI memos and other documentation until after the October 1 deadline and repeated requests from the defense counsel, the judge said.

On December 21, Navarro declared a mistrial, finding the prosecutors in violation of the defendants’ due process rights. The government refused to turn over FBI memos and other documentation until after the October 1 deadline and repeated requests from the defense counsel, the judge said.

Bundy, 71, and his sons were charged with a total of 15 counts of criminal conspiracy and other violations following the confrontation with federal agents in April 2014. Agents with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) descended on Bundy’s ranch that month and began to round up his cattle, saying he had failed to pay grazing fees for 20 years. On April 12, hundreds of armed supporters arrived at Bundy’s ranch, leading to the standoff with federal authorities. Outnumbered government agents soon retreated from the property. No shots were fired.

The situation calmed down after Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and newly confirmed BLM Director Neil Kornze.

An 18-page memo written by BLM Special Agent Larry C Wooten, leaked last month, described nearly three years of misconduct by the agency in investigating the 2014 standoff, according to the Las Vegas-based KSNV.

“I routinely observed, and the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct,” Wooten wrote to Associate Deputy Attorney General Andrew Goldsmith, “as well as likely policy, ethical, and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff at the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.”

In January 2016, Bundy’s sons Ammon, 42, and Ryan, 44, led a group of armed activists in “occupying” a wildlife refuge in Oregon for 41 days, after federal authorities ordered two local ranchers to serve time in prison over a brushfire that damaged federal property. One of the occupiers was shot and killed by authorities. The Bundys were charged with a number of felonies, but were acquitted by a jury in October 2016.

Source Article from

US District Judge rules Fusion GPS to turn over banking records

Nunes and Fusion GPS


U.S. District Judge Richard J Leon ruled today that Fusion-GPS must turn over their banking records as required under the existing congressional subpoena.

Fusion GPS had sought an injunction from the federal court blocking the U.S. House Intelligence Committee from forcing them to provide banking records related to their 2016 opposition research work on Russia related matters.

In a 26-page-ruling (full pdf) Judge Leon rebuked each of the Fusion GPS reasons for the injunction and ruled the subpoena from the congressional committee was appropriate, proper and lawful.

This is critical and presents a joint approach toward the entire scheme. At the same time the Judicial Committees are focusing on the DOJ and FBI and how they used the FISA court, the House Intel Committee is focusing on the underlying documents, research and evidence behind the manipulated FISA warrant. Splendid.

Fusion GPS vs House Committee ruling


Source Article from