Tag: judges

Democrat-Appointed California Judge Charged With Sexually Assaulting Courthouse Staff and Cooking Up a Fake Motorcycle Alibi

A Democrat-appointed California judge sat on the Fresno County Superior Court for more than two decades.

Federal prosecutors now say that while he still wore the robe, he led a judicial assistant into a courthouse stairwell and sexually assaulted her, then lied to the FBI and tried to doctor records to cover a second incident involving another court employee found passed out in his chambers.

Adolfo M. Corona was put on the Fresno County Superior Court in 2003 by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. A judicial profile listed his political affiliation as Democrat. He stayed on the bench until May 1, 2024.

According to ABC30 Fresno, no plea deal has been offered. A trial confirmation hearing is expected in July 2027, with a jury trial tentatively scheduled for August.

According to the news outlet:

Adolfo Corona faces five felony counts, including three counts of making false statements and a count of altering documents. The most serious count is deprivation of rights under color of law resulting in bodily Injury and including a non-consensual sexual act.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean set the tentative trial date for 11 months from now, on Aug. 10. The attorneys in the case estimated the trial could last a month, including the time it takes to select a jury.

[…]

Corcoran and prosecutor Cody Chapple told the judge they had spoken informally about a plea deal. Chapple said his offer was “dead on arrival.”

He told the judge that prosecutors had turned over about 8,600 pages of evidence to Corona’s attorney.

If convicted, Corona could be sentenced to 40 years in prison for sexual assault and 20 years each for the obstruction charges.

According to a U.S. Department of Justice announcement, a federal grand jury indicted Corona on five counts in August 2025.

Prosecutors allege that on March 14, 2024, while Corona was still serving as a judge,he lured a judicial assistant into a courthouse stairwell, where he sexually assaulted her.

Keep reading

Indianapolis teacher, composer avoids prison time after guilty plea in child sex crimes case

A former Indianapolis teacher and internationally known composer will spend no time in prison after pleading guilty to multiple felonies in a child sex crimes case.

Julian Wachner, 56, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to five counts of possession of child sex abuse material as a Level 5 felony. He also pleaded guilty to one count of felony cocaine possession.

An Indianapolis resident, Wachner was subsequently sentenced to six years of probation and no prison time. As part of his plea deal, Wachner must register as a sex offender and participate in several drug and child abuse prevention programs.

In a statement, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office said the plea agreement filed for Wachner was for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Judge Jeffrey Marchal imposed the sentence, opting for no prison time.

“Prosecutors pushed for a sentence harsher than the one opposed [sic],” said MCPO officials.

Cryptocurrency, cocaine and CSAM

Wachner was arrested late last summer by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department after various allegations came out against him. At the time, he had recently served as a fourth-grade math teacher for Invent Learning Hub and was world-renowned for his music compositions.

Court documents released soon after Wachner’s arrest detailed how he used over $800 in cryptocurrency to purchase child sex abuse material on the dark web. After being confronted by police, Wachner reportedly admitted to making “hundreds of purchases.”

A search of Wachner’s home later uncovered an Apple MacBook Pro, a hard drive and a “substantial quantity of cocaine” inside his bedroom closet. On the laptop, investigators reportedly found “dozens” of files containing child sex abuse material.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rules against new Missouri redistricting map again

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Missouri’s new congressional map again after two separate courts gave conflicting rulings.

Republicans had planned to use the new map in November’s elections. It was drawn last year to give Republicans an advantage in Congressional elections in the hopes of keeping a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Plaintiffs People not Politicians asked the high court Wednesday for an emergency ruling.

The pause in using the map will stay while a legal fight goes through the courts. The Supreme Court justices didn’t offer any reason for blocking the new map.

A snag in the elections, though, is that Missouri already held primaries using the new map.

The Missouri Supreme Court had ruled that the state couldn’t use the map for this fall’s elections. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected the appeal, kicking it back to the state. At the same time, Federal Judge Stephen R. Clark ruled that the state could use the map, which added more chaos to the elections. It was Clark’s ruling that the Supreme Court decided Thursday.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins told local elections officials that the federal judge’s ruling should be followed instead of the Missouri Supreme Court. That court has summoned Hoskins to explain why they shouldn’t find him in contempt.

It’s now unclear what next steps the state will take.

Some map opponents have said the state could continue because the districts are still numbered the same.

“The law is the law, the Missouri Constitution is clear as was the Missouri Supreme Court,” Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, said in a statement.

Those opposed to the new map collected more than 300,000 signatures to push a referendum on the map, but Hoskins said he didn’t believe that redistricting could be decided in a voter referendum. He refused to add it to the ballot, triggering the legal battles.

Keep reading

Indiana Supreme Court Overturns Trump-Backed Candidate’s 3-Vote Victory, Declares RINO Incumbent Winner of State Senate Primary Race

The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a 3-vote victory by Trump-backed candidate Paula Copenhaver and declared RINO incumbent Spencer Deery the winner of the state senate primary race.

Earlier this year, President Trump targeted Spencer Deery as part of his ‘RINO Revenge Tour’ after the Indiana Republican blocked a redraw of the state’s congressional map amid the redistricting wars.

Spencer Deery initially won by three votes; however, Copenhaver challenged several absentee ballots.

Last month, the Indiana Recount Commission tossed out six absentee ballots cast for Deery because they were missing mandatory county clerk initials.

Paula Copenhaver was declared the winner by three votes in Indiana’s 23rd Senate District after the recount commission’s decision.

Deery appealed the recount commission’s decision, and the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately vacated its order.

WFYI reported:

The Indiana Supreme Court has declared incumbent Senator Spencer Deery the winner of his primary race against Trump-backed Paula Copenhaver.

When reached for comment, Deery said the court’s decision made him proud.

“This was a lot bigger than me,” he said. “It says that Indiana is a place where if you do everything right as a voter: you vote, you check all the boxes, you show your ID, you register, your vote should count.”

Paula Copenhaver did not respond to WFYI’s request for comment.

The decision ends a months-long legal battle over who is the rightful winner in Indiana’s 23rd Senate District. The initial count in the close race ended with Deery just three votes ahead of Copenhaver.

Copenhaver quickly called for a recount, challenging ballots and calling for voters to be subpoenaed; she claimed they had crossed over and voted for Deery despite being long-time Democrats.

Keep reading

Brazil’s Dictator-Judge Removed from ‘Fake News’ Inquiry He Used to Persecute Conservatives

The head of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF), Justice Edson Fachin, on Wednesday removed Justice Alexandre de Moraes from the widely controversial inquiry against “fake news” amid an ongoing crisis at the nation’s Supreme Court.

The decision strips Justice de Moraes from an inquiry he used over the past years to enact a fierce persecution and censorship campaign against Brazilian conservative voices — with former President Jair Bolsonaro being the most prominent target of de Moraes, the inquiry’s now-former rapporteur.

Over the past weeks the Brazilian top court has found itself amidst a “Civil War” between Justices de Moraes and André Mendonça that has plunged the judiciary and its members into an ongoing crisis.

The situation began in early September when Justice Mendonça unsealed a police report containing an analysis of alleged WhatsApp messages involving Justice de Moraes and Daniel Vorcaro, who is a Brazilian banker currently under police custody on corruption accusations stemming from the “Banco Master” financial fraud case involving the eponymous São Paulo-based bank. Justice Mendonça is one of the STF Justices overseeing the fraud case.

Days after the report was unsealed, Justice de Moraes accused fellow Justice Mendonça of having committed “abuse of authority” throughout his supervision of the Banco Master case.

Justice de Moraes formally requested before STF chief Justice Fachin that the inquiry against “fake news” was used to investigate the allegations he presented against Justice Mendonça. Fachin declined de Moraes’ request and instead directly forwarded the complaint against Mendonça to his desk.

On Wednesday, Fachin announced that de Moraes has been removed from the “fake news” inquiry but upheld all rulings and decisions made by de Moraes under its framework. Fachin also called upon an upcoming plenary session of the Brazilian Supreme Court to discuss the ongoing judiciary crisis.

The Brazilian state-owned news agency Agência Brasil recounted that the controversial inquiry was originally launched by the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2019 with the alleged goal of fighting what was described as the “dissemination of news that undermined the integrity and security” of the STF, its Justices, and relatives.

At the time, Justice de Moraes was appointed as the inquiry’s rapporteur by then-STF chief Justice José Antonio Dias Toffoli, a still-active member of the Brazilian top court who found himself at the center of an unrelated controversy earlier this month after he banned and rapidly unbanned the presidential campaign of outsider right-wing candidate Renan Santos.

Keep reading

Appeals court rules against Trump admin’s push for stricter mail-in ballot requirements

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of a United States Postal Service (USPS) rule that requires stricter measures for voting by mail.

The court sided with the lower court’s decision handed down Thursday, enjoining the USPS rule from being implemented prior to the upcoming November 3rd elections.

“Thus, we see no obvious error in the district court’s conclusion that allowing this Final Rule to be effective for the soon-arriving November 3 election will likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal — if any — gains in combating voter fraud,” the appeals court wrote.

In accordance with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” the USPS finalized a rule, effective August 21st, requiring ballot envelopes to carry unique barcodes and states to submit mail-voter information via a federal portal.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the injunction due to the quick timeline of implementation and questions of constitutionality.

All fifty states allow voting by mail, highlighting the significance of any ruling pertaining to mail-in ballots. According to Talwani:

  • 27 states allow mail-in ballots without voters having to provide an “excuse” — Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
  • Two states allow all eligible citizens to vote by mail and permit counties to opt into conducting elections by mail–Nebraska and North Dakota.
  • 13 states allow vote by mail with justifiable “excuses” — Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

The Trump administration has already requested that the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in the case.

Keep reading

Left-Wing D.C. Circuit Court Blocks Law Enforcement from Using IRS Data to Track Down Illegal Alien Criminals — Claims Trump Administration’s Argument is ‘Weak Sauce’

A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel of Obama appointees on Tuesday affirmed a lower-court order blocking the IRS’s mass “Data-Exchange Procedure” that handed Immigration and Customs Enforcement last-known addresses for tens of thousands of people ICE said were under criminal investigation for remaining in the country after a final removal order.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Secretary Kristi Noem and the IRS reached a landmark interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to break down federal bureaucracy silos and aid in national deportation efforts.

Under the agreement, ICE sent requests to the IRS to cross-reference addresses for over 1.2 million illegal immigrants who failed to leave the country after a 90-day grace period following a final removal order.

When the deal was first inked, left-wing bureaucrats threw a massive temper tantrum, including acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause, who resigned in protest over the agency assisting federal law enforcement, as The Gateway Pundit reported.

Far-left open-border activist groups, led by the “Center for Taxpayer Rights” and union bosses, immediately ran to the federal courts in Washington, D.C., demanding a halt to the program.

Now, the activist appeals court panel, made up of Judges Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins, has ruled against the DOJ, finding that the IRS’s “Data-Exchange Procedure” failed to comply with the strict statutory requirements of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which generally mandates that taxpayer return information remain confidential.

In June 2025, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons asked the IRS for last-known addresses tied to about 1.28 million people ICE identified in connection with 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1), the federal crime of willfully remaining after a final removal order.

Keep reading

HUGE BLOW TO HOCHUL: Obama-Appointed Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s $75B “Superfund” Climate Law Fining Fossil Fuel Companies

New York Democrats’ scheme to extract a staggering $75 billion from energy producers has been struck down by a federal judge.

Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, an Obama appointee, ruled that New York’s so-called Climate Change Superfund Act was preempted by federal law and could not be enforced.

The sweeping law, signed by Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul in December 2024, sought to force oil, natural gas, and coal companies to pay $3 billion annually for 25 years into a state-controlled climate fund.

“With nearly every record rainfall, heatwave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters that have historically harmed our environment,” Governor Hochul said.

“Establishing the Climate Superfund is the latest example of my administration taking action to hold polluters responsible for the damage done to our environment and requiring major investments in infrastructure and other projects critical to protecting our communities and economy,” she added.

Under the law, companies determined by New York regulators to be responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions between 2000 and 2024 would have faced strict liability, regardless of whether they violated any law.

The scheme was not limited to activity inside New York. It attempted to calculate emissions connected to fossil-fuel extraction and refining around the world and then send massive “cost recovery demands” to the targeted companies.

Keep reading

Outrageous! Haitian Illegal Alien Who Killed Ohio Father and Young Son in Multi-Vehicle Crash Given Huge Sweetheart Deal by Woke Judge

An unbelievable travesty of justice occurred last week in Ohio after an illegal alien who killed a loving father and his young son was given an unbelievably lenient deal.

Back on February 28, the Ohio State Highway Patrol revealed that a driver who was later identified as 53-year-old Yvio Michel of Haiti, drove his Great Dane semi-truck northbound on Interstate 75 but failed to maintain sufficient distance as he approached congested traffic. As a result, he smacked into four passenger vehicles and another semi-truck.

Lima, Ohio, resident Hurshel Gipson and his 11-year-old son, Michael, were killed in a massive crash caused by the illegal alien. Gipson’s 45-year-old wife, Amanda, who was driving the family’s 2015 Buick Enclave, was transported to an area hospital with serious injuries.

Fortunately, she managed to survive the incident.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol reported that four other victims were all in separate vehicles that were struck by Michel, who now resides in Florida. One of them was transported to a hospital with serious injuries, while two others were sent there with non-life-threatening injuries.

The crash closed the highway for five hours.

One would think that a Michel would have received a lengthy jail sentence for his reckless actions. But last Wednesday, a woke judge named Tammie K. Hursh decided to sentence Michel to just 20 days in prison for causing the crash.

Keep reading

Judge sides with Soros-funded NGO over Trump’s anti-lawfare fund

A US federal magistrate judge has ordered the administration of US President Donald Trump to disclose the names of those who had created a now-defunct fund for victims of politically-motivated prosecution. The lawsuit was filed by multiple plaintiffs, backed by a Soros-funded NGO.

Critics have argued that the $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund was designed to funnel taxpayer money to certain Trump supporters who claim they were unfairly investigated by the Justice Department, including those prosecuted over the Capitol Hill riots on January 6, 2021.

On Friday, Judge Ivan D. Davis granted a request that the identities of the masterminds behind the fund be revealed to the plaintiffs and their attorneys, noting that this information must not be made public at this stage.

The DOJ has insisted that the names of those people are “irrelevant” to the case and, moreover, constitute confidential attorney-client discussions or government officials’ deliberations. The Department has also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.

Keep reading