Tag: judges

Biden Judge Michael Nachmanoff Refuses to RECUSE Himself from Comey Case Despite Glaring Conflicts of Interest

Comey’s Biden appointed judge has glaring conflicts of interest but he won’t recuse himself.  This case is over before it starts!

The judge assigned to Comey’s case is a Biden judge who is absolutely totally conflicted but he is making no mention of recusing himself.

Judge Nachmanoff has personal conflicts with Comey.  Michael Nachmanoff, the federal judge presiding over former FBI Director James Comey’s criminal trial, shares a legal history with Comey that raises questions about judicial impartiality.

Nachmanoff clerked for Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia from 1995 to 1996, when Brinkema was overseeing the Zacarias Moussaoui terrorism trial linked to the 9/11 attacks.

James Comey, as Unit Chief of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, was deeply involved in investigating and prosecuting Moussaoui. Given the sensitive nature of the case, Nachmanoff likely accessed classified, high-level information and had professional proximity to Comey’s team. This connection suggests more than a casual relationship and highlights the need to consider potential conflicts of interest as Nachmanoff oversees Comey’s prosecution.

Nachmanoff advanced from his clerkship to private practice, federal public defense, magistrate judge, and finally a U.S. District Judge appointed by President Biden. There is no public record of direct employment by Comey, but their intertwined roles in national security cases are significant to judicial fairness.

Given that Comey is actively seeking to remove the prosecuting attorney from his case, it raises a reasonable question of whether a new judge should be assigned as well. The high level of coordination and close professional involvement between Judge Nachmanoff—who clerked during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial central to Comey’s FBI work—and the complexities of this current prosecution present a glaring conflict of interest. Considering Comey’s extensive interactions with the legal system and the deeply personal animus he has expressed toward the President of the United States, it is of the utmost importance that the presiding judge be fully capable of impartially understanding both the legal and personal dimensions motivating Comey’s actions, including why he faces charges of lying under oath on two felony counts.

Keep reading

Florida judge wearing $800 Chanel earrings dramatically resigns from bench after ‘abusing victims in courtroom’

A Florida judge accused of abusing her power and mistreating victims in her courtroom has resigned from the bench.

Putnam County Judge Anne Marie Gennusa submitted her resignation on October 3, effective October 31, in a letter to Governor Ron DeSantis, who appointed her to the position in 2023.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) found probable cause that Gennusa violated multiple judicial canons, including those requiring judges to uphold the law, maintain impartiality, and treat people with dignity and courtesy.

According to the JQC’s notice of formal charges, Gennusa exhibited a ‘pattern of abusing [her] contempt authority’ by overstepping her power and improperly detaining people during court proceedings. 

In one case, she ordered a female victim handcuffed, and in another, she jailed a mother of already-traumatized children.

‘Your unwillingness or inability to govern yourself with the dignity, courtesy and patience required by the Code, as well as your casual and illegal use of your contempt power… raise serious questions about your fitness to serve as a judicial officer,’ the JQC wrote in a document signed by Assistant General Counsel Hugh R. Brown.

Gennusa – who posed in her formal headshot wearing $800 pearl Chanel earrings – presided over misdemeanor criminal and criminal traffic cases at the Putnam County Courthouse in Palatka, part of Florida’s Seventh Judicial Circuit, which also covers Volusia, Flagler, and St. Johns counties.

In her resignation letter, Gennusa thanked DeSantis for his trust but said she was leaving to return to private practice – where she spent nearly three decades before joining the bench.

Keep reading

Judge Orders HHS to Rescind Changes to Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) must rescind changes it imposed to teen pregnancy prevention programs, a federal judge ruled on Oct. 7.

Updated conditions for organizations carrying out the programs, which cited executive orders from President Donald Trump, were so vague that the organizations could not know how to comply, Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 65-page decision.

“The Policy Notice mandates compliance now, without providing plaintiffs with any meaningful standard for achieving that compliance,” Howell said.

She ordered HHS to vacate the notice laying out the updated conditions for grant recipients.

An HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the department would not comment on litigation. The spokesperson pointed to the news release for the policy, which states in part that the update “safeguards the rights of parents to protect their children from content that undermines their religious beliefs.”

Under the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, created by Congress in 2009, HHS provides money to organizations to carry out “medically accurate and age appropriate programs that reduce teen pregnancy.” Most of the funds go to programs that “have been proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or other associated risk factors.”

Keep reading

Trump blocked from deploying National Guard in OR but can federalize troops, court says

 The 9th Circuit Court has granted an administrative stay on a temporary restraining order that had blocked the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members.

The administrative stay follows a Tuesday order from Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek telling guardsmen to demobilize and go home.

Wednesday’s order from the 9th Circuit judges keeps the Guard under federal control but blocks their deployment until the panel of judges can rule more broadly on the Trump administration’s request to overrule a district judge’s order that blocks the Guard’s deployment in Portland.

Arguments on the federal government’s appeal are scheduled for Thursday morning at 9 a.m.

The initial restraining order, issued on Oct. 4, was in response to a memorandum from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorizing the deployment.

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS! Illegal Alien From El Salvador Gets Only One Year in Prison After Killing University of South Carolina Student

An illegal alien from El Salvador was sentenced to only one year in prison after he killed a University of South Carolina student in a hit-and-run crash.

On April 2, Rosali Fernandez-Cruz, 24, struck 21-year-old Nathaniel Baker, who was riding a motorcycle. Fernandez-Cruz reportedly did not yield, struck Baker and took off.

Baker’s family reportedly forgave Fernandez-Cruz and were consulted about the light sentence, Robert Kittle, spokesperson for the state attorney general’s office told Fox News.

A judge imposed a lenient sentence of only one year in prison.

The family did not want the case to be “politicized” or “publicized,” according to Kittle.

Fernandez-Cruz will be deported to El Salvador after he serves his sentence.

Fox News reported:

An illegal immigrant who pleaded guilty to killing a South Carolina college student in a hit-and-run will be released next year after completing his one-year sentence.

Rosali Fernandez-Cruz was admitted to the state Department of Corrections on Aug. 14, 2025, according to South Carolina Department of Corrections records.

His projected release date is March 2, 2026. Fernandez-Cruz pleaded guilty to hit-and-run resulting in death — the most serious charge against him — according to Robert Kittle, communications director for the state attorney general’s office, who spoke with Fox News Digital.

There was no plea agreement, and prosecutors informed the judge of other traffic-related charges against Fernandez-Cruz, Kittle said.

“The judge decided the sentence, which was one year,” he said.

Fernandez-Cruz, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, received the light sentence for the April 2 death of Nathaniel Baker, 21, in Columbia. Baker was a junior at the University of South Carolina and a member of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity.

Keep reading

Grassley calls out judges for using AI to draft error-filled rulings

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote to two federal judges regarding their alleged use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to draft court orders with little to no human verification. Grassley’s oversight inquiry follows public  that U.S. District of Mississippi Judge Henry T. Wingate and U.S. District of New Jersey Judge Julien Xavier Neals issued court orders containing serious factual inaccuracies, prompting allegations of AI use.

“As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am committed to safeguarding litigants’ rights and ensuring that every party in federal court receives fair treatment and careful review by the Article III judges confirmed by the Senate,” Grassley wrote.

“No less than the attorneys who appear before them, judges must be held to the highest standards of integrity, candor, and factual accuracy. Indeed, Article III judges should be held to a higher standard, given the binding force of their rulings on the rights and obligations of litigants before them,” Grassley continued.

Grassley is asking Wingate and Neals to explain whether they, their law clerks, or any court staff used generative AI – or entered non-public case information into generative AI tools – in preparing their decisions. Further, Grassley called on the district judges to re-docket their original orders to preserve a transparent history of the courts’ actions.

Read Grassley’s letter to Wingate HERE and letter to Neals HERE.

Keep reading

INSANE: No Prison Time For Man Convicted of Pulling Knife on State Trooper Protecting Trump’s Motorcade During Visit to North Carolina

Another day, another corrupt judge.

A man convicted of felony assault with a deadly weapon after pulling a knife on a state trooper protecting Trump’s motorcade during his visit to North Carolina last year to survey Hurricane Helene damage will not serve prison time.

Last October, 55-year-old Leif Johnson was seen screaming at an elderly, wheelchair bound veteran during then-candidate Trump’s visit to western North Carolina. When a 12-year-old child tried to intervene, Johnson spat on the child.

Johnson then pulled out a 4-inch knife on a state trooper who tried to escort him away. Troopers had to wrestle him to the ground and disarm him.

Last Thursday, Leif Johnson was found guilty on multiple felony charges, including two counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer.

However, he won’t serve any prison time. Johnson will serve 36 months supervised probation instead.

“Superior Court Judge Jacqueline D. Grant sentenced Johnson to two consecutive suspended sentences of 30 to 48 months imprisonment,” WLOS reported.

“Instead of serving time, however, Johnson will serve 36 months of supervised probation and a 15-day jail term at the discretion of his probation officer, the release confirmed. He also must complete an anger management course and is prohibited from contacting any of the victims,” WLOS reported.

Keep reading

Judge again blocks deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon, this time from any state

A federal judge on Sunday night issued a second temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon, this time from any state, The Associated Press reported, as protests in the state’s largest city continued.

The judge’s ruling came after the Trump administration ordered 400 members of the Texas National Guard to deploy to several states, including Oregon, as well as 300 from California. Both states then asked the judge to block the Trump administration’s moves.

During a hastily called evening telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order sought by the two states.

Immergut, who was appointed by Trump in his first term, seemed incredulous that the president moved to send National Guard troops to Oregon from neighboring California and then from Texas on Sunday, just hours after she had ruled the first time.

“How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention to the temporary restraining order I issued yesterday?” she questioned the federal government’s attorney, cutting him off.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said later. “Why is this appropriate?”

Keep reading

Deranged DEMOCRAT Receives Maximum Sentence After Threatening to KILL Federal Judge

A California woman has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for issuing a death threat against a federal judge in Texas. 

The case is yet another reminder of how political violence—too often excused, ignored, or downplayed by the Left—has become a dangerous feature of American life.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, 46-year-old Dolly Patterson admitted she transmitted an interstate threat against a federal judge in Amarillo in April 2023. 

Her message, submitted online, read: “Tell that anti-abortion judge he better watch his back . . . for the rest of his life!” 

Federal prosecutors emphasized that Patterson’s intent was clear: she wanted her threat to be perceived as genuine, and she fully understood that it crossed the line into criminal behavior.

The court handed down the maximum statutory penalty—five years in prison. Federal officials were blunt in their assessment. 

“The safety of our federal judiciary is paramount,” Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy Larson said. 

“Threats of violence to our judges are becoming all too common—whether made online or in person. Such threats are illegal and will be prosecuted.”

This sentencing shines a light on a broader problem. Political intimidation, harassment, and violence are increasingly tolerated in progressive circles. 

From protests that devolve into riots to personal threats against judges, politicians, and law enforcement officers, the pattern is consistent: when the Left doesn’t get its way, it often resorts to violence.

Judges in particular have become targets of anger from activists who view the judiciary not as a neutral arbiter but as an obstacle to their political goals. 

Keep reading

Forcing baker to make same-sex wedding cake recreates printing press censorship: scholars to SCOTUS

hirty-five years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia led a Supreme Court majority to gut the free exercise of religion under the rubric of “neutral” and “generally applicable” law, a decision that most members of the current court “have called into doubt” even as lower courts employ the 1990 Smith precedent “to permit government oppression.”

So say a former federal appellate judge, the allegedly fifth-most cited legal scholar of all time and a dozen other First Amendment and antidiscrimination law scholars, who together urge SCOTUS to “emphatically cast aside” Smith in accepting a case whose central question it has repeatedly decided.

They are joined by 16 states and several religious denominations and advocacy groups in supporting Tastries baker Cathy Miller’s SCOTUS petition to hear her eight-year legal saga, after the California Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court ruling that overturned a trial ruling in Miller’s favor for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Golden State “has repeatedly compared Cathy’s religious beliefs about marriage to racism,” her lawyers at religious liberty law firm Becket said. California made the same comparison when female inmates sued to block its law incarcerating males with them.

The California appeals court distinguished its ruling from SCOTUS precedents in favor of Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop and Lorie Smith’s 303 Creative, against Colorado’s compelled creation of cakes and websites for same-sex weddings respectively, by claiming the cake Miller refused to make “conveyed no particularized message about the nature of marriage.”

Miller’s petition asks SCOTUS to resolve whether “compelled participation in a ceremony” is banned only when third parties view that participation as “endorsement,” if Miller must show “unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct” to prove a law is not generally applicable, and if 1990’s Smith should remain at all.

Keep reading