Tag: judges

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

Federal Judge DISQUALIFIES President Trump’s Acting US Attorney in Nevada, Rules Her Appointment is Invalid

A federal judge on Tuesday disqualified President Trump’s Acting US Attorney in Nevada, Sigal Chattah, and ruled her appointment is invalid.

Earlier this year President Trump appointed Sigal Chattah as the Interim US Attorney in Nevada. Shortly before her 120 day interim appointment expired, she resigned from the position and was reappointed as the Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada.

Anti-Trump prosecutors immediately filed motions to disqualify Chattah, claiming this maneuver to leapfrog to an “Acting US Attorney” role was unlawful.

On Tuesday, US District Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, said in a 32-page ruling that Chattah is “improperly serving” in her role as Acting US Attorney.

“Ms. Chattah is disqualified from supervising these cases or any attorneys in the handling of these cases,” Judge Campbell wrote.

Judge Campbell did not dismiss the indictments.

“Defendants’ motions are denied to the extent they seek dismissal of their indictments,” the judge wrote.

The judge reassigned Sigal Chattah’s cases to the District Judges in Nevada.

“These cases shall be reassigned to the District Judges in Nevada to whom they were originally assigned. The undersigned judge will remain available to handle similar motions filed in other Nevada cases, if warranted,” the judge wrote.

This is the second time a federal district court judge has disqualified one of President Trump’s Acting US Attorneys.

As previously reported, last month, US District Judge Mathew Brann, an Obama appointee, said Alina Habba is “not lawfully holding the Office of US Attorney” of New Jersey.

The Pennsylvania-based federal judge oversaw a challenge to Alina Habba’s authority because the judges in New Jersey had a conflict of interest after they ousted her from her position as interim US Attorney last month.

A group of federal judges over the summer declined to extend Alina Habba’s term as interim US Attorney of New Jersey after Democrat Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries launched a pressure campaign to oust her.

Habba resigned as Interim US Attorney and became Acting US Attorney for New Jersey after the Trump DOJ outmaneuvered the judges before her term expired.

President Trump recently said he will be filing a lawsuit to prevent Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) from blocking Alina Habba’s confirmation for US Attorney of New Jersey with the unconstitutional ‘blue slip’ custom.

Keep reading

Beware How The Climate Crusade ‘Partners’ With The Media And ‘Educates’ The Courts

Do you ever wonder why mainstream news stories seem so one-sided in their “climate change” coverage, promoting the most radical theories while ridiculing so-called “climate deniers?” Similarly, have you ever pondered how judges who are not scientists or climate experts render opinions favorable to the climate cult while citing scientific “facts” and “evidence” to bolster their verdicts?

For decades, CBS News – the storied broadcast home of icons like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite – was long regarded as the gold standard for television journalism. The “Tiffany Network’s” reporting might sometimes be controversial, but it was always considered deeply researched and proudly independent. CBS News prided itself on its unassailable integrity – “And that’s the way it is,” Cronkite assured us every evening when he signed off.

When it comes to reporting on climate news, those days are gone. For some climate-related stories, CBS News has of late been partnering with Climate Central, a nonprofit that bills itself as “policy-neutral” and “independent,” but acknowledges on its on website that it “uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it. We address climate science, sea level rise, extreme weather, energy, and related topics.”

In early September Fox News reported, “Last month, CBS News published a story about melting glaciers that also aired on ‘Sunday Morning.’ Ben Tracy was the correspondent on the segment, with his byline at the top of the article. A disclaimer at the bottom read, ‘Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.’” Fox News noted that another CBS News article in July, “also tied to an on-air segment with Tracy, included the disclaimer that the story was ‘produced in partnership with Climate Central.’”

In fact, Tracy and Spinder “work for Climate Central. Only Jolly is a current CBS News staffer, according to his LinkedIn page.” So much for fair, balanced and independent journalism.

On its website, Climate Central boasts of its influence on news organizations, noting that through its “Partnership Journalism” program, it “contributes data, science and data reporting, editing and guidance to joint features coverage informed by new climate data.” The site provides links to page after page of “news” stories on which it has “partnered,” ranging from alternative energy outlets to traditional news agencies.

Keep reading

Report: ICE Deports Repressive Cuban Judge Formerly on Biden’s ‘Humanitarian Parole’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Thursday deported Melody González Pedraza, a Cuban communist judge who entered the U.S. through the Biden administration’s “humanitarian parole” program, Martí Noticias reported.

González Pedraza reportedly traveled from Havana to Tampa, Florida, in late May 2024 after the administration of former President Joe Biden provided her with a U.S. flight authorization as part of the now-extinct “Humanitarian Parole” program. The initiative, launched by former President Joe Biden in January 2023, allowed up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to legally stay and work in the United States for a period of “up to two years.”

Airport authorities in Tampa reportedly refused to grant her entry due to her extensive past as a communist regime official. In response, González Pedraza requested U.S. political asylum. Martí Noticias detailed that González Pedraza lost her U.S. asylum case on May 21, 2025, and chose not to appeal the ruling issued by an immigration judge in Pompano Beach, Florida. Unnamed sources told the outlet that complaints presented by Cuban exiles against González Pedraza were key to the prosecution and subsequent deportation of the communist judge.

The Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba (FHRC), a non-government organization, included González Pedraza on its list of known Castro regime representatives. The communist judge is known for having issued excessive prison sentences to peaceful Cuban protesters and dissidents.

Days before traveling to Florida, she reportedly sentenced a group of four young Cuban men — all below the age of 30 — to four years in prison on dubious “assault” charges against local state security officials in the municipality of Encrucijada, Villa Clara. Families of the four men denounced at the time that their relatives were unjustly convicted in a sham trial in which the Castro regime did not present neither evidence nor witnesses that could corroborate the accusations.

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Orders Reinstatement of University of South Dakota Professor Suspended For Celebrating Assassination of Charlie Kirk and Calling Him a “Nazi”

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the reinstatement of a University of South Dakota professor who was suspended for celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Shortly after Charlie Kirk was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University earlier this month, Phillip Michael Hook took to social media to celebrate the murder.

Hook also called Charlie Kirk, a Christian husband and father who spread the Gospel on college campuses across the country, a “hate spreading Nazi.”

“Okay. I don’t give a flying f*ck about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe,” Phillip Hook wrote.

In a follow-up social media post, Hook wrote: “Apparently my frustration with the sudden onslaught of coverage concerning a guy shot today led to a post I mow [sic] regret posting. I’m sure many folks fully understood my premise but the simple fact that some were offended, led me to remove the post. I extend this public apology to those who were offended. Om Shanti.”

Keep reading

House passes bills giving president power to choose D.C. judges, loosen police pursuit rules

The Republican-led House approved legislation on Wednesday that would give the president greater authority in choosing D.C. Superior Court judges and would relax pursuit restrictions for the Metropolitan Police Department, further overriding the District’s control over its criminal justice system.

The bills’ passage followed the House’s approval on Tuesday of legislation that seeks to lower the age at which juveniles can be charged as adults in the District and revoke the sentencing leniency that young adult convicts can receive in court.

The four proposals are part of a package of more than a dozen bills aiming to curtail public safety laws enacted in the District. House Democrats accused their Republican colleagues of being too eager to trample on the District’s autonomy, but the GOP members were unfazed.

Keep reading

Democrat judge in America’s ‘Muslim capital’ BANS gay pride flags after Islamic outrage

A federal judge has upheld a ban on gay pride flags after a years-long battle by an all-Muslim city council to remove the rainbow because it did not reflect their community’s values.

The court found that Hamtramck, an enclave surrounded by Detroit with a significant Muslim immigrant population, did not violate the US Constitution when it banned the flag from public buildings in 2023.

After a pride flag was flown in the city during Pride Month in 2021 and 2022, the city council said it clashed with the beliefs of some residents, so they voted to allow only five flags to be flown on publicly-owned property. 

US District Judge David Lawson, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, dismissed a lawsuit that was brought against the city for its flag restrictions, saying the ban was okay because the policy targeted all private flags. 

‘Hamtramck’s refusal to display the Gay Pride flag did not violate the Constitution,’ the judge said. 

Hamtramck has a population of around 27,000, and more than 40% of its residents are immigrants. A large proportion of them are Muslim with Yemeni or Bangladeshi descent. 

The city is right next to Dearborn, a larger enclave city in the Detroit area that the Wall Street Journal once called ‘America’s Jihad Capital’ in a piece that claimed the city’s leadership supported Hamas and Hezbollah. The publication was widely criticized for the moniker. 

The Hamtramck flag ban restricted public property to only display the American flag, Michigan flag, city flag and flags that represent the ‘international character’ of the city’s population. 

Businesses and residents are still allowed to fly whatever they want on private property. 

Keep reading

Calls For Sick Michigan Judge to Resign Intensify After She Makes Mocks Charlie Kirk’s Death on Social Media

When lawfare fails to crush conservatives, the radical left doesn’t stop.

They escalate to inflammatory rhetoric that poisons public discourse and incites violence.

We’ve seen it time and again – from the demonization of President Trump as a “threat to democracy” to the relentless smears against anyone who challenges the radical left agenda.

This dangerous language doesn’t just divide; it dehumanizes, paving the way for tragedy.

And now, in the wake of the shocking assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk – savagely shot in the neck while speaking in Utah – we’re witnessing the grotesque fruits of this dangerous rhetoric.

Kirk, a fearless voice for young conservatives through Turning Point USA, was gunned down in what Utah Governor Spencer Cox and President Trump rightly called a “political assassination.”

Yet instead of universal condemnation, prominent Michigan liberals are downplaying, justifying, or even celebrating his murder. This isn’t just distasteful; it’s a direct assault on our republic’s foundations and on all Americans.

Let’s be clear: Charlie Kirk wasn’t some fringe figure. He was a close ally of President Trump, a champion of free speech on college campuses, and a thorn in the side of the left’s cultural warriors.

His killing should unite all Americans in horror, regardless of politics. But in Michigan, where extreme liberal elites hold sway in academia, the judiciary, and the legislature, the response has been chilling.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Banning Illegal Immigrants From Social Programs

A federal judge on Sept. 10 ordered four federal agencies to stop banning illegal immigrants from programs such as Head Start, which provides child care for poorer families.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor must halt, at least for now, efforts to remove illegal immigrants from the programs.

HHS and other agencies said in July they were reinterpreting a federal law called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which states that illegal immigrants cannot obtain “federal public benefits.”

Under previous interpretations, people accessing certain programs that lawmakers intended only for Americans and legal immigrants did not need to provide proof of legal status, officials said.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, twenty attorneys general sued, alleging the new interpretation wrongly applied to programs that fell outside the act. In a motion for a preliminary injunction, or a block while the case proceeds, they also said that the government failed to provide “fair notice” to states of the change.

McElroy sided with the states, writing on Wednesday that “while reasonable policymakers can debate the merits of restricting access to programs to lawful citizens—and it is surely not this Court’s job to wade into that debate—the Agencies offer at best incomplete answers to serious questions.”

That appears to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which lets judges block agency actions determined to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” she said.

McElroy also pointed to the change in interpretation from decades of precedent.

“The Government argues that it has somehow interpreted this statute incorrectly for the nearly thirty years that it has been the law,” she said.

“In its view, everyone (from every past administration) has misunderstood it from the start—at least until last month, when the right way to read it became clear to the Government. The Court is skeptical of that.”

The four agencies, which had pointed to an order from President Donald Trump that directed officials to make sure that taxpayer-funded benefits are not going to illegal immigrants, did not respond to requests for comment.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat and one of the attorneys general who sued over the change, said in a statement that “with this victory, we are protecting children’s education, safeguarding critical health care, and preserving the safety net that keeps families afloat.”

Keep reading