Tag: judges

Woman Arrested for Threatening to Kill President Trump Quietly Released by Obama Appointed Judge James Boasberg

Less than two weeks ago, a woman named Nathalie Rose Jones traveled from New York to Washington, DC with the intent of killing President Trump.

US Attorney For DC Jeanine Pirro announced her arrest saying, “She was working to have [Trump] eliminated. She’s now in custody, she will be prosecuted to the fullest extent to the law.”

Now this woman has been quietly released by Obama appointed Judge James Boasberg. That would be the same Judge Boasberg who has repeatedly interfered in efforts to deport illegal alien criminals.

The New York Post reports:

NYC woman busted for threatening to kill President Trump quietly released by Obama-appointed judge

A New York City woman locked up for making deranged social media posts threatening to kill President Trump was quietly released by an Obama-appointed judge last week.

Chief US District Judge James Boasberg released Nathalie Rose Jones, a 50-year-old Big Apple resident, under electronic monitoring on Aug. 27 and ordered she see a psychiatrist once back home, court documents revealed.

The surprise release comes just days after US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya denied Jones bond over the persistent threats on Trump’s life she issued over social media earlier this month…

Officials were aware of concerning posts starting on Aug. 2 and Jones herself told Secret Service agents in an Aug. 15 interview that she would “carry out the mission of killing” Trump with a “bladed object” if she was given the chance.

Many of her social media posts tagged federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Keep reading

President Trump Calls on Judge Jia Cobb to Recuse Herself From Lawsuit by Fired Federal Reserve Board Member Lisa Cook After Sorority They Are Both Members of Releases Statement in Support of Cook

President Donald Trump posted a statement Sunday night calling on U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to recuse herself from presiding over the lawsuit by Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook challenging Trump’s firing of her from the Fed last Monday over allegations of mortgage fraud.

Cook filed suit on Thursday. Cobb held a hearing Friday in D.C., but made no immediate ruling reported CNN (excerpt):

Cobb has asked for more written arguments to be submitted to her by next Tuesday. It’s possible she rules after then, or takes additional time to sift through how to best proceed with the case. Her options include setting it on an expedited track for a prompt resolution of Cook’s underlying claims.

Though Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, held off for now on making an initial ruling in the case, she also made clear that she wasn’t prepared to fully buy into arguments pushed by either Cook or Trump.

The judge pushed back on a suggestion by Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth that federal courts have no authority to second-guess a decision by a president to fire a member of the Federal Reserve “for cause.” But even with that judicial power, Cobb said, there still may be some level of deference by a court to the president’s decision-making.

Trump posted a copy of a statement issued Thursday by the Delta Sigma Theta sorority–that both Cobb and Cook belong to–that expresses support for Cook, “This is a total Conflict of Interest. The Judge must RECUSE IMMEDIATELY!!! President DJT.”

Keep reading

Guatemala Requests Migrant Children Back – But Biden Judge Blocks Reunification to Keep Children Trapped at American Shelters

The Gateway Pundit first reported this weekend that Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the deportation of more than 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan minors. 

The Trump administration had begun removal flights after advocacy groups sued, and the Biden judge quickly issued an emergency restraining order to stop them.

But there is a new and even more disturbing layer to the story. The government of Guatemala has now formally requested that these children be returned home. 

These minors are not “stateless,” nor are they abandoned. All have self-reported that their parents live in Guatemala, and the Guatemalan government is publicly asking for their reunification. 

Still, Democrats and their allies in the courts are refusing to let them go.

This is not a question of children being left without guardians. Guatemala has agreed to take responsibility. 

The reality is that these children were smuggled into the United States, often at the hands of cartels, and wound up stranded in federal custody. 

Now, instead of being sent back to their families, they are trapped in American shelters. 

Judge Sooknanan’s order blocks their deportation for at least two weeks, but advocacy groups are already seeking a class-action expansion that could tie up the issue for months or years.

It is hard to overstate how absurd this is. A sovereign government is requesting the return of its children. 

Keep reading

CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXPOSED: Corrupt Judge Jia Cobb Who Blocked Trump’s Mass Deportations and Now Oversees Federal Reserve Mortgage Fraudster Lisa Cook Revealed as SORORITY SISTER!

You can’t make this up.

On Friday morning, embattled Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, recently fired by President Trump over allegations of fraud and misconduct, appeared in federal court to challenge her dismissal.

The case was heard by none other than Judge Jia Cobb, a radical Biden-appointed judge already notorious for shamelessly blocking Trump’s lawful mass deportation orders.

It can be recalled that US District Judge Jia Cobb called President Trump’s expedited removal of illegal aliens from the interior of the US a “skimpy process.”

“The procedures the government currently uses in expedited removal, however, create a significant risk that it will not identify these disqualifying criteria before quickly ordering someone removed. And the lack of available review means that once the removal happens, it is largely too late to correct the error,” Judge Cobb wrote in a 48-page opinion on Friday.

The Gateway Pundit reported on Friday morning that Judge Cobb wasted no time holding an emergency hearing that dragged on for over two hours. Attorneys for Lisa Cook and the DOJ clashed as they desperately tried to salvage her cushy position on the Federal Reserve Board.

Cook’s high-powered lawyer, Abbe Lowell, the same guy who’s been defending Hunter Biden in his scandals, went full attack mode on President Trump, whining that the Commander-in-Chief makes his orders and policies via “tweets.”

During the hearing, Judge Cobb openly cast doubt on Trump’s executive order firing Cook, but she stopped short of issuing a ruling. Court will resume next Tuesday.

Lisa Cook, fired by Trump this week for alleged mortgage and financial misconduct, is suing to keep her cushy Federal Reserve seat. The lawsuit should have been randomly assigned.

But in a shocking twist, the case landed before Judge Cobb, who just so happens to be Cook’s sorority sister in Delta Sigma Theta.

Keep reading

St. Louis Man Who Gunned Down Police Officer Demond Taylor Is Released on $5,000 Bond

St. Louis officials charged 46-year-old Brandon Levy with first degree murder in the shooting death of off-duty Police Officer Demond Taylor 17 years ago in the Academy neighborhood in St. Louis. Taylor was gunned down when he was driving to pick up one of his sons along Page Boulevard.

Three witnesses identified Levy as the man who shot and killed Officer Levy.

FBI Special Agent Chris Crocker released a statement on X following the arrest of Levy this weekend.

The FBI had been working hand-in-hand with local St. Louis homicide detectives for years to solve the case.

Levy was later released on $5,000 bond for killing a St. Louis cop.

$5,000!

FOX 2 reported:

Authorities noted that officer Taylor would have turned 52 this past Sunday.

Levy was charged with one count of first-degree murder, but he has now been released, posting a $5,000 cash-only bond.

“After a confined docket hearing on August 25, 2025, Associate Circuit Judge Michael Colona modified the defendant’s bond to $50,000 cash-only, requiring 10 percent to be posted. The State requested that the bond conditions imposed on August 23, 2025, remain in place. The defendant posted bond, and the court released him under court-ordered conditions.

Associate Circuit Judge Michael Colona served as a Democrat in the Missouri legislature before his appointment to the Circuit Attorney’s office.

Keep reading

The First Amendment Does Not Protect Media Matters From Breaking The Law

Does the First Amendment immunize left-wing groups from being investigated for breaking the law? Of course not. Yet a district court recently said it does, writing an opinion that is extraordinary on its own terms, and that exemplifies the two tiers of justice our legal system sometimes affords.

First, some background. There have been credible allegations — most notably in a suit filed by X — that Media Matters for America, a left-wing nonprofit, orchestrated a coordinated effort to pressure advertisers to pull funding from X after Elon Musk acquired the company in 2022. The basic claim is that Media Matters, along with other groups, encouraged major companies to boycott advertising on X based on the platform’s refusal to censor conservatives’ speech, police information about Covid-19, and the like. If these allegations are true, then Media Matters likely violated the antitrust laws.

Enter the Federal Trade Commission. Congress has charged the FTC with enforcing (among other things) the antitrust laws. Pursuant to that authority, the FTC opened an investigation into the above-described conduct. This is neither surprising nor notable. When there are credible allegations of lawbreaking, law enforcement agencies are duty-bound to investigate them.

But rather than cooperate with the FTC and dispel suspicions that it broke the law, Media Matters sued the commission to short-circuit the investigation. Media Matters’ basic claim is that the First Amendment forbids the FTC from even investigating its potential unlawful activity because FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and others associated with him have made comments critical of Media Matters in the past. This is an exotic claim, to say the least.

And yet a federal district judge in D.C. accepted it, enjoining the FTC from enforcing a civil investigative demand against Media Matters. The opinion is absurd, both in its cataloging of statements by various actors in and out of government and its legal conclusions about the significance of those statements. For example, here is an actual sentence from the court’s opinion: “One of [Chairman Ferguson’s] supporters, Mike Davis, who urged President Trump to nominate him to the role, made several public comments about Media Matters, including that Mr. Musk should ‘nuke’ the media company.”

It would be a big deal if investigative targets could stymie investigations by pointing to public statements by friends, associates, and “supporters” of the investigator. But that is not the law. The district judge who issued the injunction cited no comparable cases while discounting substantial contrary authority.

It is not surprising that the law doesn’t support the court’s conclusion, as the entire purpose of investigations is to determine whether lawbreaking occurred. The time for First Amendment defenses is in a resulting enforcement action. At that point, an appropriate constitutional judgment can be made against the backdrop of all the evidence — evidence a district court has now blocked the FTC from even gathering in the first place.

The court’s decision is troubling enough on its own, but it is especially so when contrasted with the judiciary’s reaction to high-profile targeting of conservatives. I am a firm believer in our legal system. Yet the disparate handling of broadly similar proceedings in recent years is concerning.  

Keep reading

Judge rules Utah’s redistricting violated rights; orders new maps by 2026

The Utah Legislature violated voters’ rights by approving congressional boundaries that split Salt Lake County, Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled.

She said lawmakers bypassed the independent redistricting commission established by voters and drew maps that unlawfully favored Republicans. The ruling means new congressional maps must be drawn ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Gibson said when Legislators enacted the new Congressional Map in 2021 using HB 2004, it violated the law already established and “cannot lawfully govern future elections in Utah.”

The Legislature has until Sept. 24 to redraw districting lines so they align with the ballot initiative called Proposition 4. The plaintiffs and third parties will also have the opportunity to submit maps, which could be used if the legislature’s maps do not meet the requirements.

Gibson’s ruling is the latest in a saga of court hearings regarding Utah’s congressional districts.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Judge Charged With Helping Illegal Alien Evade ICE Rakes In Nearly $50K In Pay

Suspended while she faces charges for allegedly helping a violent illegal immigrant elude federal law enforcement officials, Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan continues to collect full pay and benefits on the backs of Badger State taxpayers. 

The Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge has raked in $48,997 in pay since the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, according to information obtained through an open records request by The Federalist. Dugan’s biweekly pay rate is $6,712, with an annual salary of $174,512, according to the Wisconsin Court System. 

Meanwhile, Dugan has established a legal defense fund to pay for a high-powered team of lawyers that includes former Solicitor General Paul Clement and former federal prosecutor Steve Biskupic. In its first three weeks, the fund had raised nearly $140,000, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Dugan doesn’t have to report on who gave what until next year, the news outlet reported. 

“Judge Hannah Dugan deserves a full and aggressive defense,” states the fund website, which bills the federal felony charge against her as “the prosecution of America’s independent judiciary.”

‘Denied’

The judge insists that she is immune from prosecution, that she has the right to do as she pleases in her courtroom — apparently up to breaking the law. She argues that the charges should be dropped. 

U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph disagrees. Last month, Joseph found Dugan’s arguments “unconvincing” in recommending Dugan’s motion to dismiss the charges be denied. 

“It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts. This, however, is not a civil case,” the magistrate wrote in her thorough, 37-page decision. “Accordingly, I recommend that Dugan’s motion to dismiss the indictment on judicial immunity grounds be denied.”

Dugan has been charged with felony obstruction and misdemeanor concealing an individual to prevent arrest. She is accused of aiding previously deported illegal immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz’s brief escape from federal law enforcement officials in April while he was appearing in front of Dugan on battery charges. Dugan faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if found guilty. 

As The Federalist has reported, FBI agents arrested Dugan on April 25 at the courthouse, a week after the judge, according to the criminal complaint, misdirected federal agents, delaying them from apprehending Flores-Ruiz. The illegal immigrant was set to appear before Dugan for a pretrial conference on three misdemeanor counts of domestic battery. Flores-Ruiz is expected to be deported again after he serves a federal prison term for violating immigration law, Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate, WISN, reported. 

The criminal complaint states that Dugan was “visibly angry” in confronting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who appeared with an administrative warrant to take the illegal alien into custody. After sending the law enforcement officials to the chief judge’s office, Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz and his legal counsel out of the courtroom through the “jury door,” which leads to a non-public area of the courthouse, according to the charges. 

Keep reading

San Francisco Judge Forces Trump To Keep Funding Sanctuary Cities

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Friday that the Trump administration cannot suspend funding to 34 ‘sanctuary’ cities which limit or refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

US District Judge William Orrick  – a rich kid lawyer appointed by former President Barack Obama to the US District Court for the Northern District of California – ordered the extension of a preliminary injunction barring the administration from blocking funding or placing conditions on federal  funding for those jurisdictions. Orrick also prevented the administration from imposing immigration-related conditions on two particular grant programs. 

The Trump administration initially tried to block funding to dozens of cities and counties over sanctuary city policies – cutting off their Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants due to noncompliance with federal immigration enforcement. 

The protected cities include; Boston, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Baltimore, San Jose, San Diego and others – while major counties covered include Multnomah County in Oregon, which encompasses Portland; Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, which encompasses Pittsburgh; and Hennepin County in Minnesota, which encompasses Minneapolis, the Epoch Times reports, nothing further; 

The Trump administration has ratcheted up pressure on sanctuary communities as it seeks to make good on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to remove millions of people who are in the country illegally.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions. Another order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a list of more than 500 “sanctuary jurisdictions” and said that all of those municipalities and counties would be sent a formal notification deeming them to be noncompliant with the Trump administration’s orders. Those officials would also be informed by DHS on whether they were said to be in violation of any federal laws.

Orrick said in his order that the administration’s decisions to withhold federal funding in those jurisdictions are a “coercive threat” that he deemed to be “unconstitutional.”

Keep reading

Obama Judge Shields Sanctuary Cities From Donald Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Efforts

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration cannot cut funding to 34 cities and counties in response to sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who previously issued an order protecting more than a dozen other jurisdictions, extended a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from pulling federal money or attaching immigration-related conditions to its use.

Keep reading