Tag: judges

The Absurdity Of The Hunter Biden Defamation Case

I have taught torts, including defamation for over 30 years, but I have never seen the like of the Hunter Biden defamation case.

The defendant made defamatory statements and then just refused to appear. That led to an equally bizarre $1.7 million award by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California to Biden, consisting of just $1 in nominal damages and the rest in punitive damages.

Here is the most interesting line of the opinion: “the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation is difficult to calculate.”

It may be the single greatest understatement in the history of judicial opinions.

However, the court also noted “Plaintiff does not seek actual damages above a nominal amount.”

That means that Hunter Biden’s counsel, in a default case, elected not to argue for compensatory damages due to loss of reputation. Why would he do that?

It might be that he has little reputation to lose and that opening up that part of the case was fraught with perils.  However, it also created a potential major appellate issue. His counsel was making it clear that they were litigating purely for punitives.

For Hunter Biden, this is a much-needed windfall. His art sales notably collapsed with the value of currying favor to the Bidens. He is reportedly being pursued by creditors, including former counsel.

The question is whether the award will stand.

For many critics, Hunter Biden is virtually ‘libel proof” as an individual who has no reputation to lose. However, as we have previously discussed, that status is reserved for the most reviled personalities who cannot be defamed due to the lack of any positive reputation.

Judge Wilson, a Reagan appointee, admits in his opinion that determining reputational harm to someone like Biden is difficult to do and further recognizes the argument that “prior tarnishing of Plaintiff’s reputation may reduce the reprehensibility of Defendant’s conduct.”

The case involves a claim by former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne that Biden took part in an $800 million bribery scheme involving Iran and failed to defend his claims in court.

Keep reading

Florida Attorney General Calls to Impeach Judge Who Acquitted Murderous Mother

Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier is working to impeach a judge who acquitted a woman who pleaded insanity after murdering her baby.

Miguel de la O, a Miami-Dade circuit judge, acquitted Precious Bland after she drowned her 15-month-old in 2021, as well as stabbed her husband and another child, per Fox News.

Bland yelled during the incident that “Jesus Christ is coming and COVID is going to kill us all,” her husband told the police.

A police report said “the defendant insisted that everyone needed to be baptized and that she was going to baptize everyone in the bathtub.”

Police found the baby “face down, unresponsive, inside the bathtub filled with bloody water.”

The husband and four children ran out of the residence and called the police.

De la O ultimately acquitted Bland on all three counts she was facing — including one count of manslaughter and two counts of attempted murder in the first degree.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Blocks Release of Audiotapes of Biden’s Conversations with Ghostwriter

A federal appeals court on Friday temporarily blocked the DOJ from releasing 70 hours of Joe Biden’s conversations with his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for the Justice Department to release recordings of Biden’s conversations with his ghostwriter to the Oversight Project.

US District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, said the redactions were sufficient.

Biden’s lawyers immediately requested an injunction pending appeal.

Last month Judge Friedrich stayed her own order pending appeal and gave the DC Circuit Court of Appeals three weeks to make a decision on whether the DOJ can release Biden’s audiotapes.

On Friday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the release of the audiotapes to the Oversight Project for 10 days.

CBS News reported:

A federal appeals court temporarily blocked the Justice Department from turning over to a conservative think tank redacted transcripts and audio recordings of conversations former President Joe Biden had with his biographer roughly a decade ago.

A panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to issue an administrative injunction that stops the release of the material to the Heritage Foundation for 10 days.

The court said in a brief unsigned order that the purpose of its injunction, which expires at 11:59 p.m. on July 20, is to “give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

The recordings at issue in the legal fight date back to 2016 and 2017, when Biden sat down with his biographer, Mark Zwonitzer, for his memoir, “Promise Me, Dad.” But they gained interest from the Heritage Foundation several years later following an investigation by former special counsel Robert Hur into Biden’s handling of sensitive government records after his vice presidency, which ended in 2017. The former president was not charged with any crimes stemming from Hur’s investigation.

Robert Hur in February 2024 released a 345-page report on his investigation of the stolen classified documents.

Robert Hur found that Joe Biden “willfully retained” classified information, however, he decided not to charge him. Hur said there is evidence Biden retained classified notebooks, “knowing he was not allowed to do so.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Orders DHS Not To Obey Order From Another Judge

A federal judge on July 8 said the Trump administration must not comply with an order from another federal judge and must continue to have key functions of an immigration database disabled.

Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said that officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies shall keep disabled the ability to look up Social Security numbers and carry out mass uploads in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.

Sooknanan ordered the Trump administration in June to disable the features, finding that recent updates to the database violated privacy laws by disclosing Americans’ Social Security numbers and other sensitive information.

Sooknanan said on July 8 that arguments from the government in favor of pausing her previous order were unpersuasive, including the argument that highlighted a July 7 ruling from Judge T. Kent Wetherell II of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida that ordered DHS to enable the functions for four states under a 2025 settlement that he had approved.

Wetherell had noted that he could have waited until the case in Washington proceeded, but that the four states had presented “unrebutted evidence showing that they are suffering real and concrete harm every day that passes without the disabled features of the SAVE system.”

He said that Sooknanan could have deferred to his previous determination that the functions were lawful, which was reached, he said, in part because the Social Security Act does not preclude disclosing Social Security numbers for immigration enforcement.

Sooknanan disagreed, describing Wetherell as having “erred in significant ways,” including by reaching a decision on the merits in the case without opinions from parties outside the federal and state governments that oppose the governments’ position.

Sooknanan said that settlements may warrant reexamination and that she acted properly by enjoining DHS from allowing officials to use the new features introduced in 2025 despite the existence of the settlement.

Even if Wetherell’s ruling ends up holding, the settlement is only with DHS, not the Social Security Administration (SSA), and only with four states, the judge wrote, so it would not prompt a stay of her earlier order with respect to the other 46 states.

DHS, which had declined to comment on Wetherell’s decision, did not return a request for comment on Sooknanan’s ruling by the time of publication.

The four states have not reacted to the competing rulings.

Keep reading

Canadian court says deaf man, 34, accused of child sex offenses is free to rape and murder because he has never been taught to communicate and thus cannot fairly be tried

A deaf man who was never taught to communicate cannot be fairly tried in court over accusations of child sex offences because it would violate his rights, a Canadian court says. 

Kendal Longclaws, 34, faced eight sexual offences after three complaints in 2021, but his inability to communicate spared him from trial and possible prosecution. 

Longclaws, of the Ermineskin Cree Nation, south of Edmonton, grew up on an isolated farm. He was left unable to read, use a phone, understand a calendar or utter more than a few words.

When he was accused of sexual crimes, including sexual interference and sexual assault, he was unaware of what was happening, the National Post reported. 

Two of his alleged victims were said to have been attacked between 2012 and 2016, with the third in 2021. Some of Longclaws’ alleged victims were children, according to the outlet. 

Due to his inability to communicate and understand his charges, the courts in Alberta ruled that prosecution or even a mental fitness assessment would violate his charter rights. 

In 2025, King’s Bench Justice Debra Yungwirth halted the only attempt to give Longclaws a trial before it began, stating that the case could not be legally handled. 

Yungwirth noted several reasons, including Longclaws need for an interpreter – but as he couldn’t understand English, and spoke no actual language, it would be impossible to communicate to him and honor this Charter right, the Post reported. 

Keep reading

Radical Trump-Hating Clinton Judge Orders Trump to Pay E Jean Carroll $5 Million

Radical leftist Judge Lewis Kaplan on Wednesday ordered President Trump to pay E Jean Carroll $5 million – plus interest – after the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s bid to toss the sexual abuse case.

Judge Kaplan mentored E. Jean Carrol’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation) when they worked together previously at a law firm.

A Manhattan jury previously reached a verdict in the E. Jean Carroll rape/defamation case and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million.

In 2019, E. Jean Carroll alleged Donald Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990’s.

Trump has denied the allegations and called E. Jean Carroll a “whack job” who’s “not my type.”

Carroll previously said ‘rape is sexy’ and a ‘fantasy’ – CNN’s Anderson Cooper was so disturbed he cut to a commercial break.

Keep reading

Elite Judge Sets Tiny Fine for Elite Judge Who Helped Illegal Immigrant Escape ICE

The Democrat-nominated judge who helped an illegal migrant escape from her Wisconsin courtroom has been given a wet-kiss penalty by a judge who used to be a top Democratic politician in the state.

District Judge Lynn Adelman fined Judge Hannah Dugan just $5,000 as he excused her April 2025 crime: “An otherwise good person, upset by immigration enforcement in this country — a view widely shared — made a bad decision in the moment.”

The slap-on-the-wrist penalty comes amid a wave of murder by illegal migrants, and amid the massive economic dislocation to American families caused by migrants’ willingness to work for very low wages.

The “punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime,” Adelman, the former Democratic Speaker in the state legislature, told the courtroom.

The judge’s statement also rejects the electoral mandate for immigration enforcement earned by populist President Donald Trump from the citizens of the United States in the 2024 general election.

Dugan — a former advocate for more migration — was unapologetic about the crime, saying: “I have been cast as both a scofflaw and as a hero… I am a public servant who was just trying to do my job,” according to the UrbanMilwaukee.com report. The report added:

Dugan told the court that she intends to return to serving the public and her community. She explained her motivation to serve by quoting President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, calling for citizens to take action to preserve and further democracy: “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work.”

“For someone who has dedicated her life to the law, this [trial] amounts to significant punishment regardless of what I do today,” Adelman told Dugan and the court.

Keep reading

Arizona Supreme Court Delivers Crushing Blow to Maricopa Board of Supervisors

The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a crushing blow to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors when it ended a Court of Appeals stay and reinstated a superior court’s injunctions, with modifications, that returned election-administration responsibilities of the county’s elections back to the County Recorder, Justin Heap.

The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals stay from June and reinstated with modifications the “superior court injunctions governing the allocation of election-administration responsibilities between the Maricopa County Recorder and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.”

According to the Supreme Court’s News Release:

The dispute concerns which county office has the authority to perform election duties that Arizona statutes assign to “the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections.” Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap argued that those duties belong to the Recorder or to an officer designated by the Recorder.

The Board of Supervisors argued that its budgetary and administrative authority permitted it to assign those functions to a Board-appointed elections director.

The Court concluded that the Recorder is likely to prevail on the statutory interpretation issue. Relying on Arizona precedent, the Court explained that a county board of supervisors may not use its funding authority to assume or reassign statutory responsibilities entrusted to an independently elected county officer.

The Court reaffirmed that the Board has a nondiscretionary duty to fund the Recorder’s necessary expenses and may not use budgetary control to displace duties assigned by law to the Recorder or to an officer acting under the Recorder’s authority.

The Court also addressed election timing concerns. It recognized that courts should exercise caution before altering election procedures close to an election, particularly while early voting for the 2026 Primary Election is underway. However, it concluded that those concerns do not replace Arizona’s stay analysis or determine which official has legal authority under Arizona law.

To minimize disruption, the Court reinstated the superior court’s injunctions, as modified by the Recorder’s 12-point interim operational protocol.

Those temporary procedures are intended to preserve continuity during the ongoing Primary Election while the appeal proceeds. The Court also stated that either party may seek further interim modifications from the Court of Appeals.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Subpoena 2020 Fulton County Election Workers

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to subpoena 2020 Fulton County election workers.

Earlier this year the FBI raided the Fulton County election office.

The Justice Department also issued subpoenas for information on all 2020 election workers from Fulton County.

The records include those who were performing the following functions and duties:

  • Individuals assigned to review Mail-In Ballots
  • Individuals assigned to the Voter Review Panel/Board
  • Individuals assigned to Mobile Voting Locations
  • Individuals assigned to transfer results to or from media or transport ballots, ballot stock, or media
  • Individuals employed or contracted by the Fulton Board of Registrations and Elections
  • Individuals who worked or volunteered for the Risk Limiting Audit
  • Individuals who worked or volunteered for the Recount
  • Individuals who served as precinct managers and assistant managers

On Tuesday, US District Judge William Ray, a Trump appointee, quashed the subpoenas.

Judge Ray said the grand jury subpoena was unreasonable.

Keep reading

Trump-Appointed Federal Judge SMASHES Ruling by Foreign-Born Activist Judge — REINSTATES Critical Voter System to Root Out Illegal Alien Voters

The radical Left’s desperate scheme to flood American elections with illegal non-citizen votes just hit a massive, Trump-shaped brick wall in Florida.

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida has OVERRULED a highly controversial order by a far-left, foreign-born activist judge in Washington D.C., officially REINSTATING President Donald Trump’s powerhouse election security system.

The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system upgrades, which allow patriot states to instantly screen voter rolls and purge illegal aliens, is back online.

Last March, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at preserving and protecting the integrity of US elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” Trump’s executive order said.

“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error. Yet the United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote,” Trump said.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, on June 22, 2026, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued her 75-page crackpot ruling blocking the Trump Administration’s common-sense updates to the SAVE database.

Keep reading