Tag: judges

Biden Judge Shocks, Dismisses Case Against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, Blasts DOJ

A federal judge ended the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Wednesday.

US District Judge Dale Ho, a Biden appointee, sent shockwaves after he dropped the DOJ’s case against Eric Adams.

Judge Ho previously declined to dismiss the case and said he would be appointing outside counsel to look into the Justice Department’s decision to drop the charges.

The DOJ wanted to drop the federal charges against Adams without prejudice which means they could refile them in the future. Judge Ho dismissed the case without prejudice and ended the case permanently.

Judge Ho also blasted Trump’s DOJ officials and accused them of a quid pro quo.

“Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions,” judge Ho wrote in his order.

“Taking a step back from the particulars of this case, DOJ’s immigration enforcement rationale is both unprecedented and breathtaking in its sweep,” the judge wrote, according to NBC News.

“DOJ cites no examples, and the Court is unable to find any, of the government dismissing charges against an elected official because doing so would enable the official to facilitate federal policy goals,” he said.

Adams was recently indicted on charges including wire fraud, bribery and conspiracy out of the Southern District of New York, becoming the first sitting New York City mayor to face criminal prosecution.

According to federal prosecutors, Adams accepted $10 million in illegal “straw” campaign contributions and bribes from foreign countries, including Turkey, Israel, China, Qatar, South Korea, and Uzbekistan, going back nearly a decade.

“For nearly a decade, Adams sought and accepted improper valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel, including from wealthy foreign businesspeople and at least one Turkish government official seeking to gain influence over him,” the indictment reads.

In February, the Trump Justice Department moved to drop federal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Keep reading

Judge Rejects Anti-Defamation League’s Third Attempt to Halt $25M Defamation Suit

The Gateway Pundit reported on disabled Navy veteran John Sabal’s defamation suit against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Sabal, who organizes patriotic festivals and has never been arrested, alleges that the ADL defamed him when it published his name in the ADL Center on Extremism’s “Glossary of Extremism and Hate.”

The Glossary ONLY names 295 people, many of them notorious terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Dylann Roof, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, ‘an al Qaeda member and the mastermind of the 9/11 terror attack,’ the Glossary reminds us.”

On March 31, 2025, The Honorable Reed O’Connor, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, rejected the ADL’s latest efforts to stop Sabal’s suit.

Judge O’Connor quoted well-known case law in his ruling, stating that the mere fact that a disgruntled litigant intends to inevitably appeal does not create an exceptional case warranting a mid-suit appeal, and the law depended on by the ADL in its motion is “not a vehicle to question the correctness of a district court’s ruling or to obtain a second, more favorable opinion.”

“The ADL’s latest effort to delay John Sabal’s defamation suit has failed, as the court denied the ADL’s attempt for a mid-suit appeal and stay of proceedings based on a claim that Sabal is a public figure.  In keeping with fine federal court tradition, this case will still be heard as scheduled in July,” said Warren V. Norred, of NORRED LAW.

The ruling marks the third strike for the ADL’s defense team, which has now attempted and failed to stop the suit on three occasions.

In his four-page ruling, Judge O’Connor wrote, “For the foregoing reasons,  the court denies Defendant’s Motion to Certify an Immediate Appeal (ECF No. 66).  Because the Court does not certify an immediate appeal, the Court also denies Defendant’s Motion to Stay depending an appeal.”

This case has been ongoing for over a year, and discovery has concluded.  NORRED LAW was asked to step in after the ADL sought summary judgment and was unsuccessful.

Judge O’Connor’s order on that motion carefully evaluated Mr. Sabal’s complaint, dismissed his claims regarding injurious falsehood, upheld his claim that the ADL defamed him by including him in its “Glossary of Extremism and Hate,” and suggested that he is a “dangerous, extremist threat, and even a criminal.”

Judge O’Connor also preserved Sabal’s claim regarding the ADL’s report, “Hate in the Lone Star State.”

A trial date has been set for July 16, 2025.

Keep reading

The Swirling Vortex Of Weaponized Lawfare

Like a bad ‘When a chicken walked into a pub’ type of joke, when activist litigants walk into a courtroom and meet injunction-happy judges, the result is a swirling vortex of weaponised lawfare. In discussing the current jurisdictional kerfuffle between the US federal executive and judiciary, I find it impossible to overlook the total failure of the courts to protect people’s rights, dignity, and liberty under comprehensive assault from the administrative state during the Covid years. I accept the possibility that this may colour my judgment on the controversy.

It has become sadly obvious in recent years that the gravest threat to the theory and practice of democracy is not the rise of populism with wannabe fascists and neo-Nazis as their seductive tribunes, but technocratic elites with barely concealed disdain for the political beliefs and voting behaviour of the ‘deplorables.’ Moreover, as the firewalls of resistance to populist advance crumble one by one under assault from enraged voters, the final frontier of elite resistance is the courts. The legal clerisy—lawyers, law professors, and judges—is part of the ruling elite and the last line of defence for safeguarding victories already won by social justice warriors in their long march through the institutions.

Judicial Fallibility

Unlike every other profession, is the judiciary infallible? Clearly not, else they would not have been complicit in the biggest violation ever of people’s liberties and freedoms during the Covid years. Every country with a credible rule of law every so often overturns wrongful convictions from the past. Among the best-known Australian examples are those of Lindy Chamberlain and Cardinal George Pell.

As a corollary, are judges individually infallible and free of any influence of personal prejudices, beliefs, and life experiences? Again, clearly not. If they were, then in every single verdict heard by a bench of judges, verdicts would be unanimous and we could save considerable time and expense by dispensing with layers of appeal. From Australia consider the case of Cardinal Pell once again. He was convicted by jury verdict, the conviction was upheld 2-1 by the state appeals court, but overturned unanimously by the High Court of Australia (our apex court). Same laws, same evidence, different judgments.

Is every judge a paragon of judicial integrity and competence? Not so. A few are corrupt or guilty of other acts of malfeasance. Many more, I suspect, are incompetent rather than dishonest or corrupt. Mechanisms for acknowledging incompetence are fewer and less frequently invoked than for detecting and punishing corruption and malfeasance. Yet, even the latter cannot always be relied upon.

There is an interesting scandal playing out in India even now. On the night of 14 March, the official residence of a judge of the Delhi High Court,  Justice Yashwant Varma, went up in flames. Firefighters and police officers who rushed to deal with the conflagration discovered jute sacks of burnt-out cash. The Police Commissioner got in touch with the chief justice of Delhi High Court on the 15th to apprise him of developments, who in turn communicated the information to the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Justice of India established a three-judge panel to probe the matter and its report, which has been uploaded online (with redactions) in the interests of transparency given the intense public interest, substantiates that there are grounds for a full and proper inquiry. Justice Varma meanwhile has been transferred to another high court (against the protest of that court’s bar association) pending further investigations and action.

The hint of corruption would very likely have gone entirely undiscovered but for the fortuitous fire in the judge’s house. This in itself is an indictment of the inadequacy of oversight mechanisms for judges.

A final preliminary question: Unlike all other branches of government, is the judiciary collectively and are judges individually magically incapable of judicial overreach and in need of being put back in their lane? I suppose that such a perfect distribution of relative self-discipline among the branches of government is possible but, being an old cynic, forgive my scepticism. Not all judges have the necessary self-awareness and strength of character to avoid the temptation to abuse their powers and authority. On the contrary, the legal profession has a collective self-interest to expand the reach of its authority over all other sectors and, conversely, to protect itself from pushback by others.

A follow-up question is: How can the slow and deliberative process of judicial decision-making be reconciled with the need for sometimes urgent action by the executive? The judiciary is habituated into its own sequence and pace of actions. Thus for judges, the ultimate acquittal of Cardinal Pell by the High Court of Australia was a triumph of judicial institutions and process. To ordinary mortals, the process itself was a harsh punishment, and the 405 days that the aging cardinal spent behind bars was a damning miscarriage of justice.

In other words, from the date of his indictment in June 2017 through two jury trials, a first failed appeal, the final successful appeal, release from prison in April 2020, and death in January 2023 still unable to fully cleanse the taint of paedophilia, more than half of Cardinal Pell’s remaining time on earth was under malicious trial and punishment by a cadre of anti-Catholic Church activists out for blood. The nation demanded a scapegoat for the Catholic clergy’s historical sexual abuse of children. I write this not just as a non-Christian but as an atheist.

Keep reading

ICE Arrests Illegal Alien Outside Boston Courtroom as City Defies Feds – Now Judge Slaps Agent with Contempt

A Boston judge has held a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in contempt for executing his duty to detain an illegal immigrant during an ongoing trial.

On Thursday, March 27, 2025, ICE agents, ICE agent Brian Sullivan apprehended Wilson Martell-Lebron, a Dominican national illegally residing in the United States, as he exited the Boston Municipal Court.

Martell-Lebron, a Dominican national residing illegally in the country using fake identity, was on his second trial for charges related to falsifying information on a driver’s license application.

Despite the gravity of his alleged offenses, Boston’s lenient policies had allowed him to remain free until ICE agents, led by Agent Brian Sullivan, apprehended him outside the courthouse.

But instead of applause for upholding our borders, a Massachusetts state court judge—yet another cog in the radical left’s sanctuary machine—had the gall to hold an ICE agent in contempt.

Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville held Agent Sullivan in contempt, accusing him of violating Martell-Lebron’s so-called rights to due process and a fair trial.

Keep reading

Radical Biden-Appointed Judge Sides with Illegal Aliens, Blocks Trump Administration’s Effort to End Taxpayer-Funded Legal Aid for Illegal Alien Minors

Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín has once again chosen open borders over American taxpayers, issuing a temporary restraining order late Tuesday to block the Trump administration’s commonsense move to defund legal representation for unaccompanied illegal alien minors.

At the heart of the controversy is a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decision—aligned with Trump-era priorities—to terminate contracts that funneled millions of dollars to left-wing immigration groups under the guise of helping “unaccompanied minors.”

In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to identify and eliminate programs providing financial benefits to individuals without legal status. This order also sought to prevent federal funds from supporting “sanctuary” policies at state and local levels.

As a result, HHS and its Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), issued a cancellation order to the Acacia Center for Justice, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.

Last week, the Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Social Justice Collaborative, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Estrella del Paso, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, National Immigrant Justice Center, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, and Vermont Asylum Assistance Project sued the HHS.

These groups whined to the court that HHS’s decision to terminate their gravy train of federal funds would leave them unable to bankroll lawyers for unaccompanied migrant kids. Apparently, they think American taxpayers should foot the bill for every border-jumper’s day in court.

Judge Martinez-Olguin, a known far-left darling tapped by Biden in 2023, didn’t hesitate to flex her activist muscles.

Keep reading

Judge Who Granted P Diddy Win in His Case Rules Against Kari Lake Saving Taxpayers Money

A federal Judge in New York has halted the White House and US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) advisor Kari Lake’s efforts to deliver government efficiency to the leftwing agency that oversees the government’s international broadcaster, Voice of America.

Obama appointee James Paul Oetken was the first openly gay man to be confirmed as a federal judge in 2011. Earlier this week, he dismissed racketeering allegations in a $30 million sexual assault lawsuit against rapper P. Diddy involving allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and sex trafficking.

On Friday, he granted a temporary restraining order, enjoining them from implementing the President’s March 14 executive order, titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.”

This comes after a lawsuit by from six leftist VOA reporters backed by Reporters Without Borders and several labor unions, who alleged First Amendment violations over attempts to dismantle the broadcasting agency by firing current staff members.

According to the New York Times, “A separate lawsuit, brought by the director of Voice of America, Michael Abramowitz, is also pending.”

Keep reading

Lawless Judge Amy Berman Jackson BLOCKS Dismantling of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – District Courts Are Gutting Executive Branch of Power

On Friday, radical far-left Judge Amy Berman Jackson blocked the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She is one of the rogue district judges who is stripping power from the executive branch.

Berman Jackson, like many of her Obama-appointed peers, has worked day and night to torment and harass Republicans and Trump supporters through her power as a District Court Judge.

In February, after the Trump administration gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Berman Jackson temporarily halted the mass firings. Berman Jackson also ordered defendants to preserve all of their data and records. Berman Jackson believes she knows better what is good for America.

In February, Elon Musk’s DOGE team entered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau headquarters – and staffers were “mad as hell.”

As Cristina Laila reported earlier – President Trump began cleaning house earlier this month after he fired Rohit Chopra, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Rohit Chopra was a toxic Biden holdover who previously threatened banks that refused to give credit lines and loans to illegal aliens.

Now, this rogue judge is blocking the dismantling of this corrupt government body.

Keep reading

Judge Who Upheld Block Of Trump’s Deportation Flights Is A Major Dem Donor

The federal judge who upheld the injunction blocking the Trump administration’s expedited removal of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members has a history of partisan political activity, both donating to and volunteering for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

United States Circuit Judge Patricia Millett has maintained the injunction against President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, preventing the president from using the law to expedite the deportation of alleged criminal Venezuelan illegal aliens connected to Tren de Aragua, a foreign terror organization. The Trump administration is now asking the Supreme Court to decide on the case.

Federal Election Commission filings indicate that Millett was a prolific donor to Democrats, including Obama, from 2008 to 2012. Millett gave more than $31,000 to Democrat politicians and the party itself, supporting Obama’s presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s run in 2008, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the Democratic National Committee, and the Fairfax County Democratic Committee, among others.

Millett — who charged that “Nazis got better treatment” than deported illegal aliens — also volunteered for Obama’s 2008 campaign, noting in a Judiciary Committee questionnaire that she provided the campaign with “legal assistance to the Voter Protection Teams for Ohio and New Hampshire, including preparing for potential election challenges.”

Millett’s appointment was supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a left-wing organization that supports amnesty for illegal aliens, called America’s public safety system, “at odds with our shared values of fairness, equity, and justice,” and advocates in favor of the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement.

Millett’s ruling upholds the injunction issued by United States District Court Judge James Boasberg, another Obama appointee. Boasberg has a history of stonewalling Trump’s efforts while his wife has engaged in overtly partisan activity, The Daily Wire reported.

Boasberg issued a ruling in 2018 that limited the administration’s ability to detain migrant families who had entered the country, hindering Trump’s attempt to disincentivize illegal immigration by limiting the issuance of parole.

Keep reading

Meta Complies with Brazilian Court Order While Challenging Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s Demand for Journalist’s Instagram Data

Meta has launched a legal challenge against a ruling by controversial Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who compelled the tech giant to disclose data tied to the Instagram account of journalist Allan dos Santos. Though raising objections to the judge’s rationale, Meta affirmed it would still comply — at least for now.

The company confirmed it will deliver the requested data in a confidential filing, stating, “In compliance with the order and demonstrating good faith, Meta Platforms will provide the requested data, in a separate confidential procedure, within the period granted.”

Justice Alexandre de Moraes consistently stirs controversy with his heavy-handed censorship tactics, like banning social media accounts and blocking platforms such as Telegram and X when they defy him. Critics slam him for trampling free speech, overreaching his role, and acting like a one-man judge-jury-executioner, especially against Bolsonaro allies, while his clash with Elon Musk over X’s compliance has fueled accusations of authoritarianism.

The demand, issued last week, also targeted platform X, requiring both companies to provide the Federal Police with detailed information on Santos’s accounts within ten days — under threat of a R$100,000 ($17,362) daily fine for delay or refusal. The data request is broad, seeking registration details, IP addresses, and post content from mid-2024 through early 2025.

Keep reading

Meet The Democrat Donor Judge Hamstringing Trump’s Military ‘Trans’ Policy

It’s another day that ends in “y,” which means another Democrat-appointed federal judge is attempting to unilaterally kneecap President Donald Trump’s administration.

On Monday, Christine O’Hearn, a New Jersey-based district court judge, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the U.S. Air Force from “initiating involuntary separation proceedings” for two branch members who proclaim to be transgender. The lawsuit from the service members came in response to a Jan. 27 executive order by Trump and subsequent Pentagon directives to effectively develop the process of removing trans-identifying troops from the armed forces.

In granting the request for a TRO, O’Hearn, a Biden appointee, opined that the plaintiffs “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the Orders, at a minimum, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Equally notable, however, is her complaint that the executive branch — which is constitutionally authorized to dictate U.S. military policy — did not provide her (a lower court judge) “any compelling justification whatsoever” for why it’s implementing the president’s directives regarding trans-identifying troops in the service.

“As discussed above, Plaintiffs face severe personal and professional harm absent a preliminary injunction. In contrast, Defendants have not demonstrated any compelling justification whatsoever for immediate implementation of the Orders, particularly since transgender persons have been openly serving in the military for a number of years,” O’Hearn wrote.

The U.S. Senate confirmed O’Hearn in a 53-44 vote on Oct. 19, 2021. GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Democrats in supporting her nomination.

O’Hearn is the second federal district judge to stymie the president’s military “trans” policy with an arbitrary court order. The first came last week in the form of a preliminary injunction from D.C. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee and major Democrat donor.

O’Hearn’s activism from the bench hardly makes her an anomaly among other rogue lower court judges on board with greenlighting leftists’ lawfare against Trump — and neither does her affinity for Democrat politics.

Keep reading