Tag: judges

Black Privilege: Canadian Judge Reduces Sex Offender’s Sentence Over Race

A former university football player who choked a woman until she was almost unconscious and forced another one to give him a blowjob was given a reduced sentence by a Canadian judge of just two years in prison because he’s black and was ‘feeling intense pressure’ at the time of the attacks.

“It should be noted that but, for the contents of the Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA), the pre-sentence report and all the mitigating factors surrounding Omogbolahan (Teddy) Jegede, this sentence would have been much higher,” Justice Frank Hoskins said in his Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision last Wednesday, the National Post reports. 

The author of an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment, a report funded under a new initiative from the Trudeau Liberals, wrote that Jegede was feeling intense pressure around the time of the assaults and did not have culturally appropriate support to turn to.

Of note, IRCAs are relatively new in Canadian law – and have become popular thanks to an initiative which began under the Justin Trudeau liberals. 

The attacks happened in 2022 and 2023 at residences at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, N.S. – with one woman testifying that Jegede choked her, and the other testifying that she was forced to perform oral sex. Both women said they were physically dominated by Jegede, who is much larger than they are. 

In addition to his two-year jail sentence, Hoskins added three years of probation – which can be reduced if Jegede makes significant progress in counseling. 

The Crown had requested a sentence of up to 36 months, while Jegede’s defense asked the judge to reduce his sentence to community service. 

“In my view, this is a case where the need for denunciation is so pressing the incarceration is the only civil way in which to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Jegede’s conduct,” said Hoskins, noting that Jegede came from a strong, church-going family with strict parents that had stable careers. The now-convicted sex offender told the court that he grew up feeling loved by his family. 

He then began a degree in kinetics at St.FX, however those studies were interrupted by his sex crimes and subsequent charges. 

Jegede was born in Lagos, Nigeria and immigrated to Canada in 2010. His mother said that the transition to Canada was a significant adjustment for the family, and their youngest son “experienced bullying in elementary school due to his accent and racial identity as a black child.”

Keep reading

Indicted Democrat Judge Seeks Reelection as Texas Vote-Harvesting Case Expands

In Frio County, Texas, a suspended county judge facing multiple felony election-fraud charges has decided to seek reelection—not after exoneration, not after trial, but while under indictment and barred from office without pay. 

The decision is legally permissible, but the implications are far more troubling.

On Dec. 5, Rochelle Lozano Camacho filed paperwork to run again for Frio County judge. 

The filing came just days before the state’s Dec. 8 primary deadline and months before her next court appearance, scheduled for March 12, 2026—nine days after Texas primary voters cast their ballots.

Camacho is currently suspended from office by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct following her May 2025 arrest in one of the most expansive vote-harvesting prosecutions in recent Texas history. 

According to indictments returned by a Frio County grand jury, Camacho faces three felony counts of vote harvesting, stemming from a two-year investigation led by the office of Ken Paxton.

The suspension order is unambiguous. 

Camacho is barred from exercising judicial authority and is receiving no compensation until her criminal case is resolved, dismissed, or reconsidered by the commission. 

Yet under Texas election law, suspension does not prohibit a candidate from seeking reelection. Camacho has chosen to exploit that gap.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Texas App Store Digital ID Age Verification Law, Citing First Amendment Violations

A new Texas statute aimed at inserting the state into routine decisions about app downloads has been stopped at the courthouse door, at least for now.

A federal judge ruled days before the law’s scheduled launch that its design collides with the First Amendment and cannot be enforced while the case moves forward.

Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking Senate Bill 2420, the Texas App Store Accountability Act, which was set to take effect on January 1.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The law would have required app stores to verify every user’s age (which would mean digital ID checks or biometric scans) and forced minors to obtain parental approval before downloading apps or buying in-app content.

In a detailed written ruling, Pitman concluded the statute is both constitutionally defective and structurally unworkable.

“The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book,” he wrote.

He added that “when considered on the merits, SB 2420 violates the First Amendment.”

SB 2420 does not target a narrow category of online services. It applies to nearly every app store and app developer operating in Texas, bringing in news outlets, streaming platforms, educational tools, fitness apps, and digital libraries alongside social media and games.

Under the statute, developers must assign state-defined age ratings, explain the reasoning behind each rating, and report significant changes to content or features.

Keep reading

Judge Finally Allows Access to Fulton County 2020 Physical Ballots and Related Documents

It has been 1,071 days since the Georgia Supreme Court remanded the VoterGA.org lawsuit back to the lower courts after determining Garland Favorito’s voter integrity group did, in fact, have standing.  That lawsuit was asking the court to unseal the physical paper ballots and allow inspection.

Last year, the Georgia State Election Board also sought to unseal the physical paper ballots when it issued a subpoena to Fulton County demanding the ballots, ballot stubs, envelopes, and digital images.  Fulton County’s Board of Registration and Elections, without a vote from the board, filed a lawsuit challenging that subpoena.

Today, Judge Robert McBurney granted the State Election Board access to the physical ballots and related documents; however, the Board would be on the hook for the estimated $400,000 in “document costs,” as estimated by the county.

Fulton County has until January 7th to provide the State Election Board with the estimated costs.

Fox 5 Atlanta reported:

As 2025 draws to a close, there is no end in sight to the prolonged legal challenges surrounding Fulton County’s 2020 presidential election.

Last year, the Republican-led Georgia Election Board reopened an investigation into Fulton County’s handling of the 2020 election.

On Friday, they scored a court victory.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney’s decision grants the election board access to Fulton County’s 2020 ballots and related documents.

Fulton County Chairman Rob Pitts seemed irritated with the decision, telling FOX 5, “This nonsense has to stop at some point.  I assured the public then, reassure the public today, those elections are open and fair and transparent, and every vote was counted.”

This decision from Judge McBurney comes as Fulton County admitted to the State Election Board that it was missing signatures from poll managers on poll tapes for more than 315,000 ballots.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Upholds New York’s Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to New York’s Green Light Law, upholding the state’s issuance of driver’s licenses to individuals without requiring proof of legal U.S. residency.

U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci in Albany determined that the Trump administration, which challenged the law under President Donald Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, failed to back its claims that the state law usurps federal law or that it unlawfully regulates or unlawfully discriminates against the federal government.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit against the state over the law in February, naming Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, as defendants.

“As I said from the start, our laws protect the rights of all New Yorkers and keep our communities safe,” James said in a statement on Dec. 19. “I will always stand up for New Yorkers and the rule of law.”

Nardacci stated that her job was not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter. Rather, she said in a 23-page opinion, it was to assess whether the Trump administration’s arguments established that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which grants federal laws precedence over state laws.

The administration, she wrote, has “failed to state such a claim.”

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks President Trump’s Attempt to Strip Security Clearance From Deep State Lawyer Mark Zaid

A federal judge on Tuesday evening blocked President Trump’s attempt to strip the security clearance of Deep State lawyer Mark Zaid.

US District Judge, Amir Ali, said Trump’s attempt to strip the security clearance from Mark Zaid may violate the US Constitution.

Recall that Mark Zaid represented Eric Ciaramella, the Trump-Ukraine impeachment ‘whistleblower.’

Zaid also represents intelligence officials and other Deep State actors.

Earlier this year, President Trump stripped the security clearances of at least eight corrupt ‘antagonists’ who worked for Biden or targeted him for ruin over the last several years:

  • Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken
  • Former NatSec Advisor Jake Sullivan
  • New York Attorney General Letitia James
  • Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg
  • Biden’s Deputy AG Lisa Monaco
  • Corrupt prosecutor Andrew Weissmann
  • Deep State lawyer Mark Zaid
  • Norm Eisen – the man behind all the lawfare against Trump

“Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden “disinformation” letter. The President’s Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden,” Tulsi Gabbard announced on X in March.

Keep reading

Judge rules against UCLA prof suspended after refusing lenient grading for black students

A judge has issued a tentative decision against a professor who sued UCLA after he was suspended in the wake of the George Floyd-Black Lives Matter riots after refusing a request to grade black students leniently.

Superior Court Judge H. Jay Ford’s recent ruling against UCLA accounting lecturer Gordon Klein sides with UCLA on all three causes of action: breach of contract, false light, and negligent interference with prospective earnings. 

Klein’s legal team has filed an appeal, and Judge Ford is scheduled to consider that request, or enter a decision finalizing his tentative ruling, at a hearing scheduled for Jan. 9. 

If the judge does not amend his tentative ruling, Klein will receive nothing in a case in which he sought a $13 million dollar award, alleging the university and a former UCLA business school dean destroyed his lucrative expert witness practice when it publicly suspended him. 

“It’s a bloodbath against Klein. It rewards him nothing,” said documentarian Rob Montz in a documentary on the controversy he published last week first reporting on Ford’s Dec. 1 ruling titled “When a Professor Took His Cancellation to Trial.”

“No punitive damages, no compensatory damages,” Montz said. “Gordon doesn’t get a dollar.”

Klein, who has now taught at UCLA for about 45 years, argued in his lawsuit he averaged about $1 million annually as an expert witness in many high-profile corporate cases. 

But he argued his suspension meant he would have to disclose that administrative punishment, hurting his credibility with jurors and effectively making him undesirable as an expert witness. 

Ford, in his 30-page ruling, agrees UCLA had the contractual right to place Klein on administrative leave while it investigated the massive controversy surrounding Klein’s email to a student rejecting his request to grade black students leniently and the viral uproar it created. 

“UCLA had the right to determine what public response was necessary to address and mitigate the immediate [and] extraordinary public outrage toward both Klein and UCLA arising from the public disclosure of Klein’s email,” Ford wrote.

Keep reading

Trump-Appointed Judge Threatens Government With Contempt After ICE Detains Illegal Immigrant in Filthy Long Island Facility

A federal judge appointed by President Trump has delivered a blistering condemnation of U.S. immigration authorities, going so far as to threaten the government with contempt of court.

U.S. District Judge Gary Brown, appointed to the bench by Trump in 2019, issued a 24-page ruling excoriating the Department of Homeland Security for what he described as “putrid and cramped” conditions under which Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained an illegal immigrant on Long Island.

Brown warned that ICE could face contempt of court after repeatedly ignoring judicial orders and holding a detainee overnight in a cramped, filthy holding cell never designed for long-term confinement.

The case centers on Erron Anthony Clarke, a Jamaican national, who entered the United States legally in 2018 on an H-2B work visa. After overstaying the visa, which is illegal, Clarke married a U.S. citizen in 2023 and applied for permanent residency earlier this year.

Clarke was detained by ICE on December 5, along with eight other men, who were confined for days at a time in a small “hold room” at the Central Islip Federal Courthouse.

That cell, Judge Brown noted, was designed to hold one person briefly, not to warehouse nine men for days on end.

The conditions described were:

  • No beds, bunks, or mattresses
  • Detainees forced to sleep on a filthy concrete floor
  • An open toilet in the center of the room with no privacy
  • No showers, soap, toothbrushes, or clean clothing
  • Lights left on 24 hours a day
  • Freezing temperatures at night, with outside lows near 21 degrees

Judge Brown noted that the facility was explicitly barred by deed from housing detainees overnight. On December 11, Brown ruled Clarke’s detention violated due process and ordered his immediate release.

Keep reading

Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan Found GUILTY of Obstruction For Helping Illegal Alien Evade ICE Agents – Faces 5 Years in Prison

Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan on Thursday evening was found guilty of obstruction for helping an illegal alien evade ICE agents.

Dugan was acquitted of count 1 – the misdemeanor but she was found guilty on count 2 – the felony obstruction.

She is facing five years in prison.

AP reported:

A jury found a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a Mexican immigrant dodge federal authorities guilty of obstruction Thursday, marking a victory for President Donald Trump as he continues his sweeping immigration crackdown across the country.

Federal prosecutors charged Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan with obstruction, a felony, and concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, in April. The jury acquitted her on the concealment count, but she still faces up to five years in prison on the obstruction count.

The jury returned the verdicts after deliberating for six hours.

Dugan and her attorneys left the courtroom, ducked into a side conference room and closed the door without speaking to reporters.

In April, a federal grand jury indicted Hannah Dugan for helping an illegal alien evade ICE agents.

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Orders Destruction Of Key Evidence In Case Against James Comey

A Clinton-appointed federal judge in Washington has stepped into the James Comey saga with an order that effectively tells the FBI to wipe a key evidentiary trail tied to the former director’s obstruction case, and to do it quickly. The move drops the Justice Department into a separation-of-powers storm at the same time it is trying to salvage its prosecution of the man who helped ignite the Trump-Russia hoax. 

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in September on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 testimony about Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The indictment alleged that Comey lied when he denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for media reports damaging to Donald Trump, and that he used Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman as an outside conduit to leak material while Richman simultaneously worked as a government contractor. Emails between the two are critical to the case against Comey. 

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed the indictments against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James last month, ruling that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who pursued the charges, was unconstitutional, and thus the indictments were invalid. 

Six years ago, a warrant approved by Judge James Boasberg allowed the FBI to seize Richman’s devices.

Today, another Clinton-appointed judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday. According to Michael R. Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, the ruling “threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.

Richman, who is not charged in the case and has no standing as a defendant, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to reclaim those emails, arguing that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Rule 41(g) typically allows individuals to ask a court to return property obtained in an unlawful search. 

Still, its use here departs from legal norms because Richman is not the target of the prosecution, and Comey himself lacks standing to challenge the warrant executed on Richman’s accounts. Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and, on December 13, ordered the Justice Department to return all data seized from Richman, concluding that prosecutors handled the material with “callous disregard” for Richman’s rights and had improperly used it to indict Comey. She directed that a copy of the emails be delivered to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in the Eastern District of Virginia, but even with that copy preserved, the ruling bars the FBI and prosecutors from reviewing these emails as they pursue a new indictment.

“This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly’s horrible ruling,” explains Davis.

“The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal.”

The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment. The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment. Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.

Kollar-Kotelly’s decision raises grave separation-of-powers concerns because it involves a judge outside the criminal case, and outside the district where it is pending, ordering the destruction of evidence that was lawfully obtained. 

Keep reading