Tag: judges

Judge Throws Out 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Confession Days Before 25th Anniversary of September 11 Terror Attacks

A judge threw out a key confession made by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohmmed just two weeks before the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks.

This is the latest blow to the federal government.

Recall that in July 2024, under the Biden Regime, three September 11 masterminds reached plea deals with the US government, the Department of Defense said.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his co-conspirators Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawhi will avoid the death penalty in a pre-trial plea deal reached.

An appeals court later canceled that agreement, so the death penalty is back on the table.

3,000 Americans were killed in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon, and a downed plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

On Friday, the New York Post reported that a military judge tossed out a confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Keep reading

Minnesota Just Got Handed a Loss Following Its Absurd Request Over ICE Agent Christian Castro

Minnesota has been fighting for the longest time to override Texas’s laws surrounding the incarceration of ICE agent Christian Castro. But a judge just reminded it that all the requests in the world from Gov. Tim Walz will fall on deaf ears when they don’t make any sense.

As you know by this point, Minnesota has been showing absolute fury against ICE agents. Ever since President Donald Trump ordered agents to enter the state to arrest violent illegal immigrants, Mayor Jacob Frey has been pushing back, riling up his citizens to angrily protest their every move.

Since that time, we’ve seen a number of shootings after citizens went on the attack against ICE agents. Renee Good, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, and Alex Pretti were all killed trying to act against ICE while they were trying to do their job. And rather than coordinating efforts with them, Frey actually made things even worse – at one point even saying that ICE needs to get the (censored) out of our city.”

Earlier this year, an arrest warrant was issued for ICE officer Christian Castro by the state, who was taken into custody shortly thereafter in Cameron County, Texas. He was formally charged with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime after being accused of firing into a Minneapolis home and striking a Venezuelan national’s leg.

Now, this is an incident that could’ve easily been put under investigation by the Department of Justice, but Minnesota decided to push the matter into overdrive. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz had been demanding the extradition of Castro to the state, and even making such demands as public as possible to look good for his audience.

Following suit, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit last week, citing that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott needed to pay attention to the request at hand, and demanded the judge issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Cameron County from releasing Castro.

“Gov. Abbott’s withholding of the rendition warrant threatens to deprive Minnesota of its constitutional right to Castro’s return,” Ellison noted in a public statement again. 

Madness, isn’t it? The good news, however, is that Abbott wasn’t having any of it.

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver’s Immunity Defense After She Assaulted ICE Agents

A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver’s immunity defense after she assaulted ICE agents at a Newark ICE detention center last year.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected LaMonica McIver’s argument that she was immune from prosecution because of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause.

This is the latest legal set back for LaMonica McIver.

Last year, a federal judge declined to toss out the federal charges against Rep. McIver.

Politico reported:

Rep. LaMonica McIver is not immune from prosecution for her contact with ICE officials during a heated scrum at New Jersey’s Delaney Hall detention facility, even though it occurred during a legislative investigation, a federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday.

“The charged conduct … is unambiguously non-legislative,” 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cindy Chung, a Biden appointee, wrote in a 2-1 opinion joined by Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee.

McIver is facing three federal charges related to alleged assaults on ICE officials and interference with them during a May 2025 oversight visit to Delaney Hall. McIver and two other Democratic lawmakers were present when federal officials moved into a small crowd to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who joined them on the oversight visit. The confrontation escalated and became physical, and McIver was ultimately charged with making physical contact with the officials.

The 3rd Circuit ruling sustains the bulk of the criminal case against the Democratic lawmaker despite her protestation that the charges were brought for political purposes. McIver pointed to commentary by Trump, his allies and the former federal prosecutor who brought the case at the time: Alina Habba, a former Trump personal lawyer and current White House aide.

In June 2025, a federal grand jury returned a 3-count indictment charging Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver with forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers at the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark.

McIver is facing a maximum of 17 years in prison for all three counts.

Keep reading

Write Code, Go to Prison. Slaughter Children, Get a Pardon: Welcome to American “Justice”

If you want to understand the true nature of the American justice system, look at who it pardons and who it cages. This is a regime that hands full clemency to executives who admit, in writing, to laundering money for hackers and drug cartels, while it hunts down software developers who never touched a single dollar that wasn’t theirs, who had zero victims, and then buries them under decades of federal time. The hypocrisy is not incidental. It is the modus operandi of the machine: the state does not actually care about fraud, laundering, or victims. It cares about control, and control is exactly what open-source financial privacy takes away from it.

We said it after Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht in January 2025: the pardon was a great start, but the debt owed to the rest of the political prisoners rotting in federal cages was nowhere near paid. Nineteen months later, that debt has been settled only for the defendants with the most useful political connections, while the actual innovators, the ones who built tools instead of stealing from innocent people, are still being ground up by the exact same machine.

Take for instance, Roman Storm, who is still fighting for his freedom for the “crime” of writing code. A Manhattan jury convicted him in August 2025 on a single count tied to Tornado Cash, a privacy protocol, and deadlocked on the far more serious and entirely unprovable money-laundering and sanctions charges, and rather than take that hung jury as the warning it was, federal prosecutors are pushing for an October 2026 retrial on the very counts they couldn’t get a conviction on the first time. This is happening while the Justice Department’s own March 2026 report to Congress admits that lawful Americans have every right to use mixers to protect their financial privacy. The state knows it is prosecuting a man for building something it has since conceded is legal to use. It is pursuing him anyway. Storm’s own team has called this what it is, an attempt to make writing code a crime, and this past week Storm pointed out that if prosecutors’ theory of liability were applied honestly, it would put Google and OpenAI in a federal courtroom right alongside him.

If you want to be even more angry, read about Dexter Taylor’s case. Taylor is still in a maximum-security cage for building firearms in his own apartment that he never sold, never trafficked, and never used to harm a single human being. He is three years into a ten-year sentence, parole-eligible only in 2032, still appealing a conviction his attorney says could take years and go all the way to the Supreme Court. A software engineer with zero prior criminal history is serving longer than plenty of people convicted of manslaughter, for a hobby with no victim, and the state has shown no interest in correcting that.

Ian Freeman already lost his appeal, which is what happens when the machine runs its full course, and the state simply wins by default. Freeman helped people convert cash into Bitcoin through Bitcoin ATMs and church-run kiosks, and for that he was locked in a state-run cage after a federal appellate court affirmed both his conviction and his sentence in the summer of 2025. He is still in that cage today for giving people a way to hold their own money outside the banking cartel.

Keep reading

Man Accused of Threatening Mass Shootings at Five North Carolina Schools Released from Jail Days Before Classes Resume

A Charlotte man charged with making detailed threats to carry out mass shootings at five public schools has been released from jail just three days before students in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools district were scheduled to return to class.

The man’s release has sparked outrage among parents concerned for their children’s safety.

Drew Andres Owens, 33, was released from the Mecklenburg County Jail at 11:30 a.m. on Saturday after posting a reduced bond, according to jail records obtained by the New York Post, with the new school year beginning today.

Owens faces five felony counts of communicating threats of mass violence on educational property and has pleaded not guilty. The case remains pending.

Court documents explain that Owens allegedly sent emails on February 15, 2025, threatening to “slaughter staff and students” at West Charlotte High School, Ardrey Kell High School, Community House Middle School, and Hawk Ridge Elementary School.

A separate indictment involves a mailed threat against Garinger High School.

The affidavit claimed a student armed with two shotguns and an AR-15 would carry out the attack, though school administrators found no such student enrolled.

Owens’ own father, a West Charlotte High School ROTC instructor, confirmed to police that his son was responsible for the threats.

The Post reports:

Darryl Owens allegedly told authorities that his son had harassed relatives, neighbors and family friends after being removed from the family home in 2021, and had sent unsigned emails and letters threatening to kill or shoot people at multiple locations.

The father told police he had previously obtained a restraining order against his son, that Owens had been arrested for violating it and that the order was later dismissed.

He also told police that Owens had recently sat outside neighbors’ homes and photographed his car at West Charlotte High School “to try to lure him outside.”

His original combined bond of roughly $200,000 was later reduced to $60,000 for the primary case.

Owens is reportedly under electronic monitoring and ordered to stay away from school campuses.

Parents don’t think that is enough.

“Is he going to show up at one of the schools? It’s not good,” one parent told local station WSOC. “I’m not going to feel at ease; I’m not going to pretend it’s OK.”

Another parent told the station, “It’s really unnerving for some of us. We live in the area where he knows people, and again it’s not positive; it’s scary.”

“He’s out, and that’s it, and the rest of us have to deal with it, and teachers have to go to school on Tuesday and deal with it,” they added.

Keep reading

Leftist Obama Judge Indira Talwani Goes Completely ROGUE – Spits in the Face of the Supreme Court and Rules Trump’s U.S. Postal Service is in “Complete Noncompliance” With Her Block on Mail-In Ballot Security Rules

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani escalated her war against President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda Tuesday, declaring that the U.S. Postal Service violated her nationwide injunction by completing new security regulations for federal mail-in ballots.

Just one day after the United States Supreme Court UPHELD, for now, President Trump’s executive order and the new U.S. Postal Service rules designed to secure America’s mail-in ballots, this Obama-appointed radical in Boston just ruled that Trump’s Postal Service has VIOLATED her earlier injunction.

She’s going off. Aggressively. Accusing the Trump team of “complete noncompliance.”

This is pure judicial warfare against the American people and against free and fair elections.

Talwani’s nationwide injunction (entered earlier this month in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump) explicitly barred the USPS Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399… or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)-(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election.”

On Friday evening, August 21, the USPS completed the rulemaking process. They sent a Final Rule titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” to the Office of the Federal Register, with an immediate effective date of August 21 and publication set for August 26.

The Final Rule itself nods to the injunctions and states the Postal Service “will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.”

Keep reading

OUTRAGE: Clinton-Appointed Activist Judge Blocks Ohio’s Proof-of-Citizenship Requirement at BMV Just Weeks Before 2026 Midterms

A Clinton-appointed federal judge on Tuesday blocked Ohio from requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship from residents registering to vote through the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles, handing a major victory to Democrat-aligned election attorneys just weeks before the 2026 midterm voter-registration deadline.

Senior U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. issued a preliminary injunction against the citizenship-verification provision in Ohio House Bill 54.

The ruling applies immediately unless it is stayed or overturned on appeal.

Oliver was nominated to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1994. He assumed senior status in 2021, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

House Bill 54 amended Ohio law to require applicants registering or updating their voter registration during a BMV transaction to provide proof of citizenship, or to have previously supplied that documentation to the agency.

The requirement could be satisfied with records such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization certificate. Ohio’s official statute took effect in June 2025.

Apparently, requiring proof that a person is legally eligible to vote was too much for the federal court.

Keep reading

Judge Rules For Doctor Who Prescribed Ivermectin For COVID-19

A doctor’s lawsuit against Maine’s medical board can proceed, a federal judge has ruled.

An order from the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine that Dr. Meryl Nass undergo a psychological evaluation for allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID-19 was “based on no evidence or process,” including no probable cause, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker said in an Aug. 20 decision.

“In judicial proceedings, at a minimum probable cause findings ordinarily are required to justify pretrial impositions. In this case, as alleged, the Board dispensed with preliminary proceedings altogether,” Walker wrote.

The process appeared to have “lacked any safeguards to protect against agency zeal and resembled investigatory action imposed, somewhat ironically, in the absence of evidence rather than the initiation of an impartial, sober, thoughtful judicial process designed to assess the truth of facts to arrive at the existence of probable cause to justify such a sanction,” he also said.

The board did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

“I am happy to report that I will eagerly move forward with the legal case to clear my name and defend the free speech right of medical practitioners to tell the truth to their patients, especially if it goes against government or medical orthodoxy,” Nass said in a blog post.

Maine’s medical board in 2022 suspended Nass’s license after receiving a complaint from a person who was not her patient that the doctor was spreading misinformation about COVID-19 because she noted that people who recovered from the illness had protection against re-infection.

Board members also took issue with how Nass prescribed ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient and lied to a pharmacist about why she prescribed hydroxychloroquine to another patient. It was for COVID-19, not for Lyme disease.

The board ordered Nass to undergo a psychological evaluation in order to get her license back, among other conditions. State law only authorizes such an order when a licensee “may be unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of mental illness, alcohol intemperance, excessive use of drugs, narcotics, or as a result of a mental or physical condition interfering with the competent practice of medicine,” Walker noted in the new ruling.

“The record before the Board did not include any suggestion or information that Dr. Nass suffered from drug or alcohol abuse or a physical condition, suggesting that, if anything, the Board considered Dr. Nass’s opinions to be the product of not independent thought but a mental illness or mental condition,” he said. “Alternatively, the imposition of this sanction would suggest that the Board was making an example out of Dr. Nass.”

The Maine Superior Court previously voided the psychological evaluation order, concluding it was arbitrary and capricious.

After that court ruled, Maine’s medical board asked the federal court in Maine to throw out Nass’s lawsuit.

Walker sided with the board regarding its actions apart from the evaluation, finding members enjoyed immunity for their conduct during the hearing on the allegations against Nass and for their determination to suspend her license.

But the case can move forward regarding the psychological evaluation order, he said.

“The scope of what remains of Dr. Nass’s claims will need to be addressed in later proceedings but includes, at a minimum, the requirement that she submit to a psychological evaluation,” the ruling stated.

Nass told The Epoch Times in an email that her license remains suspended because the board imposed conditions that would have prevented her from practicing independently, including requiring her to send her charts regularly to the board for review.

“The reason I wanted a license was so that if another pandemic happened, I would be able to provide the appropriate care to patients as I saw fit, which might not be what the government recommended,” Nass said. “Since the conditions the Board imposed precluded that, I did not seek to regain the license, which remains suspended.”

Nass also said she recently moved to New Hampshire.

Keep reading

Limits On Border Patrol Arrests In California Lifted By Federal Appeals Court

A federal appeals court on Aug. 24 rescinded a preliminary injunction that limited U.S. Border Patrol stops and arrests in California’s Central Valley.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a federal district court failed to properly analyze whether the plaintiffs had standing to seek forward-looking relief based on alleged harms in the past.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show, among other things, a strong enough connection to the dispute to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

The Ninth Circuit sent the lawsuit challenging immigration detentions back to the district court to allow it to revisit its legal analysis after that court issued a preliminary injunction limiting U.S. Border Patrol’s ability to stop and arrest people.

The new ruling, which does not dismiss the lawsuit itself, is a tactical win for the Trump administration because it eliminates – for now – a preliminary injunction that limited Border Patrol’s ability to stop and detain people. The appeals court sent the case back to the federal district court for a limited do-over on the question of standing.

The lawsuit concerns Section 1357(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows Border Patrol agents to make warrantless arrests only if they have reason to believe two things: that the person is in the country unlawfully, and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The plaintiffs in the case took the position that the agents made arrests without properly assessing whether people were actually flight risks.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued on behalf of the plaintiffs, the United Farm Workers of America and several farm workers, arguing that over a three-day period in Kern County, California, in January 2025, Border Patrol unlawfully detained individuals – including day laborers – without having a reason to believe they were likely to escape before a warrant could be issued. The enforcement project was known as Operation Return to Sender.

Residents of Bakersfield and the vicinity “started disappearing” in “the middle of citrus harvesting season,” and this alarmed local residents who contacted the ACLU, the group said in a summary.

In a federal class action, the ACLU argued the Border Patrol was using “a cruel tactic to strip people of their right to an immigration hearing and coerce them instead into agreeing to “voluntary departure,” which carries with it a ban on returning to the United States for up to 10 years.

In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston granted a preliminary injunction covering the Eastern District, which is California’s Central Valley.

Keep reading

Leftist Obama Judge Indira Talwani Goes Completely ROGUE – Spits in the Face of the Supreme Court and Rules Trump’s U.S. Postal Service is in “Complete Noncompliance” With Her Block on Mail-In Ballot Security Rules

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani escalated her war against President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda Tuesday, declaring that the U.S. Postal Service violated her nationwide injunction by completing new security regulations for federal mail-in ballots.

Just one day after the United States Supreme Court UPHELD, for now, President Trump’s executive order and the new U.S. Postal Service rules designed to secure America’s mail-in ballots, this Obama-appointed radical in Boston just ruled that Trump’s Postal Service has VIOLATED her earlier injunction.

She’s going off. Aggressively. Accusing the Trump team of “complete noncompliance.”

This is pure judicial warfare against the American people and against free and fair elections.

Talwani’s nationwide injunction (entered earlier this month in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump) explicitly barred the USPS Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399… or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)-(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election.”

On Friday evening, August 21, the USPS completed the rulemaking process. They sent a Final Rule titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” to the Office of the Federal Register, with an immediate effective date of August 21 and publication set for August 26.

The Final Rule itself nods to the injunctions and states the Postal Service “will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.”

Keep reading