Tag: lawsuits

Accused DC Pipe Bomber Sued Trump Admin. Over Illegal Immigration Before Allegedly Carrying Out His Sinister Act, Also Claimed ‘Racial Persecution’ By Lawyer

The DC pipe bomber has been revealed to be a race-baiter who worked hard to ensure violent illegal aliens suffered no consequences before carrying out the bombings.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the FBI arrested a man named Brian Cole in connection with the January 6 pipe bombs on Thursday morning. Cole is 30 years old and from Woodbridge, Virginia.

Cole allegedly planted pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters on January 5, the night before the Capitol protest. The FBI previously released footage of him planting the bomb next to a park bench at the DNC.

The Daily Wire has now exclusively revealed that Cole ran a bail bonds company that not only worked to free illegals, but he also sued the Trump Administration to free them.

Cole and his father worked as bail bondsmen under multiple company names. One was StateWide Bonding, Inc., which handles immigration bonds, helping illegal immigrants evade prison.

In 2020, StateWide sued the Trump DHS over supposedly abusing illegals. The Court of Appeals in DC threw out the lawsuit in November 2020.

Two months later, Cole allegedly planted the bombs.

Keep reading

ACLU Files Motion to Have Even More Male Convicts Moved to Women’s Prison After Securing Transfer of 4 Trans-Identified Male Killers and Sex Offenders

At least four trans-identified male convicts were transferred into an Illinois women’s prison after being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Now, the ACLU is requesting that the court issue an order prohibiting those men from being transferred to Menard Correctional Center, the state’s largest maximum security male facility, and demanding that an additional group of men in Menard be offered a transfer to a women’s prison.

For nearly a decade, the Illinois ACLU has acted as legal counsel on behalf of a group of male criminals who claim to be transgender, of whom at least four have been confirmed by Reduxx to be currently housed at Logan Correctional Center – a women’s facility.

In January 2018, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit against Department of Corrections (DOC) officials on behalf of six male inmates requesting a transfer to a women’s prison. In legal documents, all of the men were identified by a feminine alias: Andre C. Patterson, or “Janiah Monroe”; Eric D. Padilla, or “Lydia Helena Vision”; Diego R. Melendez, or “Marilyn”; Jordan Kuykendall, or “Sora”; Fadell Reed, or “Sasha”; and Gregory Stamps, or “Ebony.”

The initial suit, Monroe v. Rauner, accused then-mayor Bruce Rauner and DOC Director John Baldwin of “cruel and unusual punishment,” an eighth amendment violation, for not providing the convicted criminals with feminizing hormones.

The complaint argues that “the IDOC systematically fails to provide necessary medical treatment for gender dysphoria… Among other common and medically necessary treatments, IDOC routinely fails to provide adequate hormone therapy and to accommodate social transition so that a prisoner can live consistently with his or her gender identity.”

It continues: “And while gender affirming [genital] surgery also is medically necessary for some patients with gender dysphoria, IDOC has adopted a policy that such surgery can be approved only in ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ which in practice means that IDOC never has approved any prisoner for surgical gender dysphoria treatment.”

The suit has been ongoing for the past eight years. Earlier this year, the ACLU filed a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the DOC from ever transferring Padilla, Patterson, Kuykendall, Melendez, or Reed from being transferred to male prison Menard.

Keep reading

Mum taking legal action against SA government after teen exposed to ‘bestiality’ and ‘incest’ in public school presentation

A mother is taking legal action against the South Australian government over claims her 14-year-old daughter was exposed to a school presentation referencing bestiality and incest.

In an exclusive television interview, Nicki Gaylard broke down as she explained why she plans to sue the state in the District Court of South Australia to ensure no other family has to suffer the same distress as hers.

The impending lawsuit is being funded by faith-based legal organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International, which is working with Ms Gaylard’s local Adelaide lawyers.

The hour-long presentation was part of a Respectful Relationships program meant to “promote LGBTQIA+ inclusivity and acceptance” that was delivered to year 9 girls by an external provider in March last year at Renmark High School in regional South Australia.

Ms Gaylard, a mother of six, wept as she recounted how her daughter Courtney felt so upset by the presentation, she left halfway through and went to the school’s sick bay.

Her mother collected her from school early and withdrew all her children attending the school that same day.

They now attend a local Catholic school.

“The first thing she said was: ‘They’re talking about having sex with animals’, so it took me a few minutes to get my jaw off the floor,” Ms Gaylard told Sky News.

“She said they just presented this list of words… Bestiality was one of the words and she said: ‘No one knew what that was, Mum.’ One of the girls asked: ‘What is bestiality?’

“(The presenter) said: ‘Oh, it’s having sex with animals, but don’t Google it girls’.

“When your daughter comes home from school, you don’t expect them to tell you things like how uncomfortable, how unsafe and how trapped they felt.”

She said Courtney had told her the first thing the students saw when they walked in the room was a slide that read: “We can see queer-ly now” and the students were left with three external presenters and no teacher present.

Keep reading

Pregnancy Center Lawfare: Will the Supremes End This?

Tuesday, Dec. 2, will determine whether America’s crisis pregnancy centers can operate freely or whether politicians in pro-abortion states can continue to harass them with lawfare. Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin. 

At stake is “the future of pregnancy centers in America” said David Bereit, executive director of Life Leadership Conference. 

How the case started

In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin sent subpoenas to the First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, demanding 10 years’ worth of records. The material requested included all solicitations and ads, statements on abortion pill reversal, information given to women, information about outside organizations First Choice worked with, and, most worrisome, staff information and identities of their donors.

There were “no allegations of wrongdoing…. It was a fishing expedition,” said Aimee Huber, executive director of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. “The idea of compiling this… was daunting,” she said during an emergency webcast briefing scheduled by the Life Leadership Conference. 

Thousands of people nationwide and 40 different pro-life organizations attended the briefing Monday night, said David Bereit, executive director of the Life Leadership Conference. He called it “a pivotal case…weaponizing government power to intimidate, investigate and shut down centers.”

First Choice has served over 36,000 women over the last 40 years through its five locations. “New Jersey has the fifth highest abortion rate,” Huber said. “Since do not refer for abortions, we are a target.”

Critics of pregnancy centers such as First Choice smear them as ‘fake clinics” just for that reason.

Erin Hawley, senior counsel and vice president of the Center for Life, Alliance Defending Freedom, will be arguing for First Choice Tuesday in front of the Supreme Court.  ADF filed a suit in federal court asking the district court to enjoin the subpoena. 

Hawley explained that the district court dismissed the subpoena, saying that federal courts were not a remedy because First Choice first had to go to state court. “Once the state court rules, then there are a couple of legal doctrines that basically say, once one court has decided it, another court can’t,” she said. This is even through Congress expressly provided legislative relief allowing this. 

Numerous organizations not ideologically aligned with First Choice filed amicus briefs supporting First Choice. “They all agree the right to present first amendment claims in federal court when you have been harassed by a hostile official is something that is guaranteed,” said Hawley.

Since the Dobbs decision reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, pregnancy centers have been busier than ever supporting women and children. Last week the Charlotte Lozier Institute released their 2025 report stating that pregnancy centers had helped over one million women in 2024, and that material support (everything from diapers to car seats) skyrocketed 48%. 

Keep reading

Male ‘Trans’ TSA Agent Wants to Pat Down Women So Bad He’s Filing a Lawsuit Over it

A self-proclaimed transgender employee of the Transportation Security Administration filed a lawsuit over his inability to perform pat-downs under the Trump administration.

Danielle Mittereder, a man claiming to be a woman, is challenging the Department of Homeland Security over its new policy ensuring that TSA agents can only screen members of their actual sex.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month asserted that the policy violates federal civil rights law.

Mittereder started working for the TSA in June 2024 and is currently stationed at Dulles International Airport in Virginia.

Because President Donald Trump signed an executive order against recognizing transgenderism in the federal workforce on his first day back in office, Mittereder now finds himself unable to pat down women.

Keep reading

Eric Swalwell’s Last Stand: A Frivolous Lawsuit to Distract from His Disqualification for California Governor

‘Dead in the water’ is the only accurate description of Congressman Eric Swalwell’s campaign for California governor.

Two weeks ago in my article in the Gateway Pundit, “DISQUALIFIED! – Congressman Eric Swalwell Names Washington, DC Home as ‘Principal Residence,’ I documented that Swalwell is ineligible for the California governorship because he is in violation of the California Constitution and Election Law 349, which requires candidates to make California their “domicile” for 5 years prior to an election. Days later, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte referred Swalwell to the Department of Justice for potential mortgage fraud violations.

Late last week in response, Swalwell posted a video on Twitter/X attempting to regain control of the narrative, announcing his filing of a civil lawsuit against Pulte and the FHFA.

“I’ve decided to go on offense. Donald Trump is weaponizing the Department of Justice against his political opponents… So I have brought a privacy suit and a First Amendment retaliation suit against the administration. I hope you take a look at it.”

Keep reading

Fluoride Lawsuit Plaintiffs Push Back Against Trump EPA In Ongoing Litigation

On November 17, 2025, attorneys representing Food & Water Watch (FWW), Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and individual plaintiffs filed its response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) appeal of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s September 2024 ruling, which held that fluoridation at the current U.S. level of 0.7 mg/L “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.”

The response comes nine years after the plaintiffs first filed a civilian petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in November 2016. After the EPA denied the petition, the groups sued, triggering a nearly decade-long legal saga between the EPA, and parents of children impacted by water fluoridation, the FAN, and FWW. In September 2024, Judge Chen ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and ordered the EPA to take regulatory action.

In the final days of the Biden administration the EPA filed their appeal, and now, under leadership appointed by President Donald Trump, the EPA has decided to continue fighting the judge’s ruling.

Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, responded to the three main arguments made by the EPA in its July appeal: that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the judge improperly considered new evidence, and that the district court went beyond its authority in its management of the case.

The EPA contends that at least one plaintiff’s water contains naturally occurring fluoride and that the plaintiffs therefore cannot prove injury caused by community water fluoridation. The agency also claims that the Judge’s decision to admit studies which were published after the original 2016 TSCA petition violated the act.

Regarding the question of standing, the EPA claimed in its appeal that plaintiff Jessica Trader cannot establish standing because her drinking water in Leawood, Kansas, “naturally contains fluoride at levels 0.4 mg/L, and her water utility adds only as much fluoride as necessary for her tap water to reach a concentration of 0.7 mg/L”. Essentially, the EPA is stating that the naturally occurring fluoride could be to blame for any harm caused to Trader.

Connett argues that the plaintiffs do indeed have proper standing and have demonstrated sufficient injury and connection to the case. “Even if the new “facts” are considered, Jessica Trader’s injury is still traceable/redressable: the district court found (and EPA does not dispute) that fluoridation poses a credible threat of neurodevelopmental harm to her children, and regulatory action would, at a minimum, reduce that threat, including the costs of avoiding it,” Connett wrote in his response.

He further noted that, even without Trader, the remaining plaintiffs also have standing based on credible threats of harm from fluoridation, as supported by findings from the National Research Council (NRC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Toxicology Program (NTP).

When it comes to the EPA’s claim that the court improperly considered new evidence in the form of studies published after the original petition, Connett reminded the court that Section 21 of TSCA provides that petitioners “shall be provided an opportunity to have such petition considered by the court in a de novo proceeding”. A de novo proceeding is a legal process where a case is heard “fresh” or from the beginning, without considering the previous court’s decision.

Keep reading

Suicides And Delusions: Lawsuits Point To Dark Side Of AI Chatbot

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot twist someone’s mind to breaking point, push them to reject their family, or even go so far as to coach them to commit suicide? And if it did, is the company that built that chatbot liable? What would need to be proven in a court of law?

These questions are already before the courts, raised by seven lawsuits that allege ChatGPT sent three people down delusional “rabbit holes” and encouraged four others to kill themselves.

ChatGPT, the mass-adopted AI assistant currently has 700 million active users, with 58 percent of adults under 30 saying they have used it—up 43 percent from 2024, according to a Pew Research survey.

The lawsuits accuse OpenAI of rushing a new version of its chatbot to market without sufficient safety testing, leading it to encourage every whim and claim users made, validate their delusions, and drive wedges between them and their loved ones.

Lawsuits Seek Injunctions on OpenAI

The lawsuits were filed in state courts in California on Nov. 6  by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project.

They allege “wrongful death, assisted suicide, involuntary manslaughter, and a variety of product liability, consumer protection, and negligence claims—against OpenAI, Inc. and CEO Sam Altman,” according to a statement from the Tech Justice Law Project.

The seven alleged victims range in age from 17 to 48 years. Two were students, and several had white collar jobs in positions working with technology before their lives spiraled out of control.

The plaintiffs want the court to award civil damages, and also to compel OpenAI to take specific actions.

The lawsuits demand that the company offer comprehensive safety warnings; delete the data derived from the conversations with the alleged victims; implement design changes to lessen psychological dependency; and create mandatory reporting to users’ emergency contacts when they express suicidal ideation or delusional beliefs.

The lawsuits also demand OpenAI display “clear” warnings about risks of psychological dependency.

Keep reading

Parents Sue District After School Forced Daughter to Share Bed with ‘Trans’ Male Student on Trip

A Colorado family’s nightmare school trip has now become a federal case, and they are not alone.

According to a news release from the legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, four families are suing Jefferson County Public Schools after learning their children were forced into overnight sleeping arrangements with students of the opposite sex without parental knowledge or consent.

For Joe and Serena Wailes, the breaking point came when their 11-year-old daughter was assigned to share a bed with a male student who identifies as female during a school-sponsored trip.

No parent should have to discover something like that after the fact. Yet that is exactly what happened on a recent outing.

The Wailes family is now joined by Bret and Susanne Roller and Rob and Jade Perlman, who say the district’s policies robbed them of their right to protect their children’s privacy and safety.

According to the ADF brief filed Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, officials at Jefferson County schools assign sleeping arrangements based on gender identity, not sex, while telling parents that boys and girls will be kept on separate floors.

The problem, ADF explained in a news release about the lawsuit, is that the district quietly redefines “boy” and “girl” to mean a student’s gender identity.

Parents are never informed of any of this nonsense.

The result is that families receive a false sense of security, while their children are placed in intimate overnight accommodations with students of the opposite sex.

In the Rollers’ case, they discovered after their young son’s trip that a female student had been assigned to his cabin and was monitoring his showers.

For the Perlmans, whose daughter previously experienced sexual harassment at a district middle school, the risk of her being roomed with a boy was already unacceptable.

The families are asking the court to halt the district’s policy, arguing that it violates parental rights, bodily privacy, and religious freedom.

ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson said the district’s refusal to offer sex-based accommodations contradicts its claim that it “freely grant[s] accommodations to all.”

Where is the sanity?

Teachers, administrators, and lawmakers are supposed to be looking out for children.

Instead, in one of Colorado’s most crowded districts, they concealed information parents needed to keep their children safe.

And it’s not just these families who have been failed.

The “trans” boy placed in a girl’s bed has also been failed by a system that treats identity confusion as an unquestionable truth, rather than a situation requiring a difficult conversation.

No little girl should ever be forced to share a bed with a strange boy — even if it hurts someone’s feelings.

Keep reading

Democrats Sue Over Cut to SNAP Benefits for Non-Citizens and Illegals

Nearly half of all households with noncitizen parents are accessing federal benefits, a category that includes both legal and illegal immigrants. The Trump administration is trying to end these programs, but Democrats are pushing back.

Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and Washington, D.C., have filed a federal lawsuit challenging new USDA guidance that they say unlawfully restricts legal immigrants’ access to SNAP benefits. The lawsuit, filed in Eugene, Oregon, argues that USDA misinterpreted President Trump’s July tax-and-spending law, which narrowed eligibility for some immigrants but still allows green-card holders to apply for food aid after a five-year waiting period.

State officials say the guidance issued on October 31 went beyond the statute by declaring lawful permanent residents who previously held refugee, asylum, or humanitarian parole status permanently ineligible for SNAP. They contend the law allows these groups to receive benefits once they adjust to permanent resident status and meet standard program requirements.

The attorneys general are asking the court to block the guidance, saying it reverses long-standing policy without a reasoned explanation and violates administrative law. They warn that states could face severe financial penalties for noncompliance, with some suggesting that their SNAP programs could be forced to shut down. They also note that USDA did not provide the required 120-day transition period, leaving states to overhaul eligibility systems immediately.

A White House spokesperson said the administration is committed to ensuring that illegal aliens do not receive benefits intended for citizens. SNAP, which serves about 42 million low-income Americans, has been at the center of several legal disputes in recent years, including battles following the lapse in benefits during the recent government shutdown. According to USDA data, refugees made up roughly 1 percent of SNAP recipients in 2023, while other non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, accounted for about 3 percent.

However, those USDA claims severely undercut the actual number of noncitizens receiving SNAP and other benefits. USDA data from fiscal year 2022 shows that 1.465 million noncitizens received SNAP benefits, with an additional 2.2 million children living in households with noncitizens also participating in the program. These recipients include lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, individuals granted stays of deportation, and others. They collected a total of $4.2 billion in benefits. USDA notes that illegal aliens are not eligible for SNAP but may reside in households where other family members qualify.

Keep reading