Tag: lawsuits

FBI Agents Sue Kash Patel After Being Fired Over BLM Support — Claim Kneeling ‘Saved American Lives’

A group of former FBI agents has filed a lawsuit against Director Kash Patel and the federal government after being fired for supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

The dozen agents complained that almost immediately upon becoming director of the bureau, Patel began working to terminate all agents who had kneeled in support of the movement.

The lawsuit also claims the agents would not have been fired had they had the same perceived political affiliations as those involved in the January 6th protests.

Mary Dohrmann, senior counsel at Washington Litigation Group, told POLITICO that Patel was guilty of “targeting these patriotic and highly skilled FBI agents for purely partisan reasons.”

“These partisan firings are the true weaponization of government,” she continued. “The nation is less safe as a result.”

The lawsuit details how the agents were patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., on June 4, 2020, in response to Black Lives Matter riots sparked by the death of George Floyd several weeks earlier.

The agents were allegedly confronted by a mob that included “hostile” individuals and young children.

The lawsuit claims that the agents took a knee in a supposed effort to de-escalate the situation:

Plaintiffs were performing their duties as FBI Special Agents, employing reasonable de-escalation to prevent a potentially deadly confrontation with American citizens: a Washington Massacre that could have rivaled the Boston Massacre in 1770.

…

Plaintiffs demonstrated tactical intelligence in choosing between deadly force, the only force available to them as a practical matter, given their lack of adequate crowd control equipment, and a less-than-lethal response that would save lives and keep order.

…

As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence. Plaintiffs did not need to discharge their firearms that day. Plaintiffs saved American lives.

The agents were dismissed back in September, with Patel citing their “unprofessional conduct and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of government.”

Keep reading

Michigan Judge Allows Marijuana Tax Increase To Take Effect Despite Industry Lawsuit

A group of cannabis industry advocates were unable to convince a Michigan Court of Claims judge that they would face irreparable harm if a new 24 percent wholesale tax on marijuana went into effect to fund the state’s future road repairs.

In an opinion issued Monday, Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel said she was denying a request for a preliminary injunction from the plaintiffs in Holistic Research Group Inc./Michigan Cannabis Industry v. Michigan Department of Treasury.

The consolidated lawsuits posited that the new tax, passed in October as part of a comprehensive 2025-26 budget deal to raise new revenue for road repairs and rebuilds through 2030, was unconstitutional because it violated the title-object clause of the state’s Constitution.

Patel on Monday, after hearing oral arguments in the matter in November, said the industry advocates didn’t make a supported argument that a real constitutional issue existed, nor did the group succinctly show that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, which legalized the use and sale of cannabis in Michigan, was the only statutory mechanism to enact taxes on pot.

“The [road funding act] is consistent with the [marijuana taxation act]. The plaintiffs contend that the phrase ‘all other taxes’…refers only to generally applicable taxes, like the 6 percent sales tax imposed on all retail sales,” she wrote. “If that were true, however, the initiative could have simply said that. Instead, the initiative stated plainly that the 10 percent retail excise tax was in addition to ‘all other taxes.’ And the phrase ‘all other’ is broad and expansive. According to the plain meaning of these terms, ‘all other taxes’ broadly means all taxes other than the tax imposed by [the marijuana taxation act].”

Patel further noted that the Legislature did not directly amend any of the existing taxes in the regulatory act or replace it with the new tax in the road funding legislation; rather, the Legislature imposed a new separate tax, which is permitted under the regulatory act.

“The two statutes can be read together,” Patel wrote.

The claim regarding the mechanism by which a new tax could be enacted was therefore dismissed, Patel wrote.

Patel did, however, allow the case to move forward to determine if the tax interferes with the intent of the voter-initiated law that allowed marijuana consumption, regulations and sales. Patel said a genuine issue of fact remained on that issue, which required further consideration before the court.

Keep reading

The New York Times Is Suing the Pentagon. The Case Is Laughable

Just a few days ago, The New York Times filed a sweeping lawsuit accusing the Pentagon of violating the First and Fifth Amendments by updating the rules for Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials. 

The Times frames these rules as an attack on journalism itself. That framing is completely inaccurate. The Department of War implemented a policy aimed at securing one of the most sensitive buildings in the United States, and the policy neither restricts publication nor bars legitimate reporting. 

It simply establishes basic conditions for physical access to the Pentagon. 

Those conditions are lawful, reasonable, and consistent with long-standing principles governing access to nonpublic government facilities.

What the Times avoids acknowledging is that no journalist has a constitutional right to roam the Pentagon on an unescorted basis. Courts have been clear for decades that facilities such as the Pentagon are “nonpublic forums,” allowing the government to impose reasonable access limits that protect security and operational integrity. 

Access can be granted or denied based on compliance with building rules. It cannot be demanded as if the First Amendment guarantees a permanent press badge. 

The new Pentagon policy does not regulate what the Times may print, what sources it may speak with, or what stories it may pursue. It regulates whether a reporter may carry a credential that functions as a secure building pass.

Under the updated system, reporters seeking Pentagon Facilities Alternative Credentials (PFACs) must acknowledge that the Pentagon expects credentialed visitors not to solicit or encourage the unauthorized release of protected information. 

Federal employees already face strict rules governing how classified and controlled unclassified information is handled. The Pentagon’s policy simply reflects that reality: if reporters want special access inside a secure military headquarters, they cannot use that access to induce potential violations of federal disclosure rules. 

That standard does not restrict publication. It applies only to conduct inside a restricted facility and to abuses of the access privilege itself.

The Times argues that prohibiting solicitation of unauthorized disclosures “chills journalism.” 

It does not. 

Keep reading

Texas AG Paxton sues EPIC City developers after probe finds alleged fraud, misleading Muslim-only marketing

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on Friday against the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC), Community Capital Partners (CCP) and several associated leaders, accusing them of running an illegal securities and land development scheme tied to a proposed 400-acre community known as “EPIC City.”

The lawsuit, filed in Collin County, follows a monthslong investigation and a referral from the Texas State Securities Board. The state alleges the defendants raised tens of millions of dollars while violating securities laws, misleading investors about the project’s nature and location, and misrepresenting how funds would be used.

“The leaders behind EPIC City have engaged in a radical plot to destroy hundreds of acres of beautiful Texas land and line their own pockets,” Paxton said. “I will relentlessly bring the full force of the law against anyone who thinks they can ignore the rules and hurt Texans.”

According to the Verified Petition, CCP sold investment interests for $40,000 to $80,000, despite failing to register the securities or qualify for federal exemptions. 

Keep reading

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