Tag: secrecy

Federal Judge Given “Private Reprimand” After Holding Sexual Trysts In Chambers… And Then Lying About It

There is a bizarre controversy out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal judge has been reprimanded for engaging in repeated, loud sexual encounters during office hours in chambers with a police officer. While the judge lied to investigators and disrupted the work of court staff, the Eleventh Circuit decided to give only a “private reprimand” and to withhold the identity of the district court judge. However, legal sleuths have pieced together clues and identified one judge in Atlanta as the likely culprit.

In February, the Judicial Council issued an order with a “private reprimand.” The order contained an array of details that law professor John Blackman analyzed with impressive research. While he admits that he cannot conclusively prove that she is the referenced judge, he declared that “there is only one judge who checks all of those boxes: District Court Judge Eleanor Ross.”

Ironically, among the clues about the judge’s identity, the order mentions that the judge attended the “victory party for a District Attorney” in 2024, the night before “the judge’s summer interns’ first day.” The Georgia primary was on May 21, 2024, and the date coincides with the victory party for Fani Willis, who won the Democratic primary for Fulton County District Attorney. The irony would be crushing since Willis destroyed her own case against Trump and his associates after appointing an attorney with whom she had a sexual relationship.

Putting the judge’s identity aside, I am more concerned with the Circuit’s conclusion that the judge should be left with a private, anonymous reprimand, given the astonishing scope of the misconduct found by the Judicial Council.

The Court describes repeated sexual encounters during office hours that were so audible that clerks and staff were left in uncomfortable silence. The other individual is described as “a high-ranking PD officer.” The court states that

“It is also worth noting the fact that the Subject Judge created a vulnerability to extortion. For two years, the Subject Judge was a federal district judge who routinely heard criminal cases engaged in a secret extramarital relationship with a prominent officer of a large law enforcement agency in the judge’s district—with the affair consisting of sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s chambers during working hours.”

The Court describes the awkward moments as staff were subjected to moans and noises from the judge’s chambers as these trysts took place. The court recounts:

“The Subject Judge characterized the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically denied each one.11 Apparently aware that Law Clerk A was the source of the allegations, the Subject Judge noted that the judge had repeatedly chastised Law Clerk A for performance issues, including ‘being on [the clerk’s] cell phone in court and in the office,’ ‘arriving to the office late,’ and wearing attire that the judge considered ‘too casual.’ The Subject Judge implied that Law Clerk A might have made allegations as a means of retaliating against the Subject Judge.”

So this judge not only lied but attacked the clerk. The court order contained emails and communications in which the judge states that the clerk is disgruntled and unreliable. The result was an investigation as the judge continues to lie about the long-standing affair.

The other individual is described solely as a high-ranking police officer.

This is an extraordinary and serious series of ethical violations. It directly undermined the integrity of the court and created a dysfunctional work environment. The officer and the department are likely parties in cases before the court. The judge must be independent in dealing with officers and the department. The use of the chambers for sexual encounters must have created a hostile work environment for many clerks and staff.

Then there are the repeated lies to fellow judges and investigators. Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and such cases can come before this judge.

Keep reading

Newsom signs bill restricting law enforcement access to California ballots

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation Wednesday aimed at tightening California’s election security rules ahead of the June 2 statewide primary.

Senate Bill 73 takes effect immediately. It limits when law enforcement can access ballots, voter lists, rosters or certified voting technology.

The bill comes after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized more than 650,000 ballots from last fall’s Proposition 50 Special Election. The investigation was later halted amid legal challenges from California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“We have to clarify the rules of engagement. That’s why this legislation is important. There are fines associated with it, criminal fines, and jail time, three years,” Newsom said at Wednesday’s signing ceremony.

The bill prohibits peace officers from interfering with election administration, except in urgent public health or safety situations. It also requires a court order before law enforcement can take possession of key election materials. Removing packages containing voted ballots from the custody of elections officials would also be a crime. The law allows civil penalties of up to $50,000 for ballot custody violations.

The measure also directs the attorney general to issue guidance to local election workers on how to respond to law enforcement requests.

“SB73 puts in protections to ensure that ballots will be secured and that voters have confidence in our election system that their voices will be heard at the ballot box,” said California State Senator Sabrina Cervantes, one of the primary authors of the law.

Bianco, who is running as a Republican candidate for California governor, said he seized the ballots as part of an investigation into claims of voting discrepancies. Election officials disputed those claims.

Bianco later called the effort to halt his investigation “politically motivated.”

The bill signing came on the same day Assembly Democrats brought 23 separate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-related bills to a floor vote.

That legislation includes restricting federal law enforcement presence near polling places, stopping ICE officers from becoming California peace officers, requiring hotels to notify workers and guests when ICE has a reservation on site and withholding state tax breaks from companies that contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

“Don’t do that, man,” Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher said. “There’s several people on that side of the aisle I’m looking at. You know that’s wrong.”

Keep reading

Trump Declares War On UFO Secrecy & the Deep State… A New Executive Order May Be Only Days Away! 

The fight for transparency over UFO and UAP disclosures may be entering a whole new phase. Today on Stinchfield, author Kent Heckenlively joins us with explosive claims about what could be coming next from President Trump.

Heckenlively, co-author of the new book Catastrophic Disclosure, revealed sources close to President Trump are telling him a major executive order is now being prepared that will blow the lid off decades of secrecy surrounding UFO and UAP programs.

According to Heckenlively, the order would reportedly nullify government NDAs tied to UFO and UAP research, allowing scientists, military contractors, and insiders to finally come forward without fear of prosecution. It would also reportedly create a pathway to immunity for individuals who may have violated laws while participating in secret programs tied to recovered craft, advanced technology, or hidden government operations.

Heckenlively’s book is a deeply investigative look at what many believe is the Deep State’s role in hiding these programs for decades, while also examining whether the American people have been subjected to a long-running government psy-op surrounding UFOs and UAPs.

Keep reading

DNI Gabbard presses to declassify secret but critical court opinion during FISA renewal debate

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is pushing to declassify a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion expected to reveal major compliance failures in the government’s use of Section 702 surveillance powers, Just the News has learned.

The effort comes as Congress is debating whether to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the government to collect communications of foreign targets located abroad.

Civil liberties advocates and constitutional scholars have long argued the program also sweeps in large volumes of Americans’ communications without warrants, creating what critics describe as a loophole around Fourth Amendment protections.

At the center of the controversy is the government’s ability to conduct so-called backdoor searches, in which analysts query databases containing incidentally collected American communications. 

The pending court opinion is expected to detail concerns over how federal agencies have managed queries of Section 702 databases and whether internal guardrails designed to prevent abuse were circumvented, according to a senior intelligence official.

The Justice Department reportedly discovered in 2024 that the FBI had used a filtering mechanism that enabled personnel to query Section 702 data without fully complying with oversight requirements established under the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. 

Investigators reportedly found the system lacked adequate counting, tracking, and approval procedures that are required under the law.

Although officials said the specific tool was later shut down, the still-classified court opinion reportedly indicates that similar tools may continue to exist elsewhere within the intelligence community, including at the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Gabbard announced Friday she is stepping down June 30 to spend more time with her husband, Abraham, who was recently diagnosed with bone cancer.

Keep reading

Chicago City Council Passes Ordinance to Conceal Election Workers Identities From Public

In a 42-8 vote, Chicago’s City Council voted to pass the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson Sr. Fair Access to Democracy Ordinance.  The ordinance will essentially ban the doxing of government workers, especially election workers, and bolster requirements for landlords to provide secure mailboxes in accordance with United States Postal Service rules.

An earlier version of the ordinance included the creation of “democracy zones,” which would have forbidden federal immigration officials from entering the areas outside of polling places.  That provision, however, was removed prior to its passage.

The doxing stipulation claims the information can be used by those who wish to cause “death, bodily injury, stalking, harassment, or intimidation” to the government workers.  Those whose information was disclosed would be able to bring civil action for “damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

Last year, local officials in Chicago were calling for federal agents tasked with tracking down dangerous foreign gang members and detaining violent criminals to remove their masks and to provide identification upon request.  Two Chicago-area U.S. Representatives co-sponsored the “No Secret Police Act,” requiring ICE agents to wear identifying information on their uniforms, as reported by WTTW.

CBS News reported that the debate got contentious with some fierce language slung amongst the aldermen, with one claiming  that a threat of putting “a knife to your throat” if the ordinance is not passed was made:

Debate over the ordinance grew heated, as some alders expressed fears about potential voter suppression in the upcoming November elections, while others said it’s already the role of the Chicago Board of Elections to make sure polling places are secure from voter interference.

“This federal government is going to rig the elections this November. Make no mistake about it. So, choose a side. You’re on the side of history, when Reverend Jackson was fighting to encourage voting rights and protect them, or you are on the side of the fascists taking those rights away,” said Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25th).

Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd), who argued the ordinance was not yet ready for a vote by the full City Council, and said it’s already the job of the Chicago Board of Elections to secure polling places and protect voter privacy, said the threatening tone some of his colleagues used to pass the measure [was concerning.]

“It’s not about creating this situation here where dissent over a poorly drafted ordinance is something that should equate to divisive language that should be halted on the opinion of one person in this council,” he said. “One of the other comments yesterday, probably by one of the drafters, was if you don’t pass this, we will have a knife to your throat, and that kind of set me back a little bit when I was sitting in that committee meeting, because I heard that and I thought the same people who want me to vote on something recognizing the achievements of what is hopeful to be the long-lasting legacy of Jesse Jackson said, ‘If you don’t pass this we will have a knife to your throat.’”

Keep reading

Judge Orders Administration to Obey Presidential Records Act

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to follow a post-Watergate law governing presidential records, rejecting the Justice Department’s argument that the statute violates the Constitution. US District Judge John Bates ruled Wednesday that the Presidential Records Act likely is constitutional and that a group of historians showed there is a “substantial risk” the White House is not complying with it, ABC News reports. The law, in place for nearly a half-century, requires that presidential records be preserved and transferred to the National Archives so they can eventually be made public.

In a 54-page opinion that cited George Orwell, William Shakespeare, and the inscription on the National Archives building—”What is past is prologue”—Bates concluded that Congress has authority under the Constitution’s Property Clause to regulate presidential records. “Almost 50 years of practice” and Supreme Court precedent, he wrote, support Congress’ power to set the rules for presidential documents. The order directs the White House Office, the National Security Council, the US DOGE Service, and President Trump’s advisers to fully comply with the act, per the Washington Post. Bates set May 26 as the date for it to take effect.

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller are named in the order as being required to follow it. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are excluded, per CBS News. The records act has been invoked in debate since Trump was accused of taking sensitive presidential records to his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office. He was later indicted on charges of retaining classified information and obstruction of justice, a case that was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon, who maintained special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was improper.

Keep reading

Former DOJ Attorney Indicted For Stealing Copy of Jack Smith’s Report on Trump’s Classified Docs Investigation

A former Miami-based DOJ attorney was indicted for stealing a copy of Jack Smith’s report on Trump’s classified documents investigation.

Carmen Lineberger, the former Managing Assistant US Attorney, in Fort Pierce, Florida, was indicted on two counts of theft of government money or property, valued less than $1,000; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; and concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records.

Federal prosecutors alleged that Lineberger, 62, stole a copy of Jack Smith’s report, which was previously ordered by Judge Aileen Cannon to be kept secret, and sent it to her personal email account.

The indictment accuses Lineberger of sending the Jack Smith report to herself with misleading subject lines “chocolate cake recipe” and “bundt cake recipe.”

Lineberger pleaded not guilty on all four felony counts. She is facing more than 20 years in prison.

Per the DOJ:

The indictment alleges at the time of the offenses the defendant served as the Managing Assistant United States Attorney (MAUSA) of the Fort Pierce branch of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. In separate instances in late-2025, the defendant altered the electronic file names of government records that she received in her official capacity as the MAUSA in order to conceal her unauthorized electronic transmission of those records to personal email accounts belonging to her without being detected.

The altered government records included a document compiled by the defendant consisting of portions of internal DOJ electronic messages and an internal DOJ memorandum, and a DOJ report related to a criminal prosecution in the SDFL that had been court-ordered to remain under seal and prohibited from distribution or disclosure outside of DOJ.

As alleged in the indictment, the defendant concealed her actions by saving electronic copies of the government records in question under the misleading files names “chocolate cake recipe” and “bundt cake recipe” before electronically transmitting those records to her personal email accounts.

As to the DOJ report, the indictment further alleges the defendant acted knowing that her transmission of the record outside DOJ directly violated the court order and impaired the proper administration of the underlying criminal prosecution.

Lineberger appeared in federal court today for her arraignment before Southern District of Florida Chief United States Magistrate Judge William Matthewman in West Palm Beach, Florida.

If convicted, Lineberger faces up to twenty years’ imprisonment for destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations, three years’ imprisonment for concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records, and up to one year imprisonment on each count of theft of government property valued at less than $1,000.

The case is being jointly investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Christie S. Utt from the Northern District of Florida, who was assigned as a special prosecutor to avoid conflicts of interest with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

Keep reading

China Off-Balance-Sheet Debt Exceeds GDP of Most Nations

For decades, there have been claims that China had the fastest-growing economy, and that it would eventually overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. However, the fastest-growing economies are always developing economies because mature economies do not have as much room to grow.

In other words, a country with a per-capita GDP of $80 per month, as China had in the year 2000, has far more room for rapid expansion than a country like the United States, where the figure now stands at around $7,000 per month.

There is also the concept of low-hanging fruit. When a country has no highways or rail infrastructure, building highways and railways causes GDP to skyrocket. But once all major cities are connected, building additional highways and rail lines has only a marginal impact on economic growth.

A case in point is China’s famous high-speed rail system. Once highways and conventional railways already existed in China, converting to high-speed rail represented a massive economic investment and a large accumulation of debt, while the resulting increase in GDP was relatively minimal. For one thing, high-speed rail cannot be used to carry freight.

While China is still building high-speed rail lines, linking small communities with other small communities, the world is moving toward a remote-work model, making the movement of people a smaller contributor to GDP. Moving freight, however, remains critically important. Despite having a population less than one-quarter the size of China’s, the United States operates approximately 220,000 kilometers of total rail, about 33 percent more than China’s 162,000 kilometers, the vast majority of which is dedicated to freight.

Along with this development boom in China came debt. Because of the centrally planned economy, the central government was able to order local governments to invest and develop by creating debt. That debt was financed largely through real-estate sales, as the Chinese government controls actual land ownership rather than simple lease arrangements, which is what individual “homeowners” in China actually possess.

In order to keep this debt from detracting from the appearance of investment and economic performance, large portions of the debt were kept off the balance sheet.

Keep reading

Open Records Laws Reveal ALPRs’ Sprawling Surveillance. Now States Want to Block What the Public Sees.

Reporters, community advocates, EFF, and others have used public records laws to reveal and counteract abuse, misuse, and fraudulent narratives around how law enforcement agencies across the country use and share data collected by automated license plate readers (ALPRs). EFF is alarmed by recent laws in several states that have blocked public access to data collected by ALPRs, including, in some cases, information derived from ALPR data. We do not support pending bills in Arizona and Connecticut that would block the public oversight capabilities that ALPR information offers.

Every state has laws granting members of the public the right to obtain records from state and local governments. These are often called “freedom of information acts” (FOIAs) or “public records acts” (PRAs). They are a powerful check by the people on their government, and EFF frequently advocates for robust public access and uses the laws to scrutinize government surveillance. 

But lawmakers across the country, often in response to public scrutiny of police ALPRs, are introducing or enacting measures aimed at excluding broad swaths of ALPR information from disclosure under these public records laws. This could include whole categories of important information: general information about the extent of law enforcement use; details on ALPR sharing across policing agencies; data on the number of license plate scans conducted, where they happened, and how many “hits” for license plates of interest actually occur; analyses on how many false matches or other errors occur; and images taken of individuals’ own vehicles. 

No thanks. Public records and public scrutiny of ALPR programs have shown that people are harmed by these systems and that retained ALPR data violates people’s privacy. In this moment, lawmakers should not be completely cutting off access to public records that document the abuses perpetuated by ALPRs.

Keep reading

Statement From One Of The Petitioner’s Attorneys On Raffensberg ‘Secret Bunker’ Case

Below is a statement from an attorney representing the petitioner’s in the case demanding observers in the Secretary of State’s ‘bunker’ used for election results.

STATEMENT FROM ONE OF THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEYS

…regarding the Court’s decision to rescind it’s earlier ruling: “When Judge Glanville called me earlier today he stated that he agrees with our interpretation of the law – that the Secretary’s compilation of results should be open to public observation.

While the State secured an additional 5 days, the court has set a short notice hearing for May 28th at which time we expect to be successful in our efforts to compel the Secretary to admit observers and State Election Board members at his secret meetings where winners and losers are decided.”

Keep reading