Law & Order!

When Congress has no backbone, it is like a lawless Western town where corruption runs rampant and the sheriff looks the other way.

Trump Skirts Court Commands as Distrust Between Branches Spirals

Repeated compliance disputes and personal attacks on judges are straining relations between the executive branch and the judiciary.

New York Times

By Charlie Savage

Nov. 2, 2026

Since President Trump returned to office nearly two years ago, courts have frequently ordered his administration to pause or halt aggressive actions after they drew legal challenges. But again and again, his executive branch has skirted judicial constraints through delayed, contested or incomplete compliance, all while Mr. Trump has attacked judges appointed by presidents of both parties.

An examination of confrontations across the country shows a widening breakdown in trust between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. Judges increasingly greet Justice Department representations with skepticism. Administration officials, meanwhile, have treated courts with disdain — accusing judges of bias and seeking their removal. In an extraordinary step, the administration recently filed a misconduct complaint against nearly every active district judge in Minnesota.

The result has been a poisoning of the relations between the branches to such a degree that it is now straining the judiciary’s ability to serve as a check on executive power, as Mr. Trump approaches the second half of his term.

Judges throw out a case, the DOJ brings it back with a slight twist, or they lie to the judges like in the golf course case. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes has ordered an investigation if DOJ lied to him!

CBS News reported that,

Reyes has sparred with the government since it cut down hundreds of trees earlier this month with little notice to the court or plaintiffs. In a hearing two weeks ago, after more than 430 trees were felled, the judge told lawyers for the government that they had "lost credibility," and she was "furious" and "thoroughly unamused."

[...]

She said she only intervened "because the Government did what it assured all it would not do," by chopping down hundreds of trees on the golf course.

Reyes found that the D.C. Preservation League is likely to succeed in showing the Trump administration's plans for the golf course violate the legal requirement for an environmental review.

The judge said she was appointing a special master to investigate whether the court had been intentionally misled or whether the government had acted in bad faith regarding the renovation timeline and the sudden removal of the trees.

The New York Times article went on to say,

Others have been more complex and less clear-cut. Judges and the administration have fought over interpretations of specific judicial commands and failures by officials to live up to assurances they made to courts without explicit written orders. Sometimes, the executive branch has gotten around the courts by coming up with a new legal rationale for a policy that a judge said was not authorized by the authority officials initially cited.

Just like Trump did contractors he shorted on his hotel constructions!

USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills

Donald Trump casts himself as a protector of workers and jobs, but a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found hundreds of people – carpenters, dishwashers, painters, even his own lawyers – who say he didn’t pay them for their work.

Steve Reilly

USA TODAY

June 9, 2016

During the Atlantic City casino boom in the 1980s, Philadelphia cabinet-builder Edward Friel Jr. landed a $400,000 contract to build the bases for slot machines, registration desks, bars and other cabinets at Harrah's at Trump Plaza.

The family cabinetry business, founded in the 1940s by Edward’s father, finished its work in 1984 and submitted its final bill to the general contractor for the Trump Organization, the resort’s builder.

Edward’s son, Paul, who was the firm’s accountant, still remembers the amount of that bill more than 30 years later: $83,600. The reason: the money never came. “That began the demise of the Edward J. Friel Company… which has been around since my grandfather,” he said.

Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.

Just as Trump did with contractors who say he shortchanged them on his hotel construction projects!

The Times in the article also said:

In some cases, skeptical judges have dismissed high-profile indictments and quashed investigative subpoenas, including at times finding that the Justice Department had improper motivations. And judges have increasingly been concluding that the department has been misrepresenting facts in civil litigation hearings and filings.

There is a common thread running through all of this: Trump has a long history of using his power and resources to bully his way through disputes, whether dealing with contractors or business associates. Now, he is using the institutions of government to bully those he considers his enemies.

How Trump Is Using the Justice Department to Target His Enemies

The New York Times
By Alan Feuer and Lily Boyce

Oct. 17, 2025

From the moment Donald J. Trump began his campaign to return to the White House, he has expressed a clear desire to seek vengeance against his perceived enemies. In the last few weeks, the pressure campaign has intensified with two of his foes — James Comey and Letitia James — now indicted.

Back in power, Mr. Trump has weaponized the Justice Department to his own ends, critics say, in a more direct manner than any president since the Nixon era. The department, now led by Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyers, has fired dozens of career prosecutors, many of whom had worked on cases involving Mr. Trump. And the president and his allies have targeted or pushed out several U.S. attorneys as he seeks quick movement on cases involving a number of his political adversaries.

Why is he able to get away with it is because the Republicans are afraid of him... but as he loses his luster some of them are getting backbone and we shall if those who bowed down to him get re-elected. And those that just squeaked by will see that the emperor has no clothes.

Well It Did What It Was Designed To Do!

Alternate title: Rinse and Repeat!

Alaska Democrats ask judge to remove imprisoned out-of-state U.S. House candidate from November ballot

September 5, 2024 by Eric Stone, Alaska Public Media – Juneau

The Alaska Democratic Party is asking a judge to kick a convicted felon serving a 20-year sentence in a New York federal prison off this November’s general election ballot. Eric Hafner is challenging Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola for Alaska’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hafner placed sixth in the top-four primary. He advanced to the general election ballot after the third- and fourth-place candidates dropped out in an apparent effort to consolidate the Republican vote.

Hafner is currently in federal prison for threatening public officials in New Jersey and has never lived in Alaska. He’s running as a Democrat but does not have the backing of the state party. Any candidate can run under whatever party banner they like under Alaska’s open primary system. The Alaska Democratic Party’s executive director did not respond to an interview request.

Yep… the Republicans did it in the last election too! What is the difference between the two?

The party says that means he never should have been certified as a candidate in the first place. They also argue that Alaska’s election laws don’t allow the sixth-place candidate to advance to the general election under any circumstances. The Democrats say his presence on the ballot could also siphon voters from Peltola.

Oh gee, where have we heard that before?

The courts allowed him to stay on the ballot just like they ruled now! Newsweek wrote about him here…

Who Is Eric Hafner? Democrat on Alaska Ballot Accused of Being GOP Ploy

By Steve Mollman and Joshua Rhett Miller

Oct 29, 2026 

A Democrat serving a 20-year federal prison sentence has advanced to Alaska's general-election ballot for a second time, renewing scrutiny of an unusual candidate whom the state's Republican Party went to court to help keep on the ballot.

Eric Hafner, who has never lived in Alaska, advanced from the state's 2026 U.S. House primary after also making the general-election ballot in 2024. His candidacy is drawing fresh attention amid the explosive controversy over Alaska's two Dan Sullivans.

Why isn’t this all over the evening news?

Why isn’t the FBI investigating him and the Republicans? Huh?

I want to repeat… under Alaskan law, all it takes is $100 to get on the ballot! That allows anyone to get on the ballot… if anything needs to be changed, it’s their law.

---

Updated: 3:20PM

The judge has ruled on the case...

Judge tosses Trump's attempt to block Alaska Senate results if GOP incumbent loses

November 1, 20262

NPR News

Hansi Lo Wang

A federal judge has thrown out the Trump administration's highly unusual attempt to block the certification of results from a key U.S. Senate race in Alaska if the Republican incumbent loses.

In a ruling released Sunday, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason found the federal government does not have the ability to bring this lawsuit, which cited the preamble of the National Voter Registration Act.

It asked the judge to stop state officials from certifying election results to allow for an investigation into whether voters were confused by having two similarly named Senate candidates appear on Alaska's ranked-choice ballot.

But Judge Gleason concluded that such a court order would likely violate Alaskan voters' right to a secret ballot.

"The absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is telling," wrote Gleason, a nominee of former President Barack Obama.

Of course Trump's team is going to appeal!

---

Updated: 11/2 @ 7:30AM

Ball & Strikes reported that;

This case started back in May, when Daniel J. Sullivan filed to run for Senate as a Republican, despite never having previously been affiliated with the party. After the state GOP complained, the Alaska Division of Elections determined that under state law, Daniel J. Sullivan was ineligible to run because he did not file “in good faith for the purpose of genuinely pursuing election,” and instead sought to “confuse or mislead” voters. The letter noted, for example, his request to be identified as “Dan,” like the incumbent. It also alluded to the subject matter of the Times story, highlighting his work with a political consultant who is a “known longtime supporter of Democratic candidates,” including Peltola.

Sullivan appealed, and in June, an Alaska trial court judge reversed the Division of Elections’s decision. The gist of Judge Thomas A. Matthews’s order, which the Alaska Supreme Court later affirmed, is that under state law, the qualifications to run for Senate straightforwardly track the language of the U.S. Constitution: Candidates must be at least 30 years old and citizens for at least nine years, and live in the state they seek to represent. Given that Daniel J. Sullivan checks all three boxes, Matthews found that officials had no authority to invent an additional “good-faith” requirement and use it to “exclude an otherwise qualified candidate.”

Look, everyone knows that this was done to “confuse or mislead” the voters... however it is not against the law.

Whatever you think of Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy, it is not an illegal effort to stop people from voting: He is running for office, under his real name, in the state where he lives. Anyone who gets “tricked” into voting for him (and only for him) is still, in fact, voting. Even if one of the more ambitious Trump prosecutors decides to give it a shot, the First Amendment will present serious challenges, since going after candidates and their supporters for ostensibly harboring ulterior motives would criminalize a lot of things that parties in this country already do.

You know what they always say... if you don't like the law change it! I did.

---

Alaska!

That is all I have to say, and you know exactly what I mean.

There are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot:

Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent

Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.

Can you tell the difference? Can you pick out which Sullivan is the Republican? Can you tell who is the Independent?

That is what the battle is about! The Republicans are hopping up and down, pointing fingers! "SEE! SEE! See what they did!"

Okay, how did he get on the ballot? For that, we have to look at how you get on the ballot in Alaska. In most states, you have to collect "X" number of signatures from voters, but not in Alaska.

In Alaska, all you have to do is pay $100 and... voilà, you are on the ballot!

The Alaska Supreme Court has put in its 2¢!

In June, CBS News reported that…

The battle of the Dan Sullivans is on. 

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Republican candidate with the same name as GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan can challenge the sitting lawmaker in the state's Senate primary in August. The high court upheld a ruling from a lower court judge that cleared the way for Daniel J. Sullivan to appear on the primary ballot, reversing a decision by state officials earlier this month that he was ineligible because he was allegedly trying to confuse voters.

The state Supreme Court directed Alaska's Division of Elections to decide how Daniel J. Sullivan should be listed on the ballot "within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law."

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on whether the state could keep the second Sullivan off the ballot. The court said no. The feds have zero jurisdiction over Alaska!

Verdict writes:

Yet the fact that there is a genuine reason for concern does not mean that there is a legal basis for the DOJ’s lawsuit. There is not, as should be apparent to anyone with even a rudimentary legal education who reads the DOJ complaint. It cites no provision of federal law obligating states to mitigate any confusing effect of candidates with similar names. That’s because there is no applicable federal law.

But you know darn well this is going to the Supreme Court!

However, I don’t think that it will end in the courts; I think that it will end on January 3rd, when Congress begins the new term and swears in members as mandated by the Twentieth Amendment.

The question will be… "Will Congress vote for the party or the voters?"

If there is a problem, then it is with Alaska state law. Here in Connecticut, you need 1% of voters to sign a petition for you to get on the ballot in Alaska the is simply too low. But that is a state decision to make, not a federal one!

Then we have this...

[/Political Analysis]

Breaking News: Court Allows Trans Prisoner To Receive Treatment For Them.

Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to restrict some medical treatments for transgender inmates

CBS News

By Melissa Quinn

October 21, 2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday left intact a lower court decision that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a new Bureau of Prisons policy that would end certain medical interventions for transgender inmates.

In an unsigned, one-line order, the high court rejected an emergency appeal from the Justice Department asking it to freeze the district court order and revive the new rules. The policy would cut off surgical and hormone therapy treatments, as well as social accommodations, for inmates who have been or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have allowed the Trump administration to enforce the change.

Using Religion To Justify Hate.

[Editorial]

I am non-denominational… I believe in God but not in anyone religion.

Mainstream religion is not the problem… it is the radical that are the problem. If you look around the world all the religions of the world has for their beliefs the “Golden Rule” which basically says to treat people as you want to be treated.

But it the extremists that cause the problems. Here in the US it is the evangelicals who practice… the fire and brimstone religion and preach hate of "others".

It is the conservative religions the in the US that is the problem here. And the courts are backing their “religious freedom,” the courts gave them a blank check to discriminate. The cake shop in Colorado said the magic words… “it is against my religion!”

It is those magic words that allow people to discriminate against us, there is no way to counter it, no way to prove that it isn’t.

But they courts have put limits on “religious freedom” they don’t allow human sacrifice. They don’t allow drugs. They don’t allow bigamy. So saying it is okay to discriminate against us… is bull!

The thing is many conservatives think being LGBTQ+ is a choice. They totally ignore all the medical research calling propaganda!

But we are only the tip of the iceberg!

Take a look at JD Vance and Peter Hegseth. They are both far-right Christians Hegseth has even gone so far at to tattoo himself in Crusader’s symbols.

The far-right Christians believe a wife should not work (Hint: Hegseth’s firing of women generals and not promoting women officers).

They are against divorce.

Of course we know their position on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

We have seen cases where they claim religious discrimination because they had to work on their holy day even though they knew it was a requirement.

So what would I change?

Nothing!

What?

In the past, there were several tests used by the Supreme Court to determine whether a law improperly burdened or discriminated against religion.…

The Sherbert test:

In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court developed a test for laws that substantially burden someone's religious practice. The basic approach was:

    • Does the law substantially burden the person's religious exercise?

    • If so, does the government have a compelling interest for imposing that burden?

    • Is the law using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest?

The Lemon test asked whether:

    • The law had a secular purpose;

    • Its primary effect neither advanced nor inhibited religion; and

    • It avoided excessive government entanglement with religion.

But Trump’s court toss those tests out! The Supreme Court abandoned the Lemon framework in 2022 and adopted their own test.

I would go back to the Lemon and Sherbert tests.

If a religious sect want a court for their disciples… fine. But secular law prevails and there can be no double jeopardy between the religious and secular courts. In other words if a person murder a LGBTQ+ person and they trial him in religious court and the court finds him innocent because of their sect’s belief. That cannot stop a secular courts trying him on murder. Lastly, a religious court can not prosecute a non-believer.

Religious freedom means the government shouldn't tell you what to believe or unnecessarily interfere with your religious practice. It doesn't mean your religious beliefs automatically determine what everyone else must do.

[/Editorial] 

One Land, One Justice.

One set of laws governing the land.

That is the basis of our Constitution... but the Supreme Court is thinking that maybe two sets of laws or more might govern the country.

Supreme Court Emergency Docket Asked to Protect Right to Use Religious Courts

A state court has ordered an Orthodox Jew to demand that a rabbinical court reverse a religious ruling. That goes too far.

National Review

By Dan McLaughlin

September 23, 2026

The use of religious tribunals to settle disputes that might otherwise be heard in civil courts has long been a fault line in systems of civil law. The very structure of Anglo-American law presumes a sometimes-abstruse division between the spheres of law and equity that has roots in medieval England, where the chancery courts (while ruling in the king’s name) were often de facto religious tribunals. In more modern times, when the government’s courts are civil, we see instead controversies arise when litigants want to use the religious courts — or feel compelled by their religious communities to do so.

[...]

he use of religious tribunals to settle disputes that might otherwise be heard in civil courts has long been a fault line in systems of civil law. The very structure of Anglo-American law presumes a sometimes-abstruse division between the spheres of law and equity that has roots in medieval England, where the chancery courts (while ruling in the king’s name) were often de facto religious tribunals. In more modern times, when the government’s courts are civil, we see instead controversies arise when litigants want to use the religious courts — or feel compelled by their religious communities to do so.

Now, this hot potato has landed on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. Justice Sonia Sotomayor ordered Wednesday that a response be filed by Monday, September 28, in Strulovitch v. Bain, a case arising from a collision between the courts of New York State and an Orthodox Jew’s resort to a rabbinical court known as a beis (or beth) din. The dispute is a real one, although whether it belongs on the emergency docket is a closer question, especially because it is embedded in a commercial dispute whose twists and turns are characteristically intricate.

My problem is... "feel compelled by their religious communities to do so," and also what happens if someone is not a member of that religious sect? The way I see it, it is like a clause to use binding arbitration (which I am against). As long as both parties agree, I don't see a problem, but if it is forced on a person... no. And that a person can back out at any time.

The order by Jamieson goes further than necessary in trying to “rectify the potential damage” to a litigant’s “reputation in the religious community.” Whether the Supreme Court will find that this is a sufficiently urgent First Amendment violation to warrant emergency relief is another matter. And it’s always hazardous to judge the whole case just on one side’s argument. But the narrow relief of striking that portion of the order seems warranted if one wishes to avoid a collision between the secular and religious courts.

A can of worms is about to be opened when you have two or more sets of laws...

One nation under one law!

Hmm... I wonder if they would change their tune if the religious court ruled that trans women are women. I bet you would hear the Supreme Court change their tune.

I have to wonder if a religious court or body issues a ruling that affirms trans people, I think the the conservative courts or lawmakers will suddenly become very interested in asserting state supremacy and invalidating religious autonomy. However, when religious rules are used to restrict rights or enforce traditional hierarchies, I see the same institutions will be eager to carve out broad "religious freedom" exemptions.

Racial Profiling -- OK

At least one Supreme Court justice thinks it is okay to arrest U.S. citizens because they look foreign!

ICE Cites Brett Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS Opinion To Defend Targeting US Citizen

Newsweekl

By Dan Gooding and Joshua Rhett Miller

Sep 23, 2026

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday cited a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, written last year by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, to defend immigration agents who stopped and questioned an American citizen in Illinois because he looked like their target.

In its reasoning, the department said it had been "vindicated" for its practices through the Supreme Court opinion, which said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could stop an individual based on reasonable suspicion. Critics have argued that this allows agents to racially profile individuals as potential undocumented immigrants, leading to conflicts between federal agents and U.S. citizens.

[...]

"To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court's case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors," Kavanaugh wrote.

Welcome to Trump's world... a mixture of The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, and Brave New World! We are moving toward a society where citizens are eyed with automatic suspicion and forced to justify their presence evokes the exact kind of dystopian surveillance and erosion of rights as in those novels. "Your papers please!"

Sorry Charlie!

Well, a school district in Virginia has seen the light! That is, after a lawsuit.

King George School Board votes to permit non-curricular organizations at middle school level

Fredericksburg Free Press

By Adele Uphaus | Sep 11, 2026

The King George County School Board approved updates to its policy governing student organizations and a regulation governing non-curriculum-related student organizations following a closed session that began at 8 a.m. Friday.

The updated policy allows secondary school students to organize and conduct meetings of non-curriculum-related groups — a change to language the board adopted last November that restricted such groups to high school students only.

The updated regulation lays out the procedure for establishing a non-curriculum-related student organization. It requires “proof of written parental permission to form and/or join” the organization. If the organization wants to renew for a subsequent year, the renewal request form must include “a list of students who are currently members” and “proof of written parental permission from each member to renew such membership.”

So lets step back in time to...

A Virginia school board bent over backward to block an LGBTQ+ club. One mom explains why she’s suing

Susan Park says she filed a federal lawsuit after the King George County School Board repeatedly rewrote its rules to keep a gay-straight alliance from forming.

The Advocate

Christopher Wiggins

Aug 06, 2026

Susan Park’s child has already advanced from King George Middle School, about an hour and 20 minutes southeast of Washington, D.C. The eighth-grade year in which he hoped to join a gay-straight alliance, make friends and find some relief from bullying is over. That time cannot be returned to him. When school starts, he will enter King George High School.

Park could have allowed the dispute over the club to become another family’s problem. Instead, on Tuesday, she, along with the family of another student, filed a federal lawsuit so that the next LGBTQ+ student in this rural Virginia county might receive what her child was denied.

The school was happy with providing the club... but then parents and outsider got involved!

Some parents circulated the materials in a community Facebook group, generating hundreds of comments. The proposed faculty sponsor was allegedly doxxed, accused of “grooming” children and targeted with demands that she be fired.

The Fredericksburg Free Press went on to write;

“I’d [Board member Ed Frank] also like to state that every student in King George County Schools deserves to be safe, treated with dignity, and protected from bullying,” he said. “My concern is not about denying protection to any child. My concern is age appropriateness, parental transparency, and rules governing extracurricular discussions.”

[...]

Board member Colleen Hoover said “a lot of blood, sweat, and tears” went into conversations about the policy and regulation.

“The community as a whole needs to come out and be more supportive,” she said. “We were voted into this position to be here and do what you want us to do, and sometimes when things get difficult, it would be nice to have more community support.”

Gee how the Board changed its tune once the lawsuit was filed!

In another Advocate article they report;

“Having been advised that the parties have reached a settlement,” Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne wrote in a September 4 order obtained by The Advocate, “any further discovery deadlines are stayed until further order of this Court.”

[...]

The lawsuit accused the school board, Superintendent Jesse Boyd, and King George Middle School Principal Casey Nice of violating the First Amendment and the federal Equal Access Act by blocking the GSA while finding ways for other student organizations to continue operating.

The legal principle is well established. In Board of Education v. Mergens, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act, which requires federally funded public secondary schools that permit noncurricular clubs to provide other student groups equal access regardless of their message. Federal courts have repeatedly applied that protection to GSAs, including rulings for students in California and Kentucky. In 2016, a federal appeals court also ruled that the act covered a Florida middle school. Schools can close their forums to all noncurricular clubs, but once they allow even one, courts have said they cannot exclude an LGBTQ+ student group because officials or community members object to what it represents.

They added more hoops for the after school organizations to jump through...

Under a regulation adopted Friday, students must provide proof of written parental permission to form or join such an organization. Groups seeking to return in subsequent years must submit a membership list and proof that every student has parental permission to renew their participation.

So, because of their hatred of all things LGBTQ+, they added extra burdens for all the other clubs... which I imagine will not make them popular with the other clubs and students, and the LGBTQ+ students will be blamed for it.

Allegiance

That is Trump's mind set... I appointed you so you owe your allegiance to me and not the Constitution!

Trump slams the Supreme Court for rejecting his push to restrict mail ballots

AP News

By  SEUNG MIN KIM

Sept. 15, 2026

President Donald Trump on Tuesday went after the Supreme Court after it rejected his push to restrict mail-in voting in this year’s midterms, saying justices who opposed him were “not the people I interviewed.”

[...]

“The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History,” Trump wrote in a lengthy social media post Tuesday. “This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.”

[...]

“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves,” Trump said. He asserted that the court “is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal.”

Trump went on to say...

“It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court - it will likely cost me dearly for years to come - but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love!” Trump said.

Trump doesn't even calculate the Constitution and the laws... it is all about loyalty to him.  

This Is Just The Type Of Person The Republicans Are Looking For!

Accused of domestic violence. ✓
Questions about whether he lied on his jury questionnaire. ✓
Ignores facts. ✓

 

CBS News reported that...

 CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi said the real issue here is whether the juror lied when filling out the juror questionnaire.

 

 "The test is whether he made purposeful misrepresentations during the jury selection process. If he did, that's a crime," she said, adding that "an arrest is not an automatic disqualification for serving on a jury." 

The juror court questionnaires are sealed as part of the official court record.

"It's unlikely we will find out whether the juror made misrepresentations unless there is an official court-sanctioned inquiry," Polisi said. 

If the juror did lie on the form, they could be charged with perjury or making false statements to the court.

But that is the backstory... what I want to write about is the offer Florida made to the juror.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Offers ‘Asylum’ to Holdout Juror in Lindsay Clancy Case
“If the juror is being harassed, Florida will provide asylum,” DeSantis wrote on social media
People

By Charlotte Phillipp
September 13, 2026

 

 

 NEED TO KNOW

•     Governor Ron DeSantis criticized media coverage of the holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial and offered him “asylum” in Florida
•     The juror reportedly has a history of domestic violence allegations and an active restraining order against him, according to a Sept. 11 report from NBC10 Boston
•     Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial after jurors tasked with determining criminal responsibility in the deaths of her three young children couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict

 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is offering “asylum” to the holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial after accusing media outlets of launching a smear campaign against him.

On Friday, Sept. 11, DeSantis, 47, shared a post on X in response to a recent report from NBC10 Boston that the juror has a history of alleged domestic violence and an active restraining order against him.

“A man objected to allowing a woman to kill her three young kids and get away with it, so NBC is trying to smear that juror, whose identity should be protected. Another low for legacy media,” the governor wrote. “If the juror is being harassed, Florida will provide asylum — I’m sure he’d be welcomed and appreciated.”

That is total BS! That is a total lie! The jury was hung. It was split 11 to 1 in favor of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility (insanity) due to postpartum psychosis. She would have a hearing for involuntary commitment, and then, depending upon the outcome, she could have an initial hospital commitment that can last up to six months. After that, the facility can request successive one-year extensions.

To me, this isn't really about Lindsay Clancy. It's about the governor of Florida using a Massachusetts criminal case as a political weapon against a Democratic state. The New York Post reported that,

NBC10 Boston reported that the juror was accused of attacking his wife in September 2021 and that last year his nephew had taken out a restraining order against him. The man also faces a pending eviction case by his landlord for $12,000 of unpaid rent, the outlet reported.

Court records show that the juror divorced his wife after the alleged incident in 2021 and that the criminal charge against him was dismissed — although his ex-wife said she backed away from pursuing the case because she was worried that testifying could cause her to lose custody of her daughter, the outlet reported.

 

 Juror questionnaires in Massachusetts ask prospective jurors whether they have been arrested, charged with a crime, or been served with a court order — all which should have been answered affirmatively by the holdout juror, NBC10 reported.

That is the person he wants to give asylum to: a nice, fine, upstanding individual. But the real reason he wants to offer it is to take a political dig at a Democratic state. He doesn't care one iota about the case, just that he thinks he can get votes over this! He is playing to the MAGA crowd.

However, what is even more outrageous is what the Hindustan Times is reporting...

Lindsay Clancy holdout juror GiveSendGo raises whopping $110,700 as Ron DeSantis offers him ‘asylum’
A GiveSendGo launched for a male holdout juror who reportedly led to a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case has already raised $110,700.
Sep 14, 2026

By Sumanti Sen

 

 

 A GiveSendGo launched for a male holdout juror who reportedly led to a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case had raised $110,700 at the time of writing this article. The GiveSendGo, which aims to raise $150,000, describes how “one juror held his seat” when support poured in for Lindsay.

 

[...]

 

 “The country got the full TikTok-diagnostics package. Postpartum. Psychosis. Voices. Trauma. A stack of pill bottles and a sad playlist. The SSRI-medicated mob ran cover like this was a self-care story instead of a triple child killing. They wanted a diagnosis, not a verdict. They wanted her sick, not guilty. They wanted three dead kids memory-holed so nobody had to say the words mother and murderer in the same sentence,” the fundraiser says.

 The legal question was whether she was criminally responsible because of her mental state, and one juror disagreed with the other eleven. DeSantis chose to portray that juror as a heroic man standing up against people supposedly trying to excuse the killing of three children.

 

While the conservatives are making him out as some kind of male hero! They have turned the focus from perjury to sexism. OK Magazine wrote:

Joe Rogan Slams Supporters of Lindsay Clancy, Says They Wouldn't Rally If a Father 
Faced the Same Trial: 'This Lady Killed Her Kids'

Lesley Abravanel
Sept. 3 2026

 

 

 Podcaster Joe Rogan slammed public advocates and social media users supporting Lindsay Clancy, pointing to a double standard between men and women.

Rogan argued that the public sympathy surrounding the case highlights a societal bias. He claimed, "This lady killed her kids, and everyone's like, 'Oh my God, she needed help.' Imagine if a single father killed his kids.”

He asserted that a father facing identical charges would never receive a "Free Lindsay"-style campaign or solidarity rallies.

Totally illogical!

He slammed the wave of people creating dedicated support groups and spreading online conspiracy theories to defend her actions. He described the phenomenon as proof that "people are out of their f------ minds right now.”

"If those ladies could see the crime scene and see those dead kids with their f------ vacant eyes staring up because their mother took their life, the last f------ thing that they saw was their mother standing over them, choking them to death, I don't think they would feel so bad,” he said.

This is what MAGA thinks now... toxic masculinity! And it is so easy to get them riled up. So the guy who lied on a jury form is now a hero!

What A Can Of Worms!

So, in my news feed this morning was a story about a California trans court case... it is both good news and a great big unknown. In case you haven't heard, we had a victory... of sorts.

Lawyers and Settlements reports:

California Wins Transgender Athletes Lawsuit

A federal judge has ruled that California can continue allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ school sports, despite a recent Supreme Court decision allowing other states to ban them.

September 8, 2026,

By Jane Mundy

The legal battle over transgender athletes has produced an unusual result: states may ban transgender girls from girls’ sports, but they don’t have to.

Federal Judge Cynthia Valenzuela August 31st dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit challenging California policies that allow transgender students to compete on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

[...]

In its June 30 decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that West Virginia and Idaho could restrict participation on girls’ teams based on biological sex. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that states “may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females” and may determine eligibility based on biological sex.

But “may” turned out to be an important word. The Supreme Court did not rule that every state must adopt those restrictions. Nor did it decide the separate question of whether Title IX permits transgender girls to participate on girls’ and women’s teams.

Valenzuela concluded that nothing in Title IX clearly required California to exclude transgender girls. She found California had not received clear notice that billions of dollars in federal education funding were contingent on banning transgender girls from girls’ sports. The federal government’s guidance on the issue has also shifted repeatedly over the past decade.

What happens when a trans-friendly state plays a non-trans-friendly state?

Education Week reported that;

Therefore, Valenzuela wrote that California “lacked clear notice” of such categorical exclusion of transgender athletes as a condition of the federal funding California received, and other court decisions—including the Supreme Court’s in June—did not “supply the missing clarity.”

It seems like each state is on its own. If "states' rights" hold up in court, it will be very interesting to see what happens. What will happen, say, in the Rose Bowl if one team bans trans athletes, or if a team with trans athletes plays in a state that bans them? Will they have to forfeit?

Data Centers!

You all have heard the buzz about data centers. So what do data centers do?

Well, there is AI.

Then we have all the stuff you store on the cloud.

But we also have... Trump's new voter lists! Huh? What are those? Well, you know how Trump wants all the states to send him a list of their voters.

Editorial: Federal information has become suspect

September 4, 2026

By American Press Staff

President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order on mail-in voting directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create state by state lists of eligible voters for federal elections. DHS would use federal databases to get the names, but those databases have been considered to be controversial.

The Associated Press has reported that an immigrant rights group sued the Trump administration Wednesday to block DHS from using federal databases that it alleged are being used to target naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights filed the lawsuit in U.S.  District Court in Washington. It alleges that DHS and the U.S. Justice Department are interfering with fair elections by using inaccurate federal databases in an attempt to buttress allegations of voter fraud.

Everyone but Trump & Company knows that there is no widespread voter fraud and that he is using that excuse to build a massive database on the citizens... just like China, North Korea, and Russia.  So now Trump is before the Supreme Court begging them to let him do it.

The lawsuit alleges that the administration might be comparing voter rolls with undisclosed government databases. Those systems can include outdated information and be riddled with errors, it said, and could produce inaccurate results that disproportionately affect naturalized voters.

“Comparing government databases to try and arrive at a list of noncitizen registrants has been shown to result in erroneous data,” the lawsuit said.

“Congress has never authorized such activities and in fact has prohibited invasion of voter privacy through government data matches in this way.”

I don't know about you... but this doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

The Fulcrum reports that,

Trump’s Plan to Gather Data on Every Voter Will Cripple Democracy

By Austin Sarat

Jan 17, 2026

On January 8, Texas turned over to the Justice Department a treasure trove of information about every voter in the Lone Star state. Names, addresses, voters’ party registrations, whether they had ever cast a preliminary ballot, and more, all of it to be provided in response to the Trump administration’s unprecedented demand for data on voters everywhere.

For a state that has long prided itself on its fierce independence and resistance to federal overreach, one might have expected it to put up a fight. But here, as in many other areas, partisan loyalty displaced state pride.

[...]

As an article in Texas Monthly explains, “The Justice Department last fall began asking all 50 states for their voter rolls — massive lists containing significant identifying information on every registered voter in each state — and other election-related data.” It claimed that “the effort is central to its mission of enforcing election law requiring states to regularly maintain voter lists by searching for and removing ineligible voters.”}

The United States Constitution: Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. 

Not Trump! But Congress and the states.

The Fulcrum goes on to report...

The unredacted lists include “sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.” Stateline’s Jonathan Shorman points out that “The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful….”

Why do they need all that information on us... so when they merge the databases you can link the fields.

Now Trump is going back to court to try and get his way.

Supreme Court Faces New Decision on Trump’s Mail-in Ballot USPS Changes

Newsweek

By Alex Backus

Sep 03, 2026

The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow new restrictions on mail-in voting to take effect, just one day before the first mail ballots are set to go out for November’s midterm elections.

The emergency request comes as legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order continue in lower courts.

The Supreme Court previously allowed the administration’s plan to move forward while litigation continues, but the justices have not yet ruled on whether the policy is legal.

Trump & Company are running scared and he could do anything... declare a national emergency! Say there is massive illegal voting by non-citizens. He can make up a thousand excuses.

The latest Supreme Court filing came hours after a federal court hearing in Boston, where a Justice Department attorney was unable to tell a judge whether the system needed to carry out the new requirements was operational.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani repeatedly pressed Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik for details about whether the Postal Service could implement the plan outlined in Trump’s executive order, which was issued last spring.

Then we have the big lie;

Asking for that information suggests that something else may be motivating the administration’s massive data mining effort. In the run-up to the 2026 elections, it may help it to precisely target Democratic voters and accuse them of election fraud or Democratic states for accusations of election irregularities.

But the plan doesn’t stop there. The Justice Department intends to share the data it gets with the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS will use it as part of its aggressive citizenship verification efforts. In addition, the department argues that “This collaboration with the DOJ will lawfully and critically enable DHS to prevent illegal aliens from corrupting our republic’s democratic process and further ensure the integrity of our elections nationwide.”

“Elections,” it insists, “exist for the American people to choose their leaders, not illegal aliens.”}

All those virtual illegal aliens voting! 

The unredacted lists include “sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.” Stateline’s Jonathan Shorman points out that “The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful….”

Can you imagine merging data bases with like Flock's ALPRs? (See below the hash line)

That is where the real danger lies.. merging of databases!

Imagine... You are a trans person running a non-profit that helps trans people sue for their legal rights. Well the Baptist News said that Trump's administration have frequently invoked high-profile acts of violence—such as the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—to claim that "extreme transgender ideologies" are driving a rise in left-wing domestic extremism.

That is the worry... the massive database will be used to track down trans people! All our information will allow the government to find us. They did it in Kansas, they used databases to track us down and revoke our driver licenses! They could also use it for more sinister and nefarious reasons.

So Trump is pushing data centers, exempting them from environmental laws public and hide them form public scrutiny. Why?

---

Then we have Flock's training film...

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

Jason Koebler

404

Sep 3, 2026

Flock taught cops how they could surveil the No Kings protests and “small parades” using a mix of Flock’s technology and law enforcement’s own databases in a webinar last year. As Flock publicly downplays the power of its automated license plate camera network and highlights its use to solve violent crime, the company’s seemingly endless trove of webinars, training sessions, and blog posts show it offers far more invasive capabilities.

In the webinar, Flock’s director of market management Caity Peak explains how real time crime centers — which are police surveillance centers that utilize Flock cameras and other surveillance cameras — can be used for emergency response, but can also be used to surveil “established events” like 4th of July fireworks displays, parades, bike races, Mardi Gras, and protests. The webinar shows just how routine the idea of always-on surveillance has become, and how casually it is used during extremely innocuous events. 

Peak explains that police can use FlockOS, a software platform that combines Flock’s automatic license plate readers (ALPR), drones, gunshot detectors, 911 data, and other surveillance cameras (including ones Flock does not own) into a “single pane of glass” or single piece of software to look at various types of surveillance in one place during both emergencies and relatively mundane events in a city or town. 

Interlocking databases!

404 Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation previously showed that police have specifically used Flock cameras to monitor the No Kings protests and other First Amendment-protected activity. 404 Media found California cops used Flock to monitor an “immigration protest.” The EFF found that the following law enforcement agencies ran Flock searches related to No Kings protests and rallies:

[...]

This webinar shows this type of surveillance is not anomalous, and is specifically taught by Flock. The webinar also shows that Flock’s latest public stance — that its ALPR cameras are noninvasive technology, that they take only static images at a single place and time, and that they are primarily used to solve the worst crimes — is wildly misleading. Flock has time and time again pitched itself to police as a sort of operating system to solve crime and do real-time surveillance and predictive policing. ALPRs are just one part of this broader surveillance apparatus that Flock has created, markets to police, and teaches them how to use. These real time crime centers are proving increasingly popular with police; Flock now says on its website that more than 4,800 cities around the country are running FlockOS software. 

---

My take on ALPRs and all the other monitoring systems.

Look we are not going to put the genie back in the bottle. Yes it does help solves crimes. So what I see are laws governing who cane see the photos without a warrant and for how long can they access the data. Who can link databases. At the very lease if say within 14 day only the speed cop can use the data. Anyone else needs warrant. We need to put leashes on the data.

The camera data must be the property of the municipality and not the camera company. It needs to be something like being bound by strict public records and privacy acts—meaning it cannot be harvested indefinitely, traded across state lines to federal or state agencies without oversight, or used to build a permanent commercial ledger.

Even with state laws that have all these protections data still gets traded so there needs to auditing with stiff bite. Fines should hurt their bottom line otherwise it will just be a business expense... We figured the $1000 fine in to the price of buying the data. And go after management and the Board of Directors! 

---

I started out with data centers, but data centers are being built to hold all this surveillance. Just think about the APLRs cameras... just think all the data storage they need to hold from all those cameras! 

Um... AI, to a judge? Really?

Our fearless leader of HHS submitted an AI generated report to a judge... and the judge is not a happy camper.

Judge Condemns RFK Jr’s HHS for Using Fake Studies

Newsweek

By Alice Gibbs

Sep 03, 2026

A federal judge has sharply criticized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., after finding that studies cited in a key teen pregnancy prevention funding notice appeared either not to exist or did not support the claims for which they were cited, describing the issue as a hallmark of AI-generated citations.

In a preliminary injunction ruling issued August 19, District Judge Christopher R. Cooper blocked parts of the Trump administration's overhaul of the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

Cooper wrote: “On the topic of body literacy, the notices (remarkably) reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI-generated citations.”

He went on to point to expert testimony submitted in the case that found five of seven articles cited in the notices could not be located as described, with two appearing to be entirely fabricated and three seemingly misattributed to the wrong journals.

"And according to the early-stage factual record, there seem to be no pregnancy prevention curricula and programs that 'center [on] body literacy' and other newly-imposed TPP requirements," he said.

[...]

Cooper found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing the policy was arbitrary and capricious. He wrote: “While abstinence-only education may well be appropriate for some age groups or communities, the agency has offered no explanation or evidence to support its across-the-board mandate that only abstinence strategies be pursued.”

You really don't want to get a judge mad at you with fudge reports.

"Sanctuary State"

When Washington state refused Texas's subpoena for the records of trans children and the records of women from Texas... it was to protect the identities of medical patients.

When Texas refused an extradition order, it was for a criminal assault where a person beat shot [updated] another person and then lied about it. That person was an ICE agent.

PBS News reported that;

Castro is accused of firing gun through door of home

Castro is accused of firing a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg. Prosecutors say Castro also falsely accused Sosa-Celis and another man of attacking an ICE officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel.

But while this back-and-forth in the legal system plays out...

 ICE officer’s release from Texas jail opens a new front in the escalating fight over extradition

AP News

By  MICHAEL GONZALEZ, VALERIE GONZALEZ and SUDHIN THANAWALA

August 27, 2026

The release of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from a Texas jail on Thursday despite Minnesota’s request for his return could set a dangerous precedent, increasing friction between states and helping criminal defendants avoid justice, legal experts said.

Christian Castro was released from a detention center in Brownsville after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declined to immediately sign his extradition warrant. A federal judge also declined to block Castro’s release or order Abbott to sign the warrant.

Minnesota officials say they believe Castro could flee to Mexico to avoid prosecution on charges he shot a man and lied about it during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis in January. Extradition from Mexico would require action by the Trump administration, which opened an investigation into Castro’s actions but also has argued ICE agents have “absolute immunity” for their actions on duty.

But now it has escalated to another level:

Trump’s DOJ Blocked Serious ICE Shooting Charge Over Federal Prosecutor’s “Strongest Possible” Objections

A prosecutor planned to file civil rights charges — similar to those brought against the officers who killed George Floyd — against an ICE agent. In an email we exclusively obtained, he reveals that Trump officials quashed those plans.

Propublica

by Megan Rose and Andy Mannix

September 2, 2026

Over the “strongest possible” objections from the federal prosecutor handling the case, leaders at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., quashed plans to bring civil rights charges against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant and then lying about it. 

The agent, 52-year-old Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in Minneapolis this January during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration blitz that sent thousands of federal agents into the state. The incident was one of three shootings by immigration agents in the city, the other two of which were fatal. 

Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. Those charges are similar to the ones leveled against Minneapolis police officers accused in George Floyd’s killing and can carry hefty prison sentences. 

Late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements,” according to an email that was reviewed by ProPublica. 

You know what that behavior and being above the law reminds me of? The KGB, NKVD, Stasi, Cheka... the whole alphabet soup of Cold War secret police.

The Hill reports that;

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., an appointee of President Trump who oversees the case, will consider Minnesota’s bid at a Tuesday afternoon hearing in his Brownsville, Texas, courtroom.

It has become a major legal clash between Abbott and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), who requested Castro’s extradition as state authorities charged the ICE officer with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.

The officer stands accused of injuring a Venezuelan man in the leg by firing a gun at the front door of an occupied Minneapolis home on Jan. 14 amid an immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities. Castro had allegedly told investigators he opened fire in self-defense after being hit with a shovel and a broom, only for video footage to undercut the officer’s claim. 

Abbott has refused to sign a rendition warrant that would pave the way for the officer to return to Minnesota for trial.

This is a whole new level of political interference in our legal systems. Think about this for a moment: The governor and the judge are saying that for the shooting, Castro can't be charged, only for the misdemeanor.

This doesn't make sense... for the serious crimes of shooting an individual, they say he can't be charged because it was justified. While he used a lie to justify it! Duh! What circular logic. Has Texas become a "sanctuary state" for all the ICE agents who cross the line?

A Tail Of Two States

A Synopsis:

In the first state, an ICE agent shot a man and lied about it. ICE argues that agents have “absolute immunity” for their actions on duty and then spirits the agent away to another state.

The first state indicts the agent for assault and falsely reporting a crime and sends an extradition order to the state where ICE shipped him. That state says, “We will think about it,” and releases the agent from custody.

So that is where we are now: The ICE agent is somewhere, maybe even in Mexico.

ICE officer’s release from Texas jail opens a new front in the escalating fight over extradition

AP News

By MICHAEL GONZALEZ, VALERIE GONZALEZ and SUDHIN THANAWALA

August 27, 2026

The release of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from a Texas jail on Thursday despite Minnesota’s request for his return could set a dangerous precedent, increasing friction between states and helping criminal defendants avoid justice, legal experts said.

Christian Castro was released from a detention center in Brownsville after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declined to immediately sign his extradition warrant. A federal judge also declined to block Castro’s release or order Abbott to sign the warrant.

Minnesota officials say they believe Castro could flee to Mexico to avoid prosecution on charges he shot a man and lied about it during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis in January. Extradition from Mexico would require action by the Trump administration, which opened an investigation into Castro’s actions but also has argued ICE agents have “absolute immunity” for their actions on duty.

And no way in hell will Trump extradite him!

But this goes way beyond this case. Texas and other Republican states have been trying to get health care records on women having abortions and children going to trans clinics in other states. Some see this as tit for tat.

The decision is alarming because it injects politics into the extradition process, said Marsh Halberg, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor in Minnesota.

“Something that’s been a routine process may now turn into a political card,” he said in a phone interview.

In recent months, California and New York have rejected extradition requests from Louisiana for doctors accused of mailing abortion pills.

But legal scholars say those cases are different because the doctors weren’t in Louisiana and never fled the state and became fugitives.

Is Texas looking the other way in a case of perjury and attempted murder because of the denial of a witch-hunt for medical records?

But it gets even more convoluted… the feds jump in!

Judge denies Minnesota's request to halt release of ICE officer charged in Minneapolis shooting

CBS News

By Aki Nace, Stephen Swanson

August 26, 2026

A federal judge on Wednesday denied Minnesota's request for a temporary restraining order to halt the release of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent sought for extradition in a shooting earlier this year in north Minneapolis amid Operation Metro Surge, and then lying about the circumstances under oath.

[…]

In U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.'s 13-page ruling, he denied Minnesota's request because the "matter does not present an issue ripe for adjudication," saying Minnesota's case is based on claims that Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has violated the Extradition Act by refusing to sign Castro's rendition warrant.

"The record reflects only that Governor Abbott has neither agreed nor refused to sign the rendition warrant as to Castro. Instead, Governor Abbott has requested that the Texas Secretary of State 'investigate [Minnesota's] demand and report to [the Governor] concerning Mr. Castro's situation and circumstances and whether he ought to be surrendered,'" Rodriguez wrote in his ruling.

So that’s where we are now… in limbo.

"Lock 'em up"

And throw away the key, the is the Republican philosophy. They're "Tough On Crime" however it doesn't work!

Scotland was the 'murder capital of Europe'. Then it started treating violence like a disease

BBC News

29 June 2026

Eve Livingston

In the early 2000s you were three times more likely to be assaulted in Scotland than in the US. But when the Scottish authorities started looking at violent crime as a public health problem, levels plummeted and the country now ranks among some of the safest in the world.

It was no ordinary day in court. There was no jury, no witnesses or defendants at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 24 October 2008. Instead, in front of the judge, who was dressed in full regalia, were 85 rival gang members from the east end of Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city.

For decades, the area had been plagued by territorial youth gangs, organised crime and fights over drugs and weapons, with knife crime an almost daily occurrence.

Despite their ongoing feuds, the assembled gang members fell silent as they were addressed in turn by a range of speakers. A mother described seeing her son's unrecognisable face after a gang-related machete attack at age 13. An American basketball player recalled losing his brother to gun violence. Doctors and surgeons described brutal lacerations and permanent disfigurements.

The message was clear: the violence has to stop.

But it is not the message that the Republicans push!

In Idaho they are tough on drugs! But it can snare unsuspecting women who get caught in their traps!

How THC tests have landed more than a thousand new mothers onto child abuse registries

CBS Sunday Morning

By Erin Moriarty

August 9, 2026

Giving birth to her fourth child in January of 2021 was life-changing, says Nicole Hamann, but not in the way she ever imagined. While still at the hospital, Hamann was informed that both she and her newborn tested positive for a trace amount of THC, the psychoactive chemical in marijuana. [A urine test is given to mothers, which is followed up by testing the umbilical cord.] "I felt like, all of the sudden, I was a criminal," Hamann said.

"Through all of my pregnancies, I took very good care of myself and my body. Now all of the sudden, I have these people making me feel guilt and shame and fear."

Hamann lives in Idaho, where marijuana is illegal. But a month before giving birth, Hamann, who has no criminal record, says she accidentally ate a pot-laced brownie at a relative's home in Oregon, where marijuana is legal. She says no one was interested in hearing her explanation of why she had THC in her system.

But that was enough to sic the hounds on her!

Child and Family Services began an investigation immediately, because in Idaho (and a number of other states), a single positive test result of THC in a newborn is considered presumptive evidence of child abuse.

"They knocked on my door, and there was an officer standing with them, a police officer," Hamann said.

Here in Connecticut it would have been handled a lot different! It wouldn't have escalated to criminal charges right off the bat!

Take a look at Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire verses Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas.

Maine recorded just 100.1 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. New Hampshire recorded 110.1, and Connecticut 136.0. Massachusetts was higher at 314.7, but still below the national rate of 359.1. Now look at the four states we're putting in the “lock ’em up” category; Louisiana recorded 519.8 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Arkansas recorded 579.4, Tennessee 592.3, and Texas 389.4. Put another way, the violent-crime rate in Tennessee was almost six times the rate in Maine. Arkansas was nearly six times Maine's rate. Louisiana's rate was more than five times Maine's.

Now just look at Texas, they had a violent-crime rate almost four times that of Maine and more than three times that of Connecticut.

But perhaps the most important numbers aren't the violent-crime rates. They're the incarceration rates.

The Prison Policy Initiative's 2024 state data show an incarceration rate of 272 per 100,000 residents in Maine, 278 in New Hampshire, 326 in Connecticut, and 241 in Massachusetts.

Compare that with 1,067 in Louisiana, 912 in Arkansas, 817 in Tennessee, and 751 in Texas.

There it is.

The states in our “lock ’em up” group are incarcerating people at dramatically higher rates than the four New England states.

And yet they are not safer. In fact, three of the four, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee, have violent-crime rates substantially higher than the national average. Texas is also above the national average. Meanwhile, Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut have among the lowest violent-crime rates in the country. Massachusetts is below the national average as well.

But when the Republican cry "We are tough on crime, unlike those pansy liberals!" Their MAGA crowd all cheer on.

Duh... They Don't Think Of Trans Men

In their animosity toward trans women, the conservatives didn't even think about trans men... in their fear: "Oh God... men will dress as women and rape our girls in the bathrooms!" But look what they created! This is from back in 2017.

Transgender teen wrestler who's used to winning on mat now has a bigger, though partial, victory

Mack Beggs won Texas state girls' title but wants to compete against boys.

ABC News

ByMORGAN WINSOR

March 27, 2017

Already accustomed to winning on the mat, transgender teen wrestler Mack Beggs can now enjoy another victory -- a change in policy that will allow him to compete in some matches against boys, the gender with which he identifes.

The organization that governs amateur wrestling in the United States recently changed its policy to allow transgender wrestlers to compete against the gender which they declare as their own.

[...]

The student won the Texas state girls' title in wrestling last month, capping off a season in which he was undefeated -- but one that drew controversy.

And now we have...

Kansas Trans Guys Are Using Women’s Bathrooms, as Legally Required, as a Form of Protest

A group of transgender men who call themselves the "SB244 compliance crew” have been using women’s bathrooms in protest of a Kansas law that mandates that they do so.

them

By Quispe López

August 20, 2026

Not all heroes wear capes. Some just use the bathroom. A group of transgender men who call themselves the “compliance crew” have been using women’s bathrooms in protest of a Kansas law that mandates that they do so.

The new law, Senate Bill 244, went into effect in February of this year, after the state legislature successfully overrode Democratic governor Laura Kelly’s veto on February 13, and requires all people to use sex-separated facilities in government-owned properties that correspond with their assigned sex at birth, effectively banning trans people from the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The law also incentivizes everyday people to call the police and sue for damages up to $1,000 if they believe they’ve shared the bathroom with a trans person violating it.

According to the ACLU of Kansas, this extends to restrooms and locker rooms, with an additional provision that prohibits trans people from updating their driver’s licenses and state IDs to reflect their gender. The wide-ranging law caused panic when it went into effect earlier this year, as it also invalidated licenses that had gender markers that do not correspond with someone’s assigned sex at birth.

Naturally, as with other anti-trans laws across the country, it is already causing confusion around enforcement, as a trans woman was charged in June for presenting a police officer with a driver’s license that contained a male sex marker, which the new law mandates, though the charges have since been dropped. But if it’s confusion they want, it’s confusion the “compliance crew” seems ready to create.

The group was created by a transgender man named Charles Osman immediately after the law went into effect. Per KCUR, the local NPR affiliate for Kansas City, the compliance crew began going into public women’s restrooms, in a form of protest known as malicious compliance, which involves following a law to its exact phrasing rather than the way it might have been intended, which in this case is likely discouraging trans people from using public restrooms altogether. So far, they have done so in a public library, swimming pool, and water parks across the state, making the point that the law causes discomfort for everyone involved.

I think that it is terrific. It shows how stupid the conservatives are in their hatred of us.

The excuse the Republicans give is to protect women from monsters, but they have actually made it much worse! Now, thanks to the Republicans, they can just walk right in!

And the Supreme Court just put in its two cents, the Constitutional Center writes:

On Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court held that state lawmakers can regulate gender identity in scholastic sports competitions, and in particular, block transgender students born as biological men from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.

On January 13, 2026, the justices heard oral arguments for three hours in both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, a case from Idaho. Tuesday’s decision applied to both cases.

In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.”

Title IX bans discrimination based on sex in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial funds. However, the Education Amendments Act of 1974, known as the Javits Amendment, allows schools receiving funds under Title IX to establish “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports.”

[...]

In his majority opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to actions taken by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in1975. “HEW promulgated comprehensive regulations requiring that schools provide ‘equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes’ and authorizing ‘separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport,’” he said.

Kavanaugh also held that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” He also rejected claims that the restrictions on trans athletes competing on women’s and men’s sports teams violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Of course, you all know that "cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex" flies in the face of many other Supreme Court rulings!

Beginning with Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the Court didn't simply hold that “sex = gender.” It held that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is sex discrimination under Title VII. And then there was Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), where the Court took that logic considerably further. It held that firing someone for being transgender necessarily involves treating that individual differently because of sex. The Court explicitly connected its reasoning to Price Waterhouse: if an employer would have made a different decision had the employee's sex been different, that is discrimination “because of sex.”

But now that all went out the door! And the Court just created a nightmare! And now, in the context of Title IX, the Court has said that the term “sex” cannot plausibly be interpreted to mean anything other than biological sex. But wait a minute... the language in Title IX and Title VII is remarkably similar. Both prohibit discrimination “because of sex.” So how did “sex” become broad enough in Bostock to encompass discrimination against transgender people, yet suddenly become so narrowly defined in Title IX that it means only biological sex?

I mean, it is so stupid! How stupid? Well, think of this: State A allows trans women to play on women's teams. Now suppose a team from a state whose rules permit a trans woman to compete qualifies for a regional competition held in a state whose rules prohibit her from competing. What happens? Is one team handicapped because it has to lose some of its players?

What a can of worms!