Categories
Farmers of color Intelwars Judge Lawsuit Program White farmers

Federal judge halts USDA program that bans white farmers saying lawsuit against it could be successful

A federal judge on Thursday halted the USDA loan forgiveness program exclusive to farmers of color, saying that a group of white farmers who have sued for discrimination over being banned from the government program have a good chance of winning.

What are the details?

NBC News reported that Judge William Griesbach of Wisconsin’s Eastern District, issued an order placing the program on a temporary hold, wherein he wrote that the white farmers “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim” that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “use of race-based criteria in the administration of the program violates their right to equal protection under the law.”

Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) — who represents the white farmers — said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The Court recognized that the federal government’s plan to condition and allocate benefits on the basis of race raises grave constitutional concerns and threatens our clients with irreparable harm.”

He added, “The Biden administration is radically undermining bedrock principles of equality under the law.”

The judge’s move stops the USDA from issuing debt relief payments to thousands of minority farmers, despite the agency vowing to begin their payouts this month.

In reaction to the decision, USDA spokesman Matt Herrick said in a statement:

“We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers. When the temporary order is lifted, USDA will be prepared to provide the debt relief authorized by Congress.”

What else?

The Washington Post explained:

The assistance program, which was passed by the Senate in March as part of the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion stimulus relief package, sought to correct long-standing disadvantages faced by Black, Latino, and other minority farmers in getting loans from banks and the government.

The program is open to any producer who is black, Native American, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander, yet white producers do not qualify.

But shortly after it passed, WILL sued on behalf of five farmers from four states, saying the program for “socially disadvantaged” farmers is unconstitutional because it is race-based.

Since then, seven more plaintiffs have joined that suit, and separate legal challenges on behalf of other white farmers have also been filed against the program.

Share
Categories
bail Ghislaine Maxwell Intelwars Jeffrey Epstein Judge

Ghislaine Maxwell denied bail a second time after judge rules she remains a ‘flight risk’

Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and alleged “madam” for the late billionaire sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, has been denied bail a second time despite offering a $28.5 million bail package in hopes of being released.

What are the details?

Bloomberg reported that a New York district judge on Monday “rejected Maxwell’s proposal that she be released on a $28.5 million bond, ruling that it doesn’t provide sufficient security that the former girlfriend of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein will show up for trial.”

Judge Alison Nathan wrote, “The court concludes that none of the new information that the defendant presented in support of her applications has a material bearing on the court’s determination that she poses a flight risk.”

The proposal presented to the judge on behalf of Maxwell and her husband, Scott Borgerson, included pledging $22.5 million of the couple’s assets and another $5 million from family and friends in order to secure her release from prison while she awaits trial.

According to the Daily Mail, Monday’s ruling was the second time Maxwell has been denied bail. The outlet reported that she will now remain in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, “until at least July next year when her trail is due to take place.”

Maxwell is awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges over allegations that in the late 1990s she lured and groomed girls as young as 14 for Epstein, who was found dead in prison last year after being accused of sexual assault by several victims. His death was ruled a suicide by hanging.

In addition to sex trafficking charges, Maxwell faces allegations that she committed perjury in a separate civil case. She denies all charges brought against her. If convicted on all counts, she could face up to 35 years in prison.

Anything else?

In October, Maxwell lost her bid to keep sealed a deposition she gave in 2016, a decision that was hailed by several of Epstein’s accusers.

A number of high-profile men have been linked to Epstein and face scrutiny for their ties to the departed financier, including the U.K.’s Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton.

Share
Categories
Bail reduction Coronavirus Pandemic Courts Crime Intelwars Judge Rene chandler

‘He is absolutely not a flight risk,’ defense attorney argues before his client, accused rapist, disappears

A Chicago man accused of robbery and sexual assault has gone missing after he was released on $500 bail by a judge who determined he was at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and reduced his bail bond to keep him out of jail during the pandemic.

CWB Chicago reported that Rene Chandler, 31, was awaiting trial on charges of sexually assaulting and battering two women he met on dating apps in 2018 when he allegedly assaulted and robbed a third woman in an Uber in April 2019. At the time of the third alleged assault, he was wearing an electronic monitor pending a trial on the first two charges. Chandler was arrested and initially ordered to be held without bail for violating the terms of his sexual assault case bonds.

However, in the spring Chandler’s attorney filed an emergency motion to reduce his client’s bond based on the higher health risk from COVID-19 imposed by Chandler’s asthma condition.

“He is absolutely not a flight risk,” the attorney wrote in his bail reduction request.

Judge Thomas Hennelly granted the defense attorney’s request, imposing a $500 bail bond, according to court records reported by CWB Chicago.

After his release, Chandler disappeared.

Chandler is accused of committing assault and robbery while previously on bail awaiting trial for sexual assault charges.

In August 2018, Chandler was charged by prosecutors with sexually assaulting and battering two different women he met on dating apps. He was arrested for the assaults and the presiding judge set his bail at $100,000 for each alleged attack. He posted $20,000 to be released from jail with electronic monitoring.

A few months after he was released, while his trial for sexual assault was pending, a third woman accused Chandler of battering and robbing her as they rode in an Uber. She claims that he struck her in the face and stole her new phone along with $640 cash from her purse, according to prosecutors. The state alleges that Chandler ran from the Uber and fled in a taxi cab.

After his arrest for the third assault, a judge ordered him held without bail for violating the terms of bail in the sexual assault cases, and set a new bail for the robbery charges at $80,000, according to court records.

However, in April after the coronavirus pandemic arrived in the United States, Chandler’s defense attorney was able to successfully argue for his bail to be reduced. Judge Hennelly presided over the bail hearing on April 9 but was not the judge overseeing Chandler’s sexual assault and battery cases.

According to CWB Chicago, prosecutors “presented minimal counter-arguments” to Judge Hennelly at Chandler’s bail hearing. The state attorney’s office admitted that its lawyers did not present Hennelly with all of the facts of the sexual assault cases. After Chandler’s bail was reduced prosecutors filed an emergency motion to have his no-bail status reinstated.

Further, after the bail hearing, prosecutors accused Chandler of discussing a plan to pay off one of his alleged victims to prevent her from testifying against him at trial. During a phone call on March 31, Chandler “details one of his cases and also discusses a previous attempt to tamper with a victim and pay her a sum of money to alter her story,” state attorneys said.

At a new hearing conducted over Zoom because of the coronavirus pandemic, prosecutors presented the new allegations before Judge Michael McHale. After hearing the prosecutors’ arguments and Chandler’s defense, McHale ordered Chandler to return to jail without bail, but he was not taken into custody immediately. Chandler has since vanished.

A warrant has been issued for Chandler’s arrest. He remains at-large.

Share
Categories
Gun range Intelwars Judge Ralph Northam Shutdown Virginia

Virginia judge rules indoor gun range can reopen, dealing a blow to Gov. Northam’s shutdown order

A Virginia judge has ruled that an indoor gun range shut down by Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) coronavirus executive order may immediate reopen. saying the governor overstepped with his mandate because state statute “specifically limits his authority in relation to the right to keep and bear arms.”

What are the details?

SafeSide Lynchburg, an indoor gun range in Lynchburg, was shut down along with other indoor ranges in the state as part of Northam’s COVID-19 dictates. Outdoor ranges were still allowed to operate, while indoor ranges were determined to be “places of amusement,” and therefore deemed non-essential during the pandemic.

SafeSide sued Northam over the closure, joined by Gun Owners of America, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Association of Virginia Gun Ranges.

On Monday, Judge Patrick Yeatts issued a temporary injunction allowing the range to reopen, finding that “indoor ranges are protected” by a statute that states that “the Governor cannot ‘in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.'”

Judge Yeatts wrote, “The plaintiffs have demonstrated a depravation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, financial hardship for the business and employees, and lack of training access for its customers.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported that “the decision does not apply to all ranges in the state, but gun-rights groups that helped file the suit said it lays the groundwork for eventually overturning the statewide ban.”

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the outlet, “We’re weighing our options because our ultimate goal is that we want all indoor ranges free of this. What the judge laid out was great reasoning why, really, none of the ranges should be falling under this.”

Anything else?

In reaction to the court’s decision, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) told The Washington Times, “Governor Northam’s efforts to save lives and slow the spread of COVID-19 are necessary and proving to be effective, but unfortunately, the gun lobby believes the ability to shoot a gun indoors during this pandemic is worth risking further spread of the virus and making Virginia communities and families less safe.”

Share
Categories
Amy berman jackson Denied Intelwars Judge Roger Stone Trial

Judge denies Roger Stone’s motion for a new trial

Roger Stone, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, has been denied his motion for a new trial by the same judge who refused to recuse herself from the case and sentenced him to more than three years in prison.

What are the details?

Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote that Stone failed to “[supply] any reason to believe that there has been a ‘a serious miscarriage of justice,” ABC News reported.

Stone was found guilty in November on seven counts stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and was sentenced by Berman Jackson in February to 40 months of incarceration.

But just ahead of his sentencing, Stone’s attorneys requested a new trial after reports emerged that the lead juror in the trial, Tomeka Hart, was a longtime Democrat whose social media posts further threw her impartiality and honesty into question.

President Trump tweeted at the time, “There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of ‘Trump’ and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!”

Stone’s attorneys also requested that Judge Berman Jackson recuse herself from hearing his argument for a new trial, saying that the judge herself could hold some bias because she praised the jury for its integrity during sentencing. Berman Jackson refused to step down.

In her decision Thursday, Berman Jackson wrote, “The defendant has not shown that the juror lied; nor has he shown that the supposedly disqualifying evidence could not have been found through the exercise of due diligence at the time the jury was selected.”

The judge wrote that Stone’s “conviction is final.”

Share
Categories
Court Dc circuit court House Judiciary Committee House of Representatives Intelwars Judge Mueller investigation Mueller report

DC appeals court sides with House Democrats, says DOJ must hand over sealed Mueller grand jury info

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Department of Justice has to turn sealed grand jury information from the Mueller probe over to congressional Democrats.

In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the House Judiciary Committee, which requested a court order unsealing the materials in late July and was granted in October.

Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, argued in the majority opinion that the committee’s needs in its impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump outweighed the Justice Department’s desire to keep the information sealed.

“In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here,” Rogers argued. “The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee’s compelling need for disclosure.”

And while the House may have wrapped up its Ukraine investigation before the end of last year, the committee still has impeachment-related investigative work on its agenda, according to the ruling. Rogers cited the House Judiciary Committee’s December impeachment report, which, she said, “makes clear that although two Articles of Impeachment have been approved, the Committee’s impeachment investigation related to the Mueller Report is ongoing.”

In its efforts to continue where the Mueller probe left off, the Democrat-led Judiciary Committee asked a federal judge to release the sealed grand jury materials from the special counsel’s investigation in July. The move came after a months-long standoff between committee Democrats and the DOJ over the secret information. In October, a federal district court sided with the committee in a decision that was upheld by Tuesday’s ruling.

In her opinion, Rogers added that the “Committee has repeatedly stated that if the grand jury materials reveal new evidence of impeachable offenses, the Committee may recommend new articles of impeachment.”

The lone dissenter in the decision was Judge Neomi Rao — a Trump appointee who was confirmed to the bench last March. Rao argued that the committee lacked the necessary legal standing to force the release of the materials in the first place and that the issue should have been moot after the Senate concluded its impeachment trial.

“A reasonable observer might wonder why we are deciding this case at this time,” Rao wrote. “After all, the Committee sought these materials preliminary to an impeachment proceeding and the Senate impeachment trial has concluded. Why is this controversy not moot?” The judge went on to criticize her two colleagues in the dissent, writing that they had “simply turn[ed] a blind eye to these very public events.”

A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to Blaze Media’s request for comment on the ruling.

Share
Categories
Autism Dog show Intelwars Judge little girl

A little girl with autism brought her stuffed puppy to a dog show. Watch what this judge did to make her day.

An American Kennel Society judge is earning accolades across the internet after being caught on video taking the time to make the day of one adorable spectator.

According to the folks at Goodable, the judge noticed a little girl “watching from the sidelines” at a show, so he approached the child and found that she had brought her own prized pooch: a stuffed puppy.

With that, he asked the girl if she would like to show her dog. The child, who has autism, agreed, and her reaction afterward will melt your heart.

The clip has hit multiple platforms including Twitter and Reddit, racking up nearly one million views on Goodable alone as of this writing. Former NBA player Rex Chapman shared the video with his 528,000+ followers, whose reactions echoed those on other posts.

Several parents of autistic children expressed how they were touched by the video, with one noting the “pure joy” on the little girl’s face. Many followers said the judge’s actions brought them to tears, and a number concluded that there must be something special about a man who can rock a salmon-colored suit.

The consensus was clear: this judge won best in show.

Share
Categories
Deposition emails Hillary Clinton Intelwars Judge judicial watch

Judge orders Hillary Clinton to appear for deposition in lawsuit over emails, Benghazi records

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been ordered by a federal judge to appear in person to answer questions under oath as part of a years-long lawsuit over her use of a private email server and records regarding the 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, during her tenure in the Obama administration.

What are the details?

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted the request of government watchdog group Judicial Watch on Monday to have Clinton deposed over whether or not she intentionally used a private email server during her time as head of the State Department to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Daily Caller noted:

Several reporters filed FOIA requests for Clinton’s State Department emails while she was in office, only to be told that the agency did not have any responsive records.

Clinton did not provide her State Department emails to the agency until late 2014, in response to congressional requests as part of an investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Clinton handed over only around half of the 60,000 emails that were stored on her server. She claimed that the others were private in nature and did not involve State Department business.

Mrs. Clinton previously answered interrogatories in the case brought by Judicial Watch, which Judge Lamberth acknowledged and wrote in his order, “the Court believes those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.”

Judge Lamberth added, “To avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch—it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

Judicial Watch celebrated the judge’s decision, with President Tom Fitton saying in a statement, “Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal and we’re pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA.”

Anything else?

According to The Hill, the order by Judge Lamberth “is the first requiring Clinton to testify under oath in person on the subject of the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi and the Obama administration’s response at the time.”

Share
Categories
Amy berman jackson Intelwars Judge Jury Roger Stone Trial

Judge denies Roger Stone’s motion to disqualify her amid questions over lead juror

The judge who sentenced Roger Stone to three years in prison says she is not stepping down from hearing his argument for a new trial, calling his request for her recusal unwarranted for “several reasons.”

What are the details?

Stone, an ally of President Donald Trump, was sentenced last week by federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson to 40 months in prison from charges stemming from the Mueller probe. The judge made the decision to move forward with sentencing despite Stone’s request for a new trial, given revelations that the lead juror is a Democratic activist who expressed anti-Trump bias on social media.

On Friday, Stone’s attorneys filed a motion requesting that Berman Jackson disqualify herself from the hearing for a new trial, arguing that the judge could hold some bias because she praised the jury during sentencing by saying they “served with integrity under difficult circumstances.”

Over the weekend, Judge Berman Jackson denied Stone’s request, writing that “there are several reasons why recusal is not warranted.”

In her rejection of the motion, the judge concluded Stone’s request appeared to be for show, writing, “Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and biased’ in it.”

The Washington Post reported:

Stone’s motion regarding the juror remains sealed, but the record indicates that it is his second attempt to argue for a new trial on grounds that jurors were biased against him. Jackson denied his first such motion, saying there was no evidence that a juror was biased merely because she was a lawyer with the Internal Revenue Service.

The second motion, Jackson said, specifically ‘raised questions about a juror’s written questionnaire and sworn answers during individual voir dire.’

Indeed, the Daily Caller reported Monday that the lead juror on Stone’s trial, Tomeka Hart, “withheld information during the jury selection process regarding her views of Stone and President Trump.” In one of Hart’s several social media posts expressing her political views on the president, she wrote of Trump supporters, “Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank.”

Criminal defense attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon told the outlet, “If that information had been presented to the judge that she thought all supporters of the president were racist, the judge would have excluded her.” McAdoo Gordon said that Hart “minimized her answers to the voir dire and she was not honest in answering that question about whether she could be impartial.”

Share
Categories
Amy berman jackson Disqualify Intelwars Judge Jury Roger Stone

Roger Stone files motion to disqualify judge over her statements at his sentencing

Attorneys for Roger Stone filed a motion Friday for the judge in his case to recuse herself from hearing his upcoming argument for a new trial, saying her statements praising the jury during his sentencing hearing should be disqualifying.

What are the details?

Reuters reported that Stone’s attorneys argued Judge Amy Berman-Jackson “must be disqualified from hearing his new-trial motion because she praised the jurors in his trial for serving with integrity.”

Berman-Jackson said during Stone’s sentencing of more than three years of incarceration:

The dismay and disgust at the attempts by others to defend [Stone’s] actions as just business as usual in our polarized climate should transcend party. The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the judiciary to fulfill their duty should transcend party. Sure, the defense is free to say, ‘So what? Who cares?’

But I’ll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people care. And I care.

Stone is currently seeking a new trial after it was revealed that the lead juror in the trial against him made social media posts criticizing President Trump and celebrating Stone’s conviction. That juror, Tomeka Hart, was also a former pollical candidate with a history of activism for the Democratic Party.

Because Judge Berman-Jackson praised the jury, Stone’s attorneys argue, it is reasonable to question her impartiality in hearing his case for a new trial based on the apparent bias within the jury that convicted him.

A reporter from Courhouse News noted that the court documents calls Berman-Jackson’s “blessing” of the jury’s integrity “premature.”

Share