This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fani Willis, the infamous prosecutor in Atlanta who paid her boyfriend $600,000 to assemble the Democrats' "RICO" lawfare case against President Donald Trump, has been ordered to appear before a state Senate committee investigating her.
A report at the Gateway Pundit said the ruling is from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram.
Ingram's order will have Willis testify under oath about her actions during that RICO case, in which she was trying to put Trump in jail.
The report noted she's been subpoenaed by a state senate committee.
"As previously reported, Fani Willis tried to block subpoenas requiring her to testify before a Georgia State Senate Committee about her relationship with Nathan Wade after she was caught perjuring herself," the Gateway Pundit explained.
Willis had a relationship with Nathan Wade, who was the prosecutor she hired to target Trump. A judge later ordered Wade off the case because of the conflict that was there, and an appeals court later ordered Willis also to leave the case, which then collapsed.
To date, lawmakers had been unable to question her because she was a no-show.
The Supreme Court threw out Richard Glossip's murder conviction and death sentence Tuesday, Fox News reported. The Oklahoma man was found guilty of hiring another man to kill his former boss in 1997.
Glossip was twice sentenced to death by a jury of his peers, but the Supreme Court granted him a new trial after it agreed there was prosecutorial misconduct in his trial. Now 62, Glossip has been on death row for decades for a murder for hire he possibly never committed.
A man named Justin Sneed, who later admitted to beating Best Budget Inn owner Barry Van Treese to death with a baseball bat, claimed he did so after Glossip offered him $10,000. Glossip feared he would be fired if Van Treese learned he'd been stealing from the business.
GOP Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond ordered a case review in 2023. Investigators found that potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld during the trial, namely that Sneed was being treated for bipolar disorder and was on drugs.
Justice Served
Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in the decision, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett believed the state's appeals courts should decide the matter. In the majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that "the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony."
The Supreme Court found that "evidence of Sneed’s bipolar disorder, which could trigger impulsive violence when combined with his drug use, would have contradicted the prosecution’s portrayal of Sneed as harmless without Glossip’s influence." There was also a box of evidence that was destroyed.
According to Drummond's review, the evidence included masking tape, a shower curtain, and motel receipts that the convicted killer's attorney, Don Knight, failed to use. Meanwhile, Glossip has always claimed to be innocent despite two convictions.
In 1998, Glossip was convicted for the first time but granted a new trial upon appeal. His second 2004 trial also yielded a conviction, and Glossip has now spent nearly half his life behind bars.
The family of Van Treese still believes that Glossip should be put to death. Even with the convicted and sentence tossed, the state maintains that Glossip is likely not entirely innocent.
A Long Road
While the Supreme Court has granted a new trial, it doesn't mean Glossip is off the hook. The state believes he may be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime after the fact.
The crime does not carry a death, but still points to a possible role in the crime. Meanwhile, Drummond championed the Supreme Court's decision which will allow a new trial for Glossip free of the previous errors.
"The right to a fair trial is a fundamental protection of our liberty. I am grateful the Supreme Court agreed with what I have said since reading the independent counsel’s report: Richard Glossip did not receive a fair trial. We can all be thankful that a man who was unfairly convicted and sentenced to death no longer faces execution," Drummond posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.
The justice system doesn't always get everything right, but there are mechanisms for rectifying the situation when there are mistakes. It's still unclear whether Glossip is entirely innocent, but at least he will have a new trial that is fair and unbiased.
At New York University, Barron Trump has become a popular subject of romantic speculation among fans, with some envisioning him as royalty.Intriguing social media rumors link Barron Trump to Princess Leonor of Spain, though these claims remain unverified, The List reported. As of October 2024, Barron Trump has been navigating his college experience at New York University. His presence on campus has not gone unnoticed, sparking discussions and rumors about potential romantic relationships.
Fans have taken their fantasies to social media, proposing a match between him and Princess Leonor of Spain. This prompted a wave of imaginative ideas about combining powerful families through marriage.
Barron's father, Donald Trump, reportedly did not believe his son was involved in any romantic relationship at this time, adding a layer of mystery to the ongoing conjecture.
Royal Rumors and University Life
Princess Leonor, previously rumored in 2022 to be in a relationship with Gabriel Giacomelli, has also been a subject of public fascination. However, some sources suggested her relationship with Giacomelli was platonic, keeping her relationship status somewhat ambiguous.
Meanwhile, Barron has been linked with Klara Jones in January 2025, though these reports remained unconfirmed. The lack of clarity has fed the rumor mill, continually fuelling fan theories and discussions online.
Despite the playful speculation, insiders suggest Barron might find more realistic romantic prospects among his fellow NYU students, some of whom share similar experiences with fame and public scrutiny.
Insights on Personal Growth and Relationships
According to an insider quoted by People magazine, Melania Trump plays a significant role in trying to normalize Barron’s life amidst these unique circumstances. She acts as a sounding board, helping him navigate his public life.
This dynamic may influence how Barron handles his relationships and the pressure of public expectations. The insider's statement, "She is and has been a good sounding board for him," highlights Melania's ongoing influence and support.
The notion of a royal link through marriage has intrigued many, as reflected in a cheeky comment on X (formerly Twitter): "If we can't make the Trumps King of America, might as well make Barron the King of Spain."
Understanding Royal Marriages and Titles
Public fascination with Barron's possible romantic ties to royalty brings up discussions about the implications of such unions. In the U.K., the spouse of a monarch does not automatically receive regal titles or perform constitutional functions without a regency arrangement.
This distinction underscores the speculative nature of fans' hopes, as any potential relationship between Barron and a royal figure like Princess Leonor would not necessarily confer political power or royal status upon him.
The allure of merging influential families through marriage is a recurring theme in public gossip and media portrayals, exemplified by historical and contemporary royal marriages.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There have been more than 70 lawsuits launched, already, against President Donald Trump and his agenda to root out corruption, inefficiency, fraud and the like from government spending – essentially a continuation of the lawfare Democrats and other leftists have organized against him since his first presidency.
And some of the judges' rulings so far have been intended to block the president from exercising the authorities of the executive branch with Congress now reacting with plans to impeach some of those decision-makers.
"You're not just hurting the president. You're hurting the American people because they're the ones who elected him, and they're the ones who want him to do this – to exercise these specific authorities. And these judges are really denying the American people their rights," explained U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga.
He is working with Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., on articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer specifically, who has blocked Trump's Department of Government Efficiency from even accessing some information about how taxpayer moneys are turned over to various leftist organizations.
A report at Fox News explained Clyde also has considered the same action against Judge John McConnell, who, at the time, ordered the Trump administration to follow his own ideology, expressed in a restraining order temporarily blocking efforts to pause the handout of federal money through grants and loans.
McConnell's claims to impartiality, as required of federal judges, took a hit, Fox reported, when a video from 2021 of him appeared saying courts must "stand and enforce the rule of law, that is, against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot."
"You have to take a moment and realize that this, you know, middle-class, white, male, privileged person needs to understand the human being that comes before us that may be a woman, may be black, may be transgender, may be poor, may be rich, may be – whatever," McConnell said in the video, the report said.
Clyde said judges, of course, have their own opinions, and are entitled to them, but they should not be "overt and political in mentioning them" if they "don't want to be seen as potentially having a conflict of interest."
Clyde said he expects eventually Trump will prevail on the merits.
"He has the authority under Article II of the Constitution," Clyde said. "But yet for the entire time of the restraining order, the judge will have prevented this duly elected authority from being exercised by the president. And also, they will have prevented the American people from dealing with waste, fraud and abuse in their government."
Clyde warned that judges "can't just stop the president from doing what the Constitution gives him the authority to do, and the people have given him the authority to do."
Holocaust survivors and their families were dealt a severe blow by the U.S. Supreme Court this week after it ruled against receiving compensation "from Hungary for property confiscated during World War II."
According to the Associated Press, the long-running lawsuit was thought to have been settled in appellate court, which ruled that the lawsuit to recover the funds could proceed.
The appellate court allowed the lawsuit to proceed even though federal law generally shields other countries from such lawsuits in the U.S. court system.
It found that the survivors and some of their family members suing on their behalf fit an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that covers "property taken in violation of international law."
What's going on?
To qualify for the exception to the federal law that shields sovereign nations from those types of lawsuits in American courtrooms, the plaintiffs have to show that that the property has commercial ties in the United States.
The Associated Press noted:
The survivors had argued that Hungary long ago sold off the property, mixed the proceeds with its general funds, and used that commingled money to issue bonds and buy military equipment in the U.S. in the 2000s.
Notably, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the high court's opinion, stating that "a commingling theory, without more" isn't a strong enough argument to be considered one of the exceptions to the federal law.
After writing its decision, the Supreme Court sent the lawsuit back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The case had previously made it to the Supreme Court.
What happened last time?
The Associated Press noted:
In 2021, the justices sided with Germany in a multimillion-dollar dispute over a collection of religious artworks known as the Guelph Treasure. That decision made it harder for some lawsuits to be tried in U.S. courts over claims that property was taken from Jews during the Nazi era.
At the same time, the justices heard the Hungary case and had returned the case to a lower court.
The case has been at the appeals court three times, and the court has refused to dismiss the claims.
Only time will tell if it makes another trip around the court circuit.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just missed an opportunity to fix American law and precedent on speech limits that are in place around the topic of abortion.
That's according to Justice Clarence Thomas, who warned that the limit established by the court in Hill v. Colorado years ago is nothing more or less than a content-based restriction, which is unconstitutional.
The Washington Examiner explained the failure came in the court's decision not to hear arguments in a new case.
In the Hill case, the court affirmed the leftist state of Colorado's imposition of "buffer zones" around abortion businesses, where pro-life Americans' free speech can be criminal.
"The court today declines an invitation to set the record straight on Hill's defunct status," he explained in a dissent.
He said the Hill result "contradicted more than a half-century of well-established First Amendment principles."
The new case was Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale which came out of Carbondale, Illinois.
There officials imposed a draconian law barring protesters from approaching within eight feet of people near abortion businesses without consent.
Thomas explained the Carbondale ordinance and others like it, the report said, are nothing other than content-based restrictions on speech.
Carbondale just months ago repealed the ordinance, but Thomas said that damage already was done by the months the First Amendment violation was in place.
Justice Samuel Alito also said the new case should be heard.
The majority decision, however, leaves in place, Thomas said, confusion in lower courts about what the law should be.
Coalition Life, a group of sidewalk counselors, said it will continue to fight the free speech limits in Hill.
"The Supreme Court has denied our appeal, but we will not be denied the ability to perform our lifesaving work on the sidewalk," said Brian Westbrook, of Coalition Life. "Sidewalk counselors will continue to show up for the women who need us every single day, in every place we are called…as we expand our operations across the United States, we will continue to advocate for these women and our fundamental right to speak with them to offer help, hope and information that they desperately need."
Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Society, which fought on behalf of the pro-lifers, said city officials "quietly repealed its bubble zone ordinance in a shadowy, four-minute, weekend meeting, knowing full well their bubble zone would fail constitutional scrutiny if it came before the Supreme Court."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court is being asked to hear a case that the justices could use to reform – fix actually – a practice through which the government can deny individuals their 4th Amendment rights.
It is the New Civil Liberties Alliance that is asking for a review of the Harper v. O'Donnell case that concerns financial records unlawfully seized by the Internal Revenue Service.
Sheng Li, litigation counsel for the group, said, "The judge-made third-party doctrine was ill-conceived from the start, with dozens of states repudiating it over the past half century. The doctrine has become even less defensible in the modern age, where sharing confidential information with third-party companies such as internet, healthcare, and even cryptocurrency companies, has become an increasingly common part of American life."
The legal team explained the IRS took financial records belonging to NCLA client James Harper and more than 14,000 others from the Coinbase cryptocurrency exchange through a "John Doe" summons.
"IRS took Mr. Harper's documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay taxes. The Supreme Court should take the opportunity to fix the third-party doctrine, which the government has relied on to strip away the Fourth Amendment rights of millions of Americans who share data, such as internet browsing histories and medical records, with third-party companies," the alliance explained.
The case history includes a ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals that Harper could take the IRS to federal court for gathering private financial information about his use of virtual current from third-party exchanges without a lawful subpoena.
However, a federal judge in New Hampshire then failed Harper, by dismissing his case against IRS in May 2023, incorrectly ruling that he had failed to state a claim. The First Circuit invoked the third-party doctrine to uphold that dismissal last September.
The NCLA pointed out, "The Supreme Court must revisit the third-party doctrine to recognize Fourth Amendment protection for Mr. Harper's cryptocurrency data and other digital records, which Americans now routinely store with third-party service providers. Digital records are a modern-day individual's 'papers' and 'effects' that the Fourth Amendment explicitly safeguards against government's prying eyes. Justice Sonya Sotomayor has observed that the third-party doctrine is 'ill suited' to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks."
"The Constitution promises security to Americans in their 'papers and effects.' Until the Supreme Court clarifies its rulings for the digital age, that promise is unfulfilled," said John Vecchione, a litigation counsel for NCLA.
It was in 2019 that the IRS notified Harper that it had obtained his financial records concerning ownership of bitcoin "without any particularized suspicion of wrongdoing."
The IRS took those records "without a valid subpoena, court order, or judicial warrant based on probable cause."
Conservative commentator and influencer Ashley St. Clair shocked the social media world earlier this month when she announced that Elon Musk was the father of her child.
According to the Daily Mail, the dramatic situation took another interesting turn over the weekend after the conservative activist filed a lawsuit against Musk, asking for sole custody of the child and a demand that Musk take a paternity test.
As a result of the lawsuit, text messages allegedly between the two surfaced, making a shocking situation even more bizarre.
The text messages reveal a clear relationship between St. Clair and Musk, and included photos of her holding the baby after it was born, which elicited kind responses allegedly from Musk.
What's going on?
Some of the alleged text message exchanges between the two were seemingly normal and supportive.
The Daily Mail noted:
St. Clair had sent Musk a picture of her clutching the newborn in the delivery room.
'All well?' Musk replied. To which, she responded 'He is perfect.' Musk replied: 'I look forward to seeing you and him this weekend.'
In another, St. Clair sent him a selfie of her and a friend, to which Musk replied: 'Hi cutie.' She then texted him back, saying: 'Hi, see u soon.'
Another text allegedly from Musk to St. Clair said, "I want to knock you up again."
A photo from the text messages released reportedly showed Musk holding the newborn baby.
The messages also showed a deep conversation between the two about Musk's safety and the promise from St. Clair to remain discreet in the name of safety.
The Daily Mail noted:
'Wake up. This is not the time for sentiment at the expense of safety. If I make a mistake on security [REDACTED] will never know his father.'
St. Clair responded saying: 'That's why the father spot on his birth certificate is blank right, E. Any he has my last name.'
Musk added: 'Necessary for now. Only the paranoid survive' before St. Clair responded saying that 'incredible discretion' had been used and would continue to be.
Valentine's Day surprise
St. Clair stunned social media users on Valentine's Day when she announced that Musk was the father of her son.
"Five months ago, I welcomed a new baby into the world. Elon Musk is the father... I have not previously disclosed this to protect our child’s privacy and safety, but in recent days it has become clear that tabloid media intends to do so, regardless of the harm it will cause."
She wrote in the lawsuit that its in the best interest of the child for her to have sole legal and physical custody of her son.
Only time will tell if Musk will put up a fight.
President Donald Trump's mission to reform government and eliminate waste and corruption hasn't been met without legal headwinds.
According to Fox News, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed a wrench in the gears of the Trump administration last week after it paused the administration's efforts to fire the head of a whistleblower protection agency.
The ruling means that Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, will be able to keep his job -- at least for now -- until a final ruling is issued.
Dellinger was appointed by former President Joe Biden.
What's going on?
The Trump administration has had Dellinger in its sights for weeks, and has unsuccessfully attempted to relieve him of his duties.
The administration asked the high court to overturn a lower court's ruling that reinstated Dellinger to his position after being previously fired by Trump. Now, a district court will determine whether or not to extend the pause on Dellinger's firing.
Two of the high court's liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, voted to deny Trump's request to OK the termination of Dellinger from the agency.
Some of the conservative justices took a vastly different approach to the situation.
Fox News noted:
Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, saying the lower court overstepped, and they cast doubt on whether courts have the authority to restore to office someone the president has fired. While acknowledging that some officials appointed by the president have contested their removal, Gorsuch wrote in his opinion that "those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement."
His firing status is the first of many people fired to reach the steps of the Supreme Court.
Social media users react
News of the Supreme Court's ruling blocking Trump from firing the agency head sparked mountains of backlash and conversation.
"I am so tired of all these leftist activist judges making up the laws as they go. I hope Pam Bondi puts an end to all the shenanigans!" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "We voted for Trump, get on the Trump Train, or get out of the way."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the leftover pro-abortion schemes assembled while Joe Biden was in the White House has taken a direct hit in an appeals court.
It is a Biden administration rule that allowed elective abortions to be covered by the federal government under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that now is in jeopardy.
What happened was that the law was adopted with bipartisan support in 2021 to provide accommodations for workers who are pregnant, recently had given birth, or have "related medical conditions."
But then Joe Biden's EEOC changed the law by creating a rule that provided for abortions under "related medical conditions."
The state of Tennessee and 16 other conservative states sued under the Administrative Procedures Act but a Barack Obama-appointed judge threw it out.
Now those claims have been reinstated by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which concluded the states have standing.
A report at Courthouse News explains, "The order reverses a lower court finding that the states failed to cite specific injuries and hadn't made a compelling case for enjoining the regulation nationwide."
Chief U.S Circuit Judge Steven Colloton has ruled states are, in fact, the object of the Biden regulation, as they are employers under the act.
His decision said, "Because the states are the object of an agency action, they are injured by the imposition of new regulatory obligations. The injury is caused by the agency's action, and a judicial decision setting aside the action would remedy the injury. The imposition of a regulatory burden itself causes injury."
Jonathan Skrmetti, the Tennessee attorney general, said the ruling was a win after the "Biden-era EEOC tried to rewrite the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act into an aggressive abortion mandate."
The case was sent back to the lower courts for results in alignment with the decision.
