The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a controversial law requiring millions of small businesses to report personal information to the federal government to prevent money laundering.
The Corporate Transparency Act requires businesses with less than 20 employees to report personal information about their owners to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
The penalties for violating the reporting requirements are draconian. Business owners who fail to comply could face two years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Information that must be submitted includes owners' names, home addresses, and photo IDs.
The government has defended the law as a powerful tool to combat bad actors who operate using shell companies. But the law's sweeping scope is set to impact millions of perfectly legitimate small businesses just trying to get by.
A federal district court struck the law down in early December, finding the law stretched the government's power to regulate commerce, but continued legal developments have left business owners in limbo.
The Biden administration petitioned the Supreme Court Tuesday to allow the law to be enforced while an appeal plays out.
In a written application, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the reporting requirements "fall comfortably within Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate economic activities (here, the anonymous operation of business entities) that substantially affect interstate commerce.”
The Justice Department also asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the lower court's universal injunction. The administration said the case presents an opportunity to address the propriety of universal injunctions, which prevent laws from being enforced nationwide.
Small businesses were facing an initial deadline of January 1, 2025, to report their information, which was pushed back to January 13.
The law is currently on hold ahead of oral arguments before the Fifth Circuit on March 25, 2025.
The law's challengers have asked for more time to educate the millions of Americans who will be impacted by its severe requirements.
"We are greatly concerned that a mere two-week extension does not provide enough time for millions of American businesses to comply with the law," Mark Eisele, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, wrote to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in a Dec. 24 letter.
"At minimum, we request Treasury provide a one-year delay to allow for greater education and outreach to small businesses across rural America."
In a shocking turn of events, Judge Stephen Yekel, presiding over the Georgia State Court, was found dead in his courtroom on Tuesday morning, marking a tragic end to his career on the bench.
Reports indicate that Yekel's death is a potential case of suicide due to a suspected self-inflicted gunshot, currently under in-depth investigation by state authorities, Fox News reported.
The discovery of Judge Yekel's body was made by deputies of the Effingham County Sheriff's Office. The 74-year-old jurist is presumed to have passed away either late Monday night or in the wee hours of Tuesday.
The Sheriff's Office, based on early evidence, stated that the death appeared to be a remarkable case of suicide, caused by a self-inflicted gunshot. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is slated to perform an autopsy to ascertain the complete details and concrete proof behind Yekel's death.
As part of the investigation, the Sheriff’s Office and the Georgia Bureau are working hand-in-hand assisting each other. The probe aims to unravel the circumstances leading to this untimely demise.
Yekel, a respected figure in the judicial world, was appointed to his position by Georgia Governor Brian Kemp merely two years ago. His roller-coaster tenure was set to end on December 31, 2024 – the day he was found dead.
The veteran judge had been unsuccessful in a recent election campaign, an event which came to pass before his death. The details of whether this event had any correlation with his death remain speculative as formal investigation results are awaited.
The news of his death sent shockwaves throughout the courthouse and the local authorities. The Effingham County Board of Commissioners expressed their deepest condolences following the news of his demise.
The tragedy triggered profound grief among the administrative officials as well as the citizens. "The Effingham County Board of Commissioners and staff are deeply saddened by the tragic death of Judge Steve Yekel at the Effingham County Courthouse today, and we offer our condolences to his family and loved ones," conveyed their official statement.
The public impact of this tragedy is immense, given Judge Yekel's prominent position and his civic contributions. The reverberations are sure to be felt for some time, and the community now mourns for a fallen civil servant.
People who knew Judge Yekel or appreciated his work faced a harsh start to the year, as the news began to spread. His seat at the courthouse will indeed be a symbolic reminder of the weight of public service for many.
As the year ends, the courtroom will have much to reflect upon. While efforts to digest this incident carry on, the legal world lost a significant pillar in Yekel's absence.
With the investigation by the Sheriff’s Office underway and an autopsy by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation expected anytime soon, the hope is that more light will be shed on the fateful event.
In times of such despair, it's imperative to wait for clear answers. Until the investigation is completed, the circumstances surrounding Judge Yekel's death remain surrounded by a shroud of uncertainty.
The expected autopsy results will hopefully shed light on the incident and corroborate the speculated cause of death. But for now, Georgia mourns the shocking loss of its dutiful servant, Judge Stephen Yekel.
According to a court filing that was made on Monday afternoon, the team of special counsel Jack Smith has decided to withdraw from their appeal of the secret materials case against the co-defendants of President-elect Donald Trump.
Instead, they have transferred the matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, it seems to have finally come to an end, as The Hill reported.
Due to a long-standing policy of the Department of Justice that prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president, Smith decided to withdraw his appeal against Trump last month.
However, his team continued to pursue their appeal against Trump's two co-defendants in the case, Walt Nauta, a longtime Trump aide, and Carlos De Oliveira, an employee of Mar-a-Lago.
In June of 2023, President Trump entered a plea of not guilty to 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials.
Prosecutors claimed that Trump had repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents that contained classified information ranging from the nuclear secrets of the United States to the capabilities of the nation's defense, and that he had also taken steps to thwart the efforts of the government to retrieve the documents.
In a superseding indictment, the former president, together with Nauta and De Oliveira, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations that they attempted to destroy surveillance footage at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.
After the United States District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Smith's lawsuit in July, citing the validity of his appointment as special counsel, Smith filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in Atlanta.
On Monday, Smith's legal team decided to withdraw from the case and hand it over to federal prosecutors in Florida.
This decision was made while the appeal was still proceeding, but under the time-constraints of a potentially complicated presidential inaguration coming in just a few weeks.
Markenzy Lapointe, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, has entered his appearance in the matter in a separate filing.
Requests have been made to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida about the case, but they have yet to offer any further details.
Smith has also been winding down his federal election interference case against Trump following Trump's reelection.
It is anticipated that Smith would give a report on his investigations to Attorney General Merrick Garland in the coming weeks before stepping down from his position as special counsel.
With Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress starting in January, Jack Smith could come under scrutiny for the extraordinary steps he took to prosecute President-elect Donald Trump.
Over the course of two years, Smith - who was handpicked by the Biden Justice Department - furiously pushed to convict Trump in two separate federal cases. Neither of Smith's efforts bore fruit, leaving the prosecutor exposed after Trump's stunning political comeback.
In one of his most baldly partisan moves, Smith released an unusually detailed filing against Trump in October. Smith was widely accused of attempting to derail Trump's re-election hopes by trying him in the court of public opinion.
Although Smith has never said so publicly, his efforts against Trump were contingent on the outcome of the election, with Trump unlikely to ever face trial if he emerged victorious.
In the wake of Trump's stunning win, Smith has abandoned his twin efforts to prosecute Trump. Even in defeat, Smith has maintained legal pretenses, saying his reversal is based on Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents - and not anything to do with politics.
With Smith defeated, Trump now has an opportunity to turn the tables.
Republican allies of Trump have accused Smith of a range of abuses, including the manipulation of classified documents seized in the 2022 FBI raid of Mar-A-Lago.
Smith also raised eyebrows by beginning his Florida documents investigation with a grand jury in Washington D.C., where a judge allowed Smith to pierce Trump's attorney-client privilege.
Smith's unusual use of an out-of-district grand jury faced pushback from the trial judge, Aileen Cannon, who rebuked Smith at various points for his belligerent handling of the case before dismissing the charges outright on constitutional grounds.
There are also questions about whether and to what extent Smith coordinated against Trump with other Democratically aligned prosecutors, like Georgia's Fani Willis.
House Republicans like Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) have already ordered Smith to preserve his records, warning he could be called to testify before Congress.
While Smith failed in his effort to derail Trump's campaign, the prosecutor is expected to release a report that could provide partisan fodder for Trump's opponents heading into his next White House term.
Trump has said he will fire Smith on day one, but Smith plans to pre-empt that by stepping down before Trump's inauguration.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fani Willis, the Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor who has been struggling to keep her organized crime allegations against President-elect Donald Trump alive despite massive ethical lapses, now has lost the support of even her own state's attorney general.
Fox News reports that Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr now has urged his state's highest court to reject an appeal by Willis.
A lower appeals court had thrown her off the case against Trump because of ethical lapses, and that meant her entire office was disqualified.
The options were for the case to be handed off to another prosecutor, or she could appeal to try to regain control of the situation.
Willis has alleged election interference against Trump and a list of other defendants under the state's organized crime laws.
However, just days ago a court of appeals disqualified Willis her because of an "appearance of impropriety."
The panel cited a romantic relationship between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who Willis hired at a cost of more than $600,000 to taxpayers to assemble the case.
Wade left the case earlier after a lower court judge said he would have to go or the case could fail entirely.
At the time the case was being developed, and Wade was getting paid massive amounts, he and Willis took exotic vacations together.
"The Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled that the Fulton County DA created her own conflict and rightfully removed her from the case against President-elect Trump," Carr wrote. "'Lawfare' has become far too common in American politics, and it must end."
He said he would encourage the high court "to not take her appeal. It's our hope that the DA will now focus taxpayer resources on the successful prosecution of violent criminals in Fulton County."
WND has reported that Willis' problems with the case aren't ending, even if that case is rejected entirely.
A judge has said the Georgia state Senate can issue a subpoena to her as part of its investigation into whether she engaged in misconduct during her lawfare case against Trump. And she must appear.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram filed the order that instructs Willis she has until Jan. 13 to submit arguments over whether the subpoenas seek legally shielded or confidential information.
A state Senate committee had ordered her earlier to answer questions and produce documents about her campaign against Trump.
But she's been opposing any effort to allow lawmakers to access information about her schemes against Trump.
According to a report at Red State, "She may have been disqualified from the Georgia election interference case involving President-elect Donald Trump by an appeals court earlier in December, but that ruling isn't the end of the Fani Willis saga. Not only has she vowed to appeal that decision, but in addition to the court challenges to the Fulton County District Attorney's continued involvement in the case due to conflicts of interest, the Georgia legislature has been investigating Willis' involvement in the case to determine whether she engaged in misconduct."
The ruling said Willis can be subpoenaed to appear, but she does have the option of challenging the extent of the questions.
While the legislative committee will expire with the end of the legislative term in Georgia early in January, Republican state Sen. Greg Dolezal of Cumming already has announced plans to renew it.
"Despite our committee's lawful subpoena, DA Willis has refused to testify," Dolezal said in a statement. "This, coupled with troubling revelations of apparent violations of Georgia's open records laws, paints a disturbing picture of an office operating as though it is above the law. This behavior undermines public trust and raises serious questions about the integrity of her office."
A report at the Gateway Pundit said the lawmakers are investigating "misconduct during her witch hunt of Donald Trump."
The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court on Monday rejected an appeal by President-elect Donald Trump that held him liable for allegedly sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and then defaming her in 2022 by denying the claims.
“Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings,” wrote the 3-judge panel in an unsigned opinion.
Trump communications director Steven Cheung responded to the ruling by saying, the “American People have re-elected President Trump” and have demanded the “swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed.”
Trump's lawyers argued in the appeal that testimony from other women who claimed sexual misconduct by Trump should not have been admitted, and that the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump claimed to have groped women without their consent should not have been allowed either.
Many courts would consider that evidence to be prejudicial, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for courts that are going after Trump to smear, attack, and punish him for being a successful politician.
Trump has said the allegations against him were politically motivated and denied them repeatedly.
In order to get a new trial in the case, Trump will have to continue his appeal before the full Circuit Court or the Supreme Court.
It's not a great look for the once and future president, but people had every chance to know about the case before November and elected Trump anyway.
In other news, Trump got a win in his defamation case against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos.
The outlet decided to settle with Trump for $15 million after Stephanopoulos said on-air that Trump "raped" Carroll. The courts did not find that he raped her.
ABC News also apologized to Trump and paid $1 million of his legal fees for the suit.
None of the criminal cases against Trump are going anywhere for the next four years while he is president, but the civil cases can still continue, apparently.
A $500 million civil verdict against him is in the hands of an appeals court, and a ruling on the appeal could come soon.
A mjaority of Trump's supporters seem to believe that all litigation against him is politically motivated, so the failure of any appeals will likely only hit his hefty pocketbook, not his reputation.
The Supreme Court of Michigan upheld a felony conviction against a man who stabbed another man at a birthday party.
The ruling was touted by Michigan's Democratic attorney general Dana Nessel, who sought to uphold the conviction against Benjamin K. McKewen.
In 2017, a jury convicted McKewen for attacking a victim at a birthday gathering. The defendant "pushed the victim in the chest and the victim's chest began to bleed," the Supreme Court's opinion notes.
"Although no one saw defendant with a knife, the victim's treating physicians concluded that the victim had been stabbed."
McKewen was sentenced to concurrent terms of five to 10 years in prison for assault with intent to do great bodily harm and two to four years for felonious assault.
McKewen appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the conviction for felonious assault in 2018 on the basis that his offenses were mutually exclusive.
The Supreme Court reversed 5-2, restoring the conviction for felonious assault.
The central question in the case was whether McKewen's convictions violated the constitutional double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
The Supreme Court admitted that there are conflicting intents in the two statutes: felonious assault applies to an assault without intent to inflict great bodily harm, conflicting with the crime of assault with intent to do great bodily harm.
While acknowledging this tension, the court found that the legislature authorized multiple punishments in its intent to do great bodily harm statute. The Supreme Court pointed to language that allows a person to be charged with "any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct."
"We hold that defendant's convictions for both AWIGBH and felonious assault arising out of the same act do not violate constitutional double-jeopardy protections because the AWIGBH statute authorizes multiple punishments for the same conduct," the justices ruled.
Chief Justice Elizabeth T. Clement dissented, joined by Kyra Harris Bolden.
The "without intending" language in the felonious assault statute makes it clear that the crime cannot be charged at the same time as intent to do great bodily harm, Clement said.
If the majority's analysis is correct, then the "without intending" language would be meaningless, Clement added.
In any event, the court's ruling was hailed by attorney general Dana Nessel, a close ally of Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D).
"This decision reaffirms justice for victims of violent crimes and ensures that those who commit such acts are held fully accountable under the law," Nessel said in a statement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
While tens of thousands of fans of President Donald Trump rallied in Washington in January 2021 to support his doubts about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, an election evidence now confirms was skewed by a various of undue influences including the FBI's interference, a few hundred rioted at the Capitol.
There was trespassing, and vandalism, and members of Congress said they were scared for the lives, although the only fatality in the violence that day was a protester shot at point-blank range by a police officer. Further, Democrats in Washington had rejected Trump's offer in advance to have National Guard troops to secure the building.
But federal officials have made a concerted effort to identify and charge everyone they can identify from that day, and hundreds already have been convicted of various offenses and jailed.
That political agenda now is reaping the whirlwind: A $50 billion lawsuit that is being prepared against the government over its agenda.
It is the Gateway Pundit that revealed more than 100 January 6 "political prisoners" have come together for the action against the Department of Justice.
It's called the January 6 Restitution and Wrongful Incarceration Lawsuit and is being spearheaded by Jake Lang, who already has been incarcerated nearly four years.
His organization, "Federal Watchdog," is being joined by a team of lawyers with the aim of exposing the injustices inflicted on the prisoners.
The report said the lawsuit is to be filed January 20, 2025.
"This historic legal action seeks to compensate these individuals for the extensive harm inflicted by what they describe as a weaponized justice system. From the loss of generational family businesses, homes, and careers to the irreparable emotional and psychological damage suffered during years of wrongful incarceration, the plaintiffs are demanding accountability for the Federal Government's actions," the report explained.
Lang explained, "Weaponized government and lawfare against conservatives can never become the standard in America."
The organization putting the agenda together said the plaintiffs were "hunted down like animals" by the FBI for "peacefully protesting."
Convictions have been followed by sentencing enhancements and long terms behind bars for relatively minor infractions, such as being in the Capitol without authorization, even though many times protesters entered through doors held open for them by security officers.
"The damage to children who have spent four years without their fathers at home cannot be put into monetary value," Lang charged.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "The timing of the lawsuit is symbolic, as it will be filed just before January 20, 2025, a date many believe will mark the beginning of a new chapter for these patriots. Supporters are optimistic that former President Donald Trump will pardon the remaining 250 prisoners still behind bars on his anticipated inauguration day, bringing an end to years of suffering and uncertainty."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis has suffered another loss in her legal campaign to prosecute President-elect Donald Trump on her "organized crime" charges.
This after a court already has ruled that she's off the case because of the impropriety she exhibited by hiring her paramour to work on her case against Trump.
Now a judge has said the Georgia state Senate can issue a subpoena to her as part of its investigation into whether she engaged in misconduct during her lawfare case against Trump.
And she must appear.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram filed the order that instructs Willis she has until Jan. 13 to submit arguments over whether the subpoenas seek legally shielded or confidential information.
A state Senate committee had ordered her earlier to answer questions and produce documents about her campaign against Trump.
But she's been opposing any effort to allow lawmakers to access information about her schemes against Trump.
According to a report at Red State, "She may have been disqualified from the Georgia election interference case involving President-elect Donald Trump by an appeals court earlier in December, but that ruling isn't the end of the Fani Willis saga. Not only has she vowed to appeal that decision, but in addition to the court challenges to the Fulton County District Attorney's continued involvement in the case due to conflicts of interest, the Georgia legislature has been investigating Willis' involvement in the case to determine whether she engaged in misconduct."
The ruling said Willis can be subpoenaed to appear, but she does have the option of challenging the extent of the questions.
While the legislative committee will expire with the end of the legislative term in Georgia early in January, Republican state Sen. Greg Dolezal of Cumming already has announced plans to renew it.
"Despite our committee's lawful subpoena, DA Willis has refused to testify," Dolezal said in a statement. "This, coupled with troubling revelations of apparent violations of Georgia's open records laws, paints a disturbing picture of an office operating as though it is above the law. This behavior undermines public trust and raises serious questions about the integrity of her office."
A report at the Gateway Pundit said the lawmakers are investigating "misconduct during her witch hunt of Donald Trump."
The report said, "Willis is trying 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."
An earlier subpoena concerned information about her hiring and payments made to paramour Nathan Wade, and communications between them.
She hired him, using $600,000 plus in tax money, to work on her anti-Trump agenda. The two also took exotic vacations together.
An appeals court ruling recently found that Willis – and everyone in her office – has "no authority" to proceed with the case against Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One day after a lawsuit was filed over the issue, Congress reversed the federal government's position on filming in national parks.
A report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression explains that for years photographers and filmmakers have taken images inside the nation's national parks.
Suddenly, however, the government started demanding special permits, costly special permits, for that activity.
So FIRE filed a lawsuit, and the next day, Congress started the process to reverse the requirement.
The case was brought after Alex Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith risked punishment for taking images of the Teton Trifecta, in Wyoming.
FIRE and the National Press Photographers Association sued, charging the government engaged in arbitrary and unconstitutional demands that Americans apply for a permit and pay costly fees before exercising their right to film in national parks," the organization reported.
"The very next day, the U.S. Senate passed a bill addressing these same issues. The bill now goes to President Biden, who is expected to sign it in a huge victory for filmmakers — and for the First Amendment," the organization explained.
The challenged practice was to require filmmakers to get a permit and pay a fee if they intend to later profit from their footage in national parks, even if they are using the same handheld camera or phone that a tourist would use.
And, FIRE confirmed, "Permits are routinely denied for arbitrary and unpredictable reasons, making it difficult for people like documentary filmmakers, press photographers, and wedding videographers to earn a living.:"
The report said the new EXPLORE Act, pushed by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, allows filming where the public is allowed as long as it doesn't impact other visitors or damage the park.