This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Kentucky has been shot and killed in his chambers, and a local sheriff has been taken into custody, charged with murder for the confrontation.
"The preliminary investigation indicates Letcher County Sheriff Shawn M. Stines" shot the judge, the report said.
The shooting happened in the courthouse in Whitesburg, Kentucky, an Appalachian town and county seat with only about 1,700 residents.
It's some 140 miles southeast of Lexington.
County prosecutor Matt Butler immediately recused himself and his office.
"We all know each other here. … Anyone from Letcher County would tell you that Judge Mullins and I married sisters and that we have children who are first cousins but act like siblings. For that reason, among others, I have already taken steps to recuse myself and my entire office."
Russell Coleman, the state attorney general said, there will special prosecutors in the case.
"We will fully investigate and pursue justice," Coleman said in a statement.
The report revealed the 54-year-old Mullins, who had been a judge for 15 years, was hit multiple times in the shooting. Stines, 43, was charged with first-degree murder.
The report noted, "Mullins was known for promoting substance abuse treatment for people involved in the justice system and helped hundreds of residents enter inpatient residential treatment, according to a program for a drug summit he spoke at in 2022. He also helped develop a program called Addiction Recovery Care to offer peer support services in the courthouse. The program was adopted in at least 50 counties in Kentucky."
Former President Donald Trump notched a legal win after a deadline in the appeal of his Florida case dismissal was moved until October, The Hill reported. This means that the court's decision will likely come after the next president's inauguration.
Trump had been charged with 40 counts for mishandling classified information recovered from his Florida residence. The charges involved accusations of obstruction of justice and violating the Espionage Act.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges after finding that special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges, was improperly appointed. However, Smith petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a review.
In his appeal, Smith claimed that Attorney General Merrick Garland lawfully appointed him contrary to Cannon's decision. The court approved delaying the deadline from Sept. 25 to Oct. 25, which will push the resolution of the case into next year.
Trump's lawyers argued for the delay because he's busy with other cases. "President Trump and his counsel are presently engaged in motion practice in a separate case…which will require counsel to spend time in a sensitive compartmented information facility (“SCIF”) in Washington, D.C. in the coming weeks to meet that court’s briefing schedule," the legal filing noted.
After announcing he was running for president for a second term, Trump suddenly became the subject of several criminal probes. In all, he has been subject to four criminal indictments, CBS News reported.
The first that went to trial was the New York hush-money case. Despite the dubious nature of the charges and supposed evidence, a New York jury found Trump guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records.
However, prosecutors in the other cases haven't been able to finagle such an outcome. Trump's federal election interference case has been postponed indefinitely after the Supreme Court granted Trump's claim of presidential immunity.
Another election interference in Georgia is also on hold after the judge concluded that some charges belonged to the federal court. It seems the very thing leftists thought would trip Trump up has become his best defense for moving the deadline in the appeal.
After his enemies spent the last two years throwing obstacles in Trump's way, the former president seems to be taking it all in his stride. He's survived four criminal probes and two assassination attempts, but he just keeps moving ahead.
The next several weeks will be the true test of his resolve and the left's ability to knock Trump off kilter with their antics. So far, Trump continues to poll strongly against Vice President Kamala Harris as both are locked in a statistical tie, Fox News reported.
This is after the judicial machine spent years going after Trump. It's after the establishment media, Hollywood, the music industry, and just about every other institution has thrown full support behind Harris.
Shockingly, there are signs that a seismic shift may be hiding under the surface of these pollsters' reports. Virginia has long been a Democratic stronghold, but now the New York Post shared that it is locked in a statistical dead heat and will become a battleground state for the two despite going for President Joe Biden by 10 points in 2020.
Trump is a unique figure in American history. He has survived many attacks, literally and figuratively, and now has gained yet another legal win that will keep him moving toward the White House.
Former Southa Dakota Republican attorney general Jason Ravnsborg has been suspended from practicing law, just the latest blow to his career since he was removed from office for killing a pedestrian while driving.
The state's Supreme Court found that Ravnsborg's conduct after the fatal accident was deceptive and unbecoming of his position. The suspension is effective for six months.
Ravnsborg struck and killed 55-year-old Joe Boever, who was walking on the shoulder of the road, as Ravnsborg was driving home from a Republican event one night in September 2020.
Ravnsborg called 911 and said he hit something, which he later said he "assumed" was a deer.
The sheriff who responded to the scene didn't find anything, and the sheriff gave his personal vehicle to Ravnsborg to drive home. When Ravnsborg was returning the vehicle the next day, he found Boever's body.
Boever's glasses were later found in Ravnsborg's car, suggesting Boever had hit the windshield, but Ravnsborg denied seeing him. Boever was also carrying a phone flashlight that was still on the next day, but Ravnsborg said he didn't see that either.
Ravnsborg pled no contest in 2021 to operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device and improper lane driving.
He defied calls from the state's Republicans to step aside, but was impeached, convicted, and removed in office in 2022 over his role in the death.
The state's Supreme Court rebuked Ravnsborg for his conduct, in particular, lying to investigators about his cell phone use.
Ravnsborg initially denied using his cell phone, although he later admitted he was browsing political news while behind the wheel. Investigators found that Ravnsborg wasn't on his phone at the time of the crash, but he had been using it while driving.
“His evolving explanation regarding the extent of his cell phone use while driving involved actual dishonesty and misrepresentations,” the ruling said. “He only reluctantly admitted that he ‘looked at stuff’ on his phone after he was confronted with specific information found on his phone.”
The Supreme Court also criticized Ravnsborg for mentioning his title during the 911 call, and for failing to consider how his decision to stay on would impact public trust.
Ravnsborg told the court he had no plans to continue practicing law, but the Supreme Court said a suspension was needed to send a message.
“While Ravnsborg is unlikely to continue practicing law in South Dakota, we conclude suspension is necessary to preserve the integrity of the profession and deter like conduct by other attorneys.”
An internal communication from Chief Justice John Roberts to his colleagues in the Supreme Court was leaked to the press, the Washington Examiner reported. This is the second time such a breach has occurred at the high court.
On Sunday, the New York Times published an article titled "How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak." The leftist hit piece insinuated Roberts was in Trump's pocket after three decisions went the former president's way.
However, the piece also included information from a Feb. 22 memo Roberts penned to the eight other justices on the court. The missive followed a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding former President Donald Trump's federal election interference trial.
Roberts said the decision made by the court was "inadequate and poorly reasoned" in the memo. "I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers differently," he wrote, according to the Times.
Perhaps this second leak points to a troubling trend at the high court. The first leak came in 2022 when the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization draft opinion was leaked to the press before it was finalized.
The decision would lead to the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision that had granted abortion rights via judicial fiat. Dobbs erased nearly half a century of bad precedent, but the document's premature release was even more remarkable.
No other decision in the Supreme Court's 235-year history has ever been made public before it was supposed to. The Supreme Court's marshal questioned nearly 100 employees of the court and sifted through forensic evidence to no avail.
"But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence," the final report noted in January 2023. Speculating who could be responsible for these two leaks is nearly unthinkable.
The eight-month probe came up empty, though many believed it was one of the four clerks assigned to each judge. However, if it's the same person or persons, that would be unlikely considering each justice receives a new slate of clerks every term.
It's unknown what the motives of the person or persons behind these leaks are. However, in both instances, these actions have real-world ramifications beyond the contents of a memo or draft decision.
South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman believes that the second leak has caused the most harm. In a blog post published to The Volokh Conspiracy on Sunday, he said the Times received the memo as well as insider information about the court's workings on these cases.
"This tapestry would require insights from so many different people. Moreover, all of this comes after the Dobbs leak when Chief Justice Roberts (apparently) put strict limitations on access to Court information," Blackman noted.
"What did all of those measures accomplish? Apparently not much," he wrote. Notably, the first leak led to a threat to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life by a man upset about the decision, the Washington Post reported at the time.
By definition, both of these leaks are inside jobs. Whoever is doing this is playing a dangerous and partisan game with the safety of those on the court while undermining trust within the highest court in the land.
The Montana Supreme Court refused to hear state Democrats' case to have the Green Party candidate removed from November's ballot for U.S. Senate, Daily Montana reported. The five-judge panel unanimously denied the request Tuesday.
The Montana Democratic Party had requested a writ of supervisory control on the basis that the Green Party improperly replaced its candidate. Michael Downey won the Green Party's nomination in June but withdrew from the race on the very last day allowed.
The Green Party then replaced him with Robert Barb. The Democratic Party panicked and sued, arguing that the Green Party failed to follow its own bylaws and state laws about replacing candidates.
The state Supreme Court also indicated it would uphold an earlier denial for an injunction, which the Democratic Party requested earlier. This comes just ahead of the Sept. 20 deadline to mail out military and overseas ballots.
The Democrats' lawsuit stemmed from issues with "nomination" versus "appointment" in the different rules and laws on replacing candidates. Ultimately, the court said that any obstacles to naming a replacement candidate "would be at odds with allowing ballots to be printed and distributed in a timely fashion" if they must wait for approval.
"Although such would not be an absurd result, it would not give effect to the purpose of the statute, which in part requires political parties to comply with their own bylaws in appointing replacement candidates in the event of the death or withdrawal of a nominee after the primary election," the decision from the court stated. The court also admonished Democrats for its "merely speculative" reasoning.
"MDP has thus failed to demonstrate that it is likely that the Montana Green Party violated its party ‘rules’ when its state central committee appointed Barb to fill the vacancy created by Downey’s withdrawal," the court noted. The court also found no evidence that the lower court erred in denying an injunction.
"Since we have not concluded that the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law, this matter is not susceptible to writ of supervisory control," the court said. Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen believes the Montana Supreme Court made the right call.
"I’m pleased that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this hail Mary attempt to undermine Montana election law," Jacobsen said in a statement. "From the start, this lawsuit was a baseless political game from Washington elites that showed complete disrespect for Montana and our election officials.”
Replacing parties' candidates has been a prominent issue in this election year. The highest-profile swap-out happened in the presidential race after an abysmal debate performance.
According to the Associated Press, President Joe Biden stepped down as the Democratic presidential nominee, and the party eventually replaced him with Vice President Kamala Harris. Despite never winning a single primary vote, she became the pick because Democrats were desperate.
Meanwhile, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has been fighting to have his name removed from November's ballot since he dropped out last month. As CBS News reported, he will remain on the ballot in over 30 of the 50 states, including some battleground states.
Kennedy endorsed former President Donald Trump after stepping aside, signaling to supporters to switch to backing Trump. However, state officials may be digging in to keep his name on with the belief that he will siphon votes from the Republican candidate.
This election cycle is contentious, and many races are close as it is. With the additional issues with the ballots, it could mean the difference between defeat and victory for some, and Democrats know it.
Ty Fahner, a towering figure in Illinois’ legal and political spheres, has died at the age of 81.
Ty Fahner's extensive contributions spanned roles as a federal prosecutor, Illinois Attorney General, and chair of Mayer Brown law firm.
Ty Fahner, born Tyrone C. Fahner in Detroit in 1942, took the early steps in a career that would see him become a key figure in Illinois' legal landscape. Fahner’s journey began in Southeast Michigan where, as a teenager, he worked several blue-collar jobs, providing a sturdy, working-class foundation for his later pursuits in law.
Continuing his upward trajectory, Fahner attended the University of Michigan alongside Tom Hayden. Despite the radical movements swirling around him during his college years, Fahner was noted for his conventional demeanor. His legal aspirations took a more defined shape when he earned a Master of Laws from Northwestern University Law School in 1971, setting the stage for his entry into significant legal roles.
Fahner’s legal acumen was further honed at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. Here, he was instrumental in leading successful prosecutions against corruption within Chicago's city government, a role that elevated his profile and positioned him for higher office.
Appointed Illinois Attorney General in 1980 by then-Governor Jim Thompson, Fahner took on a role fraught with challenges and opportunities to reform and influence state law enforcement. His tenure was marked by his leadership during the notorious Tylenol poisoning case in 1982, where he formed a task force and managed over a thousand leads. Fahner became the investigation's main spokesperson, an effort that thrust him into the national spotlight.
Despite his rigorous campaign, Fahner lost the 1982 election for Illinois Attorney General to Neil Hartigan. This setback, however, paved the way for his return to Mayer Brown, where he would make significant strides in leading the firm.
Back at Mayer Brown, Fahner assumed roles as co-chair and then chair, overseeing significant expansions and initiatives that fortified the firm’s position in the legal world. His leadership extended beyond the firm as he also provided counsel to notable figures, including former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a Mayer Brown partner.
Apart from his legal career, Fahner was deeply involved in political and civic activities. He chaired the finance committee of the Illinois Republican Party and the civic committee of the Commercial Club, influencing policy and political strategies behind the scenes.
His contributions to civic life also included a significant tenure as chairman of the board of trustees for the Shedd Aquarium. In 2016, he led a critical search for its CEO, helping to steer the institution towards new leadership.
Fahner's death was announced by Mayer Brown on Tuesday, marking the end of a remarkable career that impacted many facets of Illinois' legal, political, and civic arenas.
The announcement of Fahner’s passing brought an outpouring of tributes, reflecting on his broad impact. Former Mayor Lori Lightfoot expressed her deep sadness and gratitude in a heartfelt statement, recalling Fahner as a foundational figure in her career and a personal friend. “Like many, I am deeply saddened by the sudden passing of Tyrone C. Fahner... My deep love and gratitude for Ty, Ann, and their children will continue to burn bright. I join a chorus in offering my sincere condolences,” stated Lightfoot.
Lightfoot's reflections underscored Fahner's influential role not just in legal circles but as a mentor and supporter of the next generation of leaders. His legacy, characterized by his professional prowess and personal generosity, leaves a lasting imprint on those he worked with and the institutions he shaped.
Ty Fahner’s journey from a blue-collar background to the heights of Illinois’ legal and civic institutions is a testament to his dedication, skill, and commitment to public service, ensuring his memory will endure in the annals of Illinois history.
The leaker behind a massive breach of Supreme Court secrets may have been a justice aligned with the left side of the bench, according to the Daily Caller.
Conservative legal experts told the outlet that a recent New York Times report bears the imprint of a leftist conspiracy to discredit and undermine the high court.
The Times piece paints Chief Justice John Roberts as steering three major January 6th-related cases in Donald Trump's favor. The article cites a confidential February memo from Roberts that criticized what he saw as the careless reasoning of a lower court in Trump's historic immunity case.
The Supreme Court ultimately reversed 6-3, clarifying that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
The article draws from "details from the justices’ private memos, documentation of the proceedings and interviews with court insiders, both conservative and liberal."
As the left sees it, the Times exposed further evidence of a right-wing takeover that threatens the court's very legitimacy. Many conservatives are more concerned by the leak itself and what it points to: a partisan war on the court by Democrats, liberal media, and the court's own left-wing staff.
“This is another disturbing leak from the Court, and Congress should look into it because clearly a member of the minority is conspiring with the Left to destroy the Court,” Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told the Daily Caller.
South Texas College of Law Houston professor Josh Blackman went further in an article at Reason and named Justice Elena Kagan as a possible culprit, citing her absence from the Times report and the article's consistency with Kagan's point of view.
Notably, Kagan echoed Democratic demands for an enforceable ethics code at a judicial conference of the Ninth Circuit.
“If Kagan is willing to publicly undermine her colleagues in a speech at the Ninth Circuit, why would she do any less off-the-record?” Blackman wrote.
“Moreover, this entire story is consistent with Kagan’s MO, and describing the Court as bending over backward for Trump.”
In what was then an unprecedented breach, the Supreme Court's 2022 opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to the public before the court released it. The leaker was never identified.
Blackman called the Times leaks "far worse than the Dobbs leak” because they are so extensive and would have required the complicity of multiple sources.
President Biden has called for a sweeping overhaul of the court, including term limits. Republicans have blasted the proposed changes as a smokescreen for a partisan power grab that threatens the separation of powers.
An Alaska man who supports Democrats was arrested Wednesday for threatening to kill six of the Supreme Court justices. A California man is currently facing trial for attempting to kill conservative Brett Kavanaugh.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has survived two assassination schemes in just the last couple months. In one, he was injured and apparently escaped death – by being shot in the head – when he turned his head at the last second to look at a chart displayed on his rally stage.
Instead of being hit in the head, he was hit in the ear.
The other attempt produced the arrest of a suspect, but that individual apparently did not get any shots off at Trump.
There's even been a suspicious event reported following one of his rallies in Arizona, where several dozen people sought medical help after sitting behind Trump at the rally, and immediately after reporting facial swelling and eye pain, prompting physicians to wonder if they'd been targeted with some sort of spray.
Such attacks aren't at all surprising given that Democrats for years already have defamatorily called Trump a "Hitler" and insisted he's a threat to America and absolutely must be prevented from being in the White House. Some comments actually have called for him to be shot.
But the leftist violence that put the GOP presidential candidate this year in a bull's-eye, which, by the way, is where Democrats have wanted him put, is expanding.
There's been an arrest of a man who now is accused of sending 465 threatening messages to justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Not all justices, just six.
And while they are not named, leftists for years have complained about the 6-3 majority of relatively conservative justices there, the most recent three appointed by Trump.
The federal prosecutor in Alaska released an indictment of Panos Anastasious, 76, who is accused of using the court's publicly accessible website to dispatch multiple threats.
"The messages contained violent, racist, and homophobic rhetoric coupled with threats of assassination via torture, hanging, and firearms, and encouraged others to participate in the acts of violence," the indictment charges.
For instance, one threat to murder included by "providing the rope" to "hang … from an Oak tree."
Then there was the "lynching" threat.
And the threat of "putting a bullet in his … head."
And to "spray" justices' homes with bullets "hopefully killing" them.
The 22-count document charges that the suspect intended "to impede, intimidate, and interfere with Supreme Court Justices 1-6 while engaged in the performance of official duties, and to retaliate against Supreme Court justices 1-6 on account of the performance of official duties."
Significantly, the justices in the majority on the Supreme Court have delivered some decisions favorable to conservatives across the nation, regarding union members, regarding abortion, and regarding voting rights.
A report at the Gateway Pundit charged, 'Not satisfied with trying to take out President Trump, it appears elements of the radical left also have their sights on killing Supreme Court justices."
Anastasious was arrested this week in Alaska and the report said, "Disgraced Attorney General Merrick Garland released the following statement after apprehending Anastasiou: 'We allege that the defendant made repeated, heinous threats to murder and torture Supreme Court Justices and their families to retaliate against them for decisions he disagreed with. Our justice system depends on the ability of judges to make their decisions based on the law, and not on fear.'"
The report explained, "While the Supreme Court justices targeted are not named in the indictment, one can read between the lines and infer that it's VERY LIKELY these are the six right-leaning justices on the court. These include John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett."
The Mississippi Supreme Court has been called on to weigh in on a heavy decision, taking the ultimate step to ensure the safety of residents and at the same time, setting a potential standard for future appeals.
The death row inmate's most recent request for post-conviction relief was rejected by the Mississippi Supreme Court, as local news reported. He was convicted in 1992 of the murders of two students at Mississippi State University.
The murders of Tiffany Miller and Jon Steckler led to the 1994 conviction of 56-year-old Willie Jerome Manning for capital murder.
The inmate's attorneys have repeatedly attempted to overturn the conviction, citing "newly discovered firearms evidence" and a witness who has subsequently recanted his testimony against Manning as the basis for their most recent case.
In December 1992, Earl Jordan, who was Manning's cousin and had previously served a prison term with him, informed the authorities that Manning had admitted to killing the students from Mississippi State.
Finally, in 2023, Jordan recanted his testimony and claimed he made it up to get his own sentence lowered.
The top court challenged the submission of documents by Manning's counsel, stating that "newly discovered and developed firearms identification evidence" has emerged, even though the pistol used to murder Steckler and Miller has not been located.
As a result, the appeal that Manning filed was rejected by the state supreme court, which voted 5-4 against it.
“Petitioner has had more than a full measure of justice. Tiffany Miller and Jon Steckler have not. Their families have not. The citizens of Mississippi have not,” a portion of the majority opinion written by Justice Michael Randolph reads.
“It is, therefore, ordered that Willie Jerome Manning is denied leave to proceed in the circuit court with his claim of newly discovered evidence based on Earl Jordan’s recantation. It is further ordered that all other claims for relief set forth in Willie Jerome Manning’s motion for leave to file successive petitions for post-conviction relief are denied.”
According to reports, Steckler and Miller were murdered in rural Oktibbeha County before being shot and left. Pat Station Road was the scene of where Steckler's lifeless body was eventually found, and the investigation into his murder began.
His wounds seemed to be the consequence of a low-speed car crash and gunshot wounds. On his way to the hospital, he passed away.
But Miller was discovered dead in a wooded area close to Steckler's corpse.
She was allegedly raped after suffering multiple gunshot wounds to the face and a beating. After attempting to sell victim possessions, Manning was caught and charged with the murders of the two. A jury swiftly found him guilty of capital murder.
The high court had previously agreed to delay Manning's execution date until he challenged his conviction, but their most recent decision could now set the stage for the state to execute the inmate.
“Today the Court perverts its function as an appellate court and makes factual determinations that belong squarely within the purview of the circuit court judge,” Justice Jim Kitchens wrote in dissent to the majority opinion’s most recent decision to deny Manning’s petition for post-conviction relief.
“This Court has held explicitly that ‘when an important witness to a crime recants his testimony and offers a reason for having given false testimony at trial, the defendant/petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the witness lied at trial or on his affidavit.'”
The defense team representing Manning will maintain their demand for a new trial. The prisoner continues to insist on his innocence even now.
Due to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which comes after decades of leftist majority, Democrats are demanding that the Supreme Court be "reformed."
Democrats from President Joe Biden down to the faceless radical activists of the left are clamoring for a fundamental rebuild of the Supreme Court in order to destroy the conservative majority.
"Reforms" range from term limits to adding more justices, or in other words, packing the Supreme Court to change the ideological balance in favor of leftists.
Back in July, Biden proposed a plan that would introduce term limits that would force Supreme Court Justices to retire after 18 years.
18 years is an oddly specific number that conveniently would force Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas who have all served over 18 years with Alito and Roberts having just crossed the 18-year mark.
Democrats have been talking about respecting our institutions and preserving the nonpartisan nature of our government but are now openly trying to subvert the Supreme Court to retire conservative justices and replace them with leftist justices.
Besides Biden's convenient plan to force multiple conservative justices to retire, other Democrats are openly endorsing packing the Supreme Court.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) posted to X saying, "I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's time to expand the Court."
Democrats deceptively disguise these demands as Supreme Court "reform" when this has nothing to do with a failure or inefficiency in the Supreme Court doing its job. This is purely a political effort and Democrats are trying to convince Americans otherwise.
Expanding the Supreme Court is particularly insane in its partisanship as Democrats have proposed adding up to four justices.
The Supreme Court has never had more than 10 justices and the current figure of 9 has been the standard since 1869. The only time expansion was seriously discussed was during FDR's tyrannical push of "New Deal" socialism which mirrors what Democrats are trying to do today.
The conservative Supreme Court has knocked down Roe v. Wade, enforced presidential immunity, and taken a chainsaw to the cancerous administrative state that has been allowed to grow for decades.
All of these decisions have either made life better for regular Americans or righted long-standing partisan decisions that stood at odds with the Constitution. In the case of Roe v. Wade, that decision made a state-level issue a federal issue for far too long.
This has outraged the left who have been tearing down the Constitution for decades so it is no wonder that they talk about the Supreme Court needing reform as if the Supreme Court isn't doing its job for the first time in years.
Democrats are supremely disqualified from casting judgement on the Supreme Court considering their open desire to subvert it and corrupt it.