The Supreme Court of Mexico went on strike to protest the socialist president's sweeping reform of the nation's judicial system.
President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador wants all judges in the country to be elected by popular vote. Obrador is popular in Mexico, but the Supreme Court has been an obstacle to his far-left agenda.
He accuses the courts of systemic corruption, but his critics say Lopez Obrador is trying to destroy checks and balances in a partisan power grab. Skeptics also fear the reform will expose the courts to corruption by Mexico's drug cartels.
The reform passed Mexico's lower house of Congress on Wednesday, where Obrador's Morena party has a two-thirds majority. The legislators approved the bill in a sports hall after protesters blocked the entrance to the Congress building.
“We should inaugurate a wall of shame that says: ‘Today begins the fall of our Republic.’ And it should have the date and all the faces of the Morena congressmen,” Paulina Rubio Fernández, a congresswoman from the conservative opposition National Action Party, said before the vote.
Judges, law students, and court employees have been protesting the measure as a majoritarian power grab that would end democracy. The Supreme Court joined the demonstrations Tuesday, with eight voting in favor of joining the strikes and three against.
The reform bill heads to the Senate next, where it is likely to pass by razor-thin margins. Lopez Obrador's party, Morena, won elections in a landslide months ago. He wants the reform finalized before his term ends in September.
Lopez Obrador's successor, president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum is an ally of his who supports the reform.
“If judges, magistrates, and ministers are elected by the people, where is the authoritarianism?” she wrote in a post defending the move.
The proposal has faced pushback from international observers, including the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar and Canadian Ambassador Graeme Clark. Lopez Obrador put relations with both countries on "pause" in response.
"They have to learn to respect Mexico's sovereignty," he said.
The fight in Mexico mirrors the controversy over the U.S. Supreme Court, which President Biden has condemned as "extreme." Biden has proposed term limits to rein in the top court's conservative majority, which has often pushed back on his liberal priorities.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state judge in South Dakota has scheduled a trial for later this month on charges that abortion industry promoters cheated to get the signatures they used to put a pro-abortion scheme on this November's ballot in the state.
Promoters of the lucrative abortion industry had hoped that Minnehaha County District Judge John Pekas would dismiss the complaint brought by Life Defense Fund, a prolife group that includes Dell Rapids Republican Rep. Jon Hansen.
The lawsuit accuses abortion activists of violating multiple state laws in their methods of assembling signatures for the ballot initiative.
Pekas had tossed the lawsuit months ago, but it was reinstated by the state Supreme Court which noted there was no record developed at any point, so the lower court's decision could not stand.
A report in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader explained because of the short time before the election, and the fact that either side could go to the state Supreme Court again, the issue will be on the November ballot, but it's uncertain now whether any of those votes will be counted.
Abortion promoters had argued that there should be no arguments over their alleged misbehavior because it was too close, and discussing those issues would be "election interference."
Life Defense Fund said the abortion initiative supporters now will have to turn over all documents related to their petition circulation efforts of the abortion-up-to-birth constitutional ballot measure.
The court also pointed out it has the authority to determine whether the abortion promoters' repeated violations of petition law can disqualify them from circulation efforts in the future.
Sara Frankenstein, lawyer for Life Defense, said, "We are grateful to the court for its decision today as we move toward trial. We are anxious to finally receive the discovery in this case. LDF has disclosed its trial exhibits and witnesses and yet we have received no discovery from D4H."
The seven-day trial now is to begin Sept. 23.
It was Rapid City lawyer James Leach, arguing against any review of his clients' possible illegal activities, who said a trial amounts to election interference.
He claimed a review could damage voter confidence when citizens already believe the system is corrupt. He claimed courts "should not contribute to that perception" by allowing the ordinary course of the legal process to take place.
Life Defense Fund, in fact, cited multiple disputes over ballot questions that have not been decided until the last minute before an election, or even after.
Frankenstein noted that in South Dakota, its state Supreme Court ruled in 2021, after the 2020 election, that a marijuana-promoting measure was invalid, even though residents already had cast their votes, because it ran counter to a requirement limiting such plans to a single issue.
She explained that Dakotans for Health simply were trying to run out the clock and obtain their goal.
She noted courts have a responsibility to step in when laws are violated to get an amendment on the ballot.
Pekas pointed out that the state Supreme Court had returned the case to him with instructions to create a record, following his earlier dismissal which did not even consider the merits.
WND previously reported on documentation of problems in the ballot issue dispute.
The state fight in South Dakota is just one of many across the nation, after the UI.S. Supreme Court overturned the fatally flawed Roe v. Wade ruling, which created a "right" to abortion, in 1973.
The change didn't ban abortion, but it did turn over regulation of the lucrative industry to states, creating what is now the battleground as abortion business operators seek to assure their financial future.
Among the states, about half have now imposed major roadblocks to the commercial-level killing of the unborn, including some that have outright bans; but about half have not.
The fight in South Dakota will be seen as a precedent for more attacks on other pro-life standards around the nation.
"A Kamala (Harris) presidency means more health risks to women and more babies aborted," Caroline Woods, a spokeswoman for the Life Defense Fund, which is fighting to protect the lives of the unborn, told WND.
"When undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood executives cavalierly talking about selling baby parts in California, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris viciously went after those who exposed Planned Parenthood's illegal actions. She will act no different as president, and she has made it her goal to legalize abortions across the nation."
In fact, there have been accusations that Harris schemed to send state agents to undercover reporter David Daleiden's home, to confiscate his videos and equipment, as he was releasing a series of reports on those agendas among abortionists to sell unborn baby body parts for higher and higher amounts.
One abortionist explained the need for that: "I want a Lamborghini."
Woods' organization sued the "Dakotans for Health" which is pushing for the plan that would unleash literally unrestricted abortions by eliminating more than 100 requirements the state already has. The fight also is significant because if pro-abortions radicals can succeed in South Dakota, in the heart of America and with food production, tourism and finance as major industries – nothing like Hollywood or New York – they would feel confident of taking their campaign anywhere.
"A vote for Amendment G is a vote for the Kamala Harris' radical agenda for America. In South Dakota, we reject her extreme abortion plans that endangers women and children," Woods said.
She warned, "South Dakota can be an example to the rest of the nation by once again showing that we are pro-woman and pro-children. Amendment G is the most radical abortion measure we've seen in our country, and we will fight to make sure children aren't aborted up to birth and women are protected from unsafe, unclean medical practices."
"We want South Dakota to blaze a path for a pro-life victory and show the rest of the nation how we can beat the abortion lobby."
She said the court case revolves around allegations of unethical, even illegal, behavior by the petition collectors.
"They say 'Let the people vote,' but what they're really saying is, 'Let us cheat.' In the same way Olympic teams are banned from performing if they cheat, this abortion amendment should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot since Dakotans for Health broke South Dakota election law, cheated, and lied directly to South Dakotans to advance their radical agenda."
Reports confirm there are allegations petition circulators left petition sheets unattended, a violation. They misled signers, a violation. The tried to bait-and-switch voters, a violation.
They apparently included nonresidents, a violation.
The pro-abortion faction went to federal court, trying to get the state case killed, and the judge has refused.
Woods described the proposal as "one of the most extreme abortion laws in the nation."
It would "legalize painful, late-term abortion, all the way to the point of birth." And it would kill a multitude of existing state abortion policies that have been created over time on a bipartisan basis.
For example, a provision for parents to know when a minor daughter is being pressured into abortion would be killed.
Killed would be protections for a mother from being forced to have an abortion against her will.
Killed would be conscience protections so that doctors and nurses cannot be forced to participate in performing abortions against their will.
Killed would even be basic health and safety requirements for abortionists to follow, including requirements that abortions be done by a physician and an inspected and clean facility.
Among the allegations the abortion industry promoters are facing:
Bait and switch. A couple told pro-lifers during a Farmers Market in 2023, where abortion promoters were gathering signatures, they were telling people the petitions were regarding a tax proposal.
The couple, not named, said the signature collector even checked, when they asked for the tax petition, and said, "This is the one you want," handing them the abortion plan.
Also, abortion promoters were collecting signatures but failing to provide a required statement from the attorney general.
There also were incorrect claims that the new petition supported exactly the same thing that Roe did back in 1973. The promoter explains, "This is exactly what the Supreme Court did in '73. In the first three months, it's a woman's choice. Then there are stipulations and exceptions. … They say it's up to nine months and that's not true…"
Here is Tiffany Campbell, a petition coordinator, explaining just how extreme is the amendment.
She boasts, "The legislature can't mess with it." And "It's gonna wipe off 113 abortion regulations that we have now."
Cited are the 24-hour waiting period, parental notification, 22-week ban … "Everything goes away."
Signing the petitions twice? No problem, the extra signature is just "crossed off."
And leaving petitions unattended:
Giving incorrect information, where a signature collector accuses someone of lying if they say abortions would be allowed through nine months, which they would be.
Other videos suggest verbal abuse by petition collectors and worse.
Woods already has written in National Review that abortion activists are "doing anything they can to get their way, including deceiving voters."
She continued, "Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many conservative states like my home state of South Dakota activated trigger laws on abortion. These laws were passed while Roe was still operative and were designed to be implemented the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned. They typically outlawed abortion unless the doctor believed it was needed to save the life of the mother. Since then, the abortion lobby has aggressively centered its efforts around gathering petition signatures and putting abortion measures on the ballot in states like South Dakota, among many others."
She noted polling reveals three-quarters of Americans support abortion bans after 15 weeks.
And she said Amendment G allows non-doctors to do abortions, too.
Woods explained her organization has "over 100 hours of video capturing pro-choice petition circulators, much of which showed them breaking South Dakota law."
Such evidence already has prompted the state's attorney general to reprimand the abortion promoters.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Joe Biden's administration withholding funding from Oklahoma over its refusal to direct patients to an abortion hotline, NBC News reported. The court upheld the new regulation that replaced former President Donald Trump's prohibition on such referrals.
Almost immediately after taking office, Biden mandated that providers discuss all options with pregnant mothers, including adoption, prenatal care, and abortion. At first, Oklahoma complied with the mandate of giving out the hotline allegedly providing factual data about the procedure to callers.
However, after the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the state refused to even provide the hotline phone number despite agreeing to do so at first. Oklahoma is now a state where abortion is illegal except when the life of the mother is in danger.
It also bars anyone from pushing a woman to get an abortion. Now, Oklahoma has paid the price as the Biden administration reallocated $4.5 million in Title X public health funding over that rule.
Oklahoma sued the administration for Title X funding as the prohibition complied with the state's new rules. The state's attorneys argued that the Department of Health and Human Services could not restrict the funding based on those rules.
They warned that doing so would cripple "critical public health services" for Oklahomans. "Depriving these communities of Title X services would be devastating," the states' attorneys said in a court filing.
However, a federal judge disagreed and would not compel the Biden administration to return the grants. Similarly, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Oklahoma, ruling that directing patients to a hotline was not equivalent to referring a mother for abortion.
The challenge failed at the state Supreme Court and finally at the highest court in the nation. Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the rules regarding funding were the same across all states.
"Congress routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this court has repeatedly upheld such requirements," Prelogar said. However, justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch objected to Tuesday's decision.
The latest ruling in favor of the Biden administration will surely bolster Democrats' argument about keeping abortion legal after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Reversing the Supreme Court's terrible decision that set a worse legal precedent was a feat half a century in the making.
It meant that the ability to kill babies up to the moment of birth was no longer the law of the land but rather a state-by-state issue. Although it was something conservatives worked for it and Christians prayed for, it seems to have backfired.
According to Roll Call, the abortion issue has energized Democratic voters in the 2024 presidential election. Jessica Mackler, president of the abortion activist EMILY’s List, said it has become an asset for Vice President Kamala Harris, who is radically pro-abortion.
"She is somebody who has put this issue front and center because she understands that the stakes are incredibly high for voters across the country and for people across the country. And I think that that is the reason that we see this electric energy in voters across the country," Mackler touted.
While this ruling is disappointing for Oklahoma, the embrace of abortion as a winning issue points to a larger sickness in the American soul. It's a sad fact that leftist women want nothing more than the right to kill their own children, but it's worse that their votes will move the needle accordingly.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has filed a lawsuit against the city of Surprise, Arizona, and several officials after the mayor decided his policy of not allowing residents to offer any criticism of city officials overruled the U.S. Constitution at council meetings.
WND reported earlier when Mayor Skip Hall ordered resident Rebekah Massie arrested for her speech during a portion of a government meeting set aside for residents' concerns.
She was opposed to a city's decision to give its lawyer even more money.
"I have concerns with allocating more funds to him specifically for a few different reasons," she explained. Her public records requests are under "review" regarding the actions of lawyer Robert Wingo, already one of the highest-paid city officials in the Phoenix region at $265,000.
Hall threatened that she wasn't allowed to make such comments.
"You are violating my First Amendment rights," she said.
"That's your opinion," Hall said.
"It's not a matter of opinion."
Hall then threatened, "Do you want to be escorted out, Ms. Massie? Because that's what's gonna happen. And it's gonna happen in the future also," he responded.
Ultimately, she was arrested, cuffed and accused of trespass, as she shouted: "Are you kidding me?" and "Do not put your hands on me!"
While city officials have to acknowledge they will "Recognize the worth of individual members and appreciate their individual talents, perspectives and contributions" and "Help create an atmosphere of respect and civility where individual members, City staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential," that didn't happen.
The dispute arose because of city officials' own insistence that an anti-First Amendment ruled be imposed on residents. It states, "Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the City or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by name or by any other reference that tends to identify him/her."
The complaint, filed in federal court in Arizona, lists Rebekah Massie and Quintus Schulzke as plaintiffs and the city and officials Skip Hall and Steven Shernicoff as defendants.
It states, "The Supreme Court has made clear that 'one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights' is the sacred promise to every American, enshrined in the First Amendment, that citizens enjoy the freedom to complain about their leaders. … But Defendants Surprise, Arizona and its mayor, Skip Hall, broke that promise, arresting Plaintiff Rebekah Massie in front of her 10-year-old daughter for criticizing a public official at a city council meeting.
"Video of the arrest speaks for itself. On August 20, 2024, during the public comment portion of the Surprise City Council meeting, Massie spoke in opposition to a planned pay increase for Surprise's city attorney. But Mayor Hall interrupted her remarks, scolding her for violating a City Council policy prohibiting 'complain[ing]' about public officials. Massie insisted—correctly—that the First Amendment protected her comments. Mayor Hall didn't care…"
Hall then ordered a police officer, Shernicoff, to detain and eject Massie, and he did.
The complaint charges, "When Massie exercised her constitutional right to criticize officials at a city council meeting, a right 'high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values,' Lozman, 585 U.S. at 101, the Council Criticism Policy and Mayor Hall ensured she left the meeting in handcuffs. That might be how repressive regimes treat government critics, but it's an affront to our Constitution. Surprise's sudden move to arrest dissidents and enforce the Council Criticism Policy is casting a cloud of fear over the city. Plaintiff Quintus Schulzke, a frequent speaker at City Council meetings, now fears criticizing Surprise officials, knowing he, like Massie, now risks arrest when he exercises his constitutional rights."
The complaint charges the city is in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
And, in fact, state law allows the public "to criticize members of a public body during a public comment period."
Massie opposed paying the city lawyer more money, expressing her opinion that he had failed to comply with the Constitution, state law, and his duties of professional conduct.
"Defendants injured Massie by silencing, detaining and arresting her because she criticized government officials – an exercise of rights 'high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values,'" the case charges.
The case accuses of Hall of using government power to "suit his own whims."
The case charges almost a dozen violations of the Constitution by the city and its officials, and seeks a court order ending that particular policy. It also seeks compensatory, nominal and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees.
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith jointly filed for a status update in light of presidential immunity in the election subversion case, ABC News reported. Smith filed a superseding indictment last week that narrowed and adjusted charges to avoid the new ruling's pitfalls.
Smith attempted to salvage his case against Trump by making necessary changes to his indictment that would circumvent presidential immunity. Meanwhile, Trump's legal team has humiliated Smith by asking that the charges be dismissed entirely.
The conflict arose following a Supreme Court decision that granted presidential immunity to much of Trump's conduct during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. How the court will proceed is still unknown, but Trump and Smith filed Friday to clarify that.
Trump's attorneys have requested that any further legal proceedings happen after the November election. Smith did not mention timing except to concede that the court's "decisions on how to manage its docket are firmly within its discretion."
Both sides disagree on the future of the case. Trump's team argued that the case be completely dismissed as their client has already submitted a plea of not guilty and that most of his conduct falls under his duties as president.
Attorneys have submitted a dismissal request for the immunity issue and another separate Supreme Court decision that ruled Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. Smith disagreed as both sides requested further consideration from the court on how to proceed.
"The parties recognize the types of motions and briefing anticipated in pre-trial proceedings but have differing views on how the Court should schedule these matters and the manner in which they are to be conducted," the filing noted. Normally, an evidentiary hearing would clear up legal matters before the trial.
This would mean a "mini-trial," requiring in-person hearings before Election Day to decide on these matters before the case proceeds in earnest. Smith seems reluctant to allow that and requested that the court admit briefs in writing that "distinguish [aTrump's] private electioneering activity from official action."
He wants any other legal issues that arise to be considered in writing simultaneously and expressed an eagerness to move things along. "The Government is prepared to file its opening immunity brief promptly at any time the Court deems appropriate," the filing noted.
Trump's good fortune at the Supreme Court will likely mean he will appeal if U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rules against him in Smith's case. The defense team has a third rationale for dismissal by considering Trump's conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was under presidential immunity.
Trump had spoken to him about holding off on certifying the votes in the 2020 election, but both were acting in an official capacity. "If the Court determines, as it should, that the Special Counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence," the filing said.
Meanwhile, Trump faces other legal complications, with a sentencing date looming in his New York hush-money case. Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records earlier this year.
His legal team filed Thursday to move the sentencing to federal court since it would impact the 2024 election. "At that potential sentencing, President Trump faces the prospect of immediate and unlawful incarceration under New York law, which could prevent him from continuing to pursue his leading campaign for the Presidency," Trump's attorneys asserted.
Trump has been battling these politically motivated charges for months. The best he can hope for is that Smith's case proceeds quickly and justly, though that might be unrealistic, considering the point has always been about derailing his presidential run.
An anti-Trump lawyer spun a "surprise" Supreme Court ruling against the Democrats as a potential opportunity for the Kamala Harris campaign.
In August, the Supreme Court declined to unblock a Biden-Harris rule barring discrimination in education on the basis of "gender identity."
The rule repurposes Title IX, a 50-year-old civil rights law barring sex-based discrimination in schools receiving federal funding. Republicans have blasted Biden's expanded Title IX as a contradiction of the law's original purpose to protect women and girls.
The Biden version requires schools to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms for the opposite sex and mandates the use of transgender pronouns. The rule also reinstates Obama-era rules that denied due process to students accused of sexual assault.
The Biden administration argued the bulk of the rule could be separated from the challenged transgender provisions, but the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that they could not be severed because they are "intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule."
The justices agreed unanimously to leave lower court injunctions against the transgender parts of the rule. Republicans have successfully blocked the rule in 26 states.
"[A]ll Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court wrote.
During a discussion on the MeidasTouch podcast, lawyer Michael Popok called the ruling a "surprise" win for Harris and her message that Donald Trump is a threat to the rights of Americans. Trump appointed three of the justices in the conservative majority.
"For Kamala Harris in the campaign, it is a gift, Popok said. "It puts, once again, Donald Trump, his misogyny, his being against women, the platform on abortion, the platform against women's autonomy and reproductive rights, squarely on the ballot for November."
Harris has placed abortion at the center of her campaign, which has deployed broad themes like "freedom" and "joy" while forgoing policy detail. She has been criticized for failing to take clear positions and flipflopping on key issues.
But according to Popok, the ruling could help Harris appeal to Americans on an emotional level, with a message that "we see you."
"'We see you transgender people. We see you people that are concerned about their gender identity being discriminated against. We see you pregnant women. We see you women who don't want to be pregnant,'" he said.
In a significant legal crackdown, the Florida Supreme Court has taken disciplinary actions against five attorneys for misconduct, MSN reports.
The court's recent rulings ranged from suspensions to the disbarment of lawyers found violating professional standards.
The Florida Supreme Court has a rigorous process for handling cases of attorney misconduct, ensuring that legal professionals adhere to the highest ethical standards. The disciplinary measures taken this month underscore the court's commitment to maintaining public trust in the legal system.
Among the disciplined, two attorneys received suspensions, one was urgently suspended, another was disbarred, and the last had their license revoked. Each case involves distinct violations such as fraud, lack of communication with clients, and misappropriation of funds.
Disciplinary actions by the court are not final immediately. The attorneys have a chance to file a rehearing motion before the orders become irreversible. This procedural step is critical as it provides a window for the attorneys to contest the findings before the sanctions take full effect.
Disbarment is considered one of the most severe penalties in the legal profession. A disbarred attorney cannot reapply for admission to the Bar for five years. Furthermore, they must undergo a thorough background check and pass the Bar exam again, demonstrating a significant commitment to rehabilitation.
In a notable instance from this group, Rasheed Karim Allen-Dawson of Clermont was disbarred immediately following an August 1 court order. He had previously failed to notify clients and courts of his suspension, continued practicing law illegally, and was consequently held in contempt.
Allen-Dawson's actions following his suspension prompted the court to disbar him immediately. Admitted to the Bar in 2011, his recent actions violated the foundational trust placed in him as a legal advocate.
Similarly, Charles Edwin Lykes Jr. from Clearwater faces a suspension that remains in effect until further compliance. Despite a court order from July 31 demanding a response to The Florida Bar's inquiries, Lykes failed to respond, leading to his indefinite suspension.
In Miami, attorney Willishia Brenay Plant was suspended for 180 days and will be on probation for two years upon her reinstatement. Her case involved failures in client communication, misrepresentation of legal actions, and false testimony under oath, which were highlighted during her last hearing.
Plant's lack of candor was particularly noted during cross-examination, which played a crucial role in the disciplinary actions taken against her. Admitted to the Bar in 2019, her relatively short career has now encountered significant obstacles.
Larry Edward Powers Jr., based in New Smyrna Beach, received an emergency suspension. He was found to have misappropriated client funds and failed to adhere to trust account regulations, posing a serious threat to the public and his clients.
This immediate suspension requires Powers to cease representing any clients within 30 days of the August 14 court order. Powers, who has been practicing since 1987, faces a potentially career-ending review depending on the outcome of ongoing investigations.
Jacksonville attorney Shaquandra Arita Woods faced disciplinary revocation with an option to reapply for admission after her involvement in a federal fraud case. Indicted in early 2022, she was found guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud related to a COVID-19 relief scheme.
Former President Donald Trump has scored a number of legal victories this year, many outcomes had profound effects on his campaign, as he won't have to worry about trials until well after the November election.
However, Trump and his legal team are attempting to crush one upcoming legal obstacle that could hamstring his campaign.
According to NBC New York, Trump and his lawyers are now moving to postpone the upcoming sentencing hearing in the New York "hush money" case brought against him by DA Alvin Bragg.
Trump was found guilty as a result of the trial and has already had his first sentencing date delayed until September.
The former president's lawyers penned a letter to the judge overseeing the case in an attempt to delay the upcoming Sept. 16 sentencing hearing while his lawyers also work to have the case overturned in federal court.
"There is no good reason to sentence President Trump prior to November 5, 2024, if there is to be a sentencing at all, or to drive the post-trial proceedings forward on a needlessly accelerated timeline," Trump's lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote in the letter to Juan M. Merchan.
The fight to overturn the conviction comes in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that offered Trump a high level of immunity for certain acts.
The outlet noted:
Trump's lawyers filed paperwork late Thursday asking the U.S. District Court in Manhattan to seize the case from the state court where it was tried. The federal court kicked back that request on Friday on technical grounds, but Trump's lawyers will have a chance to resubmit it.
As his lawyers fight to have a federal court intervene and overturn or throw out the conviction, they said postponing the sentencing hearing is the "only appropriate course."
Reportedly, the judge has not responded, nor did DA Bragg's office.
The former president's legal team argued that prosecutors in the case rushed the case to trial before waiting on the final ruling in the immunity question that went to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision.
NBC New York noted:
Trump’s lawyers have argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how he reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.
Obviously, a sentencing hearing before the election could be bad for the former president, especially if he's given jail time.
On the other hand, such situations have historically given Trump a bump in polling, so who knows what will happen at this stage.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The state Supreme Court in Nebraska has reversed itself in a fight over home equity that was confiscated by the government.
The change of heart might not have been exactly voluntarily, however.
It did have directions from the U.S. Supreme Court to do so.
It's the result of homeowners who fall behind on their taxes, and when governments then sell those debts to others and the owners ultimately lose all of their equity.
Lost many times in the judiciary finagling is the fact that homeowners have significant equity in their homes, and that value routinely was being confiscated from them.
For example one Nebraska man lost his $60,000 home over a tax bill for $5,268. When the government sold his home, he got nothing.
But, according to Pacific Legal Foundation, which has fought such cases many times, the court reversal now means that lower courts will determine the value of the property, and how much compensation must be paid.
The legal team's Christina Martin said, "We are thrilled that after years of litigation, Nebraska finally recognizes Kevin Fair's and Sandra Nieveen's right to their hard-earned equity. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that home equity is protected by the Constitution and that the government cannot take more than what it is owed. This is a great outcome for our clients and all homeowners in the state."
The situation developed when, in 2013, Kevin Fair's late wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and he quit his job to care for her at their Scottsbluff, Nebraska, home. Soon he fell behind on his property taxes and the county sold a tax lien for the unpaid taxes to Continental Resources, a private investor.
The county then issued a deed to the investor for the home and all of the equity.
Sandra also lost her home in similar circumstances, the legal team said.
The two sued, with the help of Legal Aid of Nebraska, but the state's high court rejected their case.
Then the PLF got involved, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
"Last May, the United States Supreme Court ruled in another PLF case — Tyler v. Hennepin County — that if the government takes more than what is owed to satisfy a property tax debt, it violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. After the Supreme Court decided Tyler, it granted Kevin's and Sandra's petitions and sent their cases back to the Nebraska Supreme Court to reconsider their claims in light of Tyler," the PFL reported.
"In view of the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling, the Nebraska Supreme Court reevaluated Kevin's and Sandra's claims and ruled that they must be paid for the excess equity that remained after their property tax debt was satisfied. The court sent the cases back to the trial court to determine how much the homes are worth and thus how much compensation Kevin and Sandra are owed."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The American Center for Law and Justice is stepping up its fight to protect kids in New York schools from pornography that leftist librarians are insisting on adding to their collections.
The organization has filed a petition in New York state court asking to overturn a decision from state education officials providing those books to children.
"As we explain in our petition, both federal and state laws emphasize the important role and compelling interest of public schools in protecting children from exposure to lewd and obscene content. Public schools and boards of education owe a duty of care to both parents and students to ensure that the curriculum and other materials provided to students are free of pornography and are age appropriate," the ACLJ reported.
"Parents should be able to trust that the books selected by their children's librarians do not contain pornography or sexually explicit material, excessive profanity, and other lewd or vulgar content."
This case is based on a dispute involving the Clyde-Savannah Central District school board, which first decided to take the sexually explicit books out, but then summarily restored them.
The ACLJ reported the school librarian and others had argued, "erroneously," that children are entitled to the sexually explicit content as a matter of law.
The legal team previously wrote to the district explaining the right thing to do would be to protect children from "these grossly inappropriate books – books containing extremely graphic accounts of sexual encounters between minors, as well as the rape of a minor child by an adult, and excessive profanity (one book contained more than 100 profanities)."
"In fact, the United States Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that schools have a compelling interest in protecting children from inappropriate and lewd content," the ACLJ reported. "Once more, the court has unanimously held that a school board maintains the right and the power to remove such content from its schools."
However, both state and local education officials took another course, claiming that schools have no duty to protect students, and the fight actually is over the "freedom" for students and teachers.
State officials claimed schools can put books in their library, "no matter how obscene or inappropriate they may be so that they can expose children to diverse views."
The issue has become such a problem that multiple states now are ending porn in library programs, and multiple groups have disaffiliated from the American Library Association for its promotion of offensive publications.
The report pointed out, "A 12-year-old can't just walk into a movie theater and watch an R-rated movie without parental permission, so why should it be controversial to apply the same standard in a school library?"
The report continued, "The First Amendment is crucially important in protecting free speech and the free exercise of religion, but it in no way protects a librarian's desire to expose children to sexually explicit content in school libraries, nor does it protect a student's right to access adult content. At no time has the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the inclusion of this type of sexually explicit material in school libraries."