This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state court has ruled that government entities must pay "just compensation" to citizens when it is due.
The fight has come up in a number of cases across the nation in recent years, several times because homes have been destroyed by police actions and the owners want compensation.
Another was when authorities built a dam that caused repeated floods on – and damage to – several agricultural businesses.
The newest is a series of problems created by the actions of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans.
The state Supreme Court has ruled that such judgments must be paid.
According to the Institute for Justice, "From 2013 to 2016, several landowners in New Orleans had their property either damaged or their ability to use their home and church interfered with while the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans worked on a flood control project called the Southeast Louisiana Urban Drainage Project."
The legal team said, "Following the damage to their properties, the neighbors sued the SWB for the damage. The property owners won an inverse condemnation claim, and the court awarded them $998,872 in cumulative damages and $517,231 in attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld that ruling."
The board, however, refused to pay.
"The Constitution’s requirements are just that – requirements, not suggestions," said IJ Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara. "The government’s argument that it could withhold payment when it damages someone’s property was always absurd, and property owners across Louisiana should sleep a little better now that the Louisiana Supreme Court has said so."
The court ruling said governments that take private property must actually pay for what they take, rejecting a local sewerage board’s argument that it had fulfilled its constitutional duty to pay "just compensation" by giving property owners what amounted to an unenforceable IOU.
"Until Friday, Louisiana government agencies took the position that the Constitution required them to pay just compensation when they took property but also didn’t require them to actually pay anything on the judgments courts entered ordering them to pay for the property they took," said IJ lawyer Brian Morris. "This ruling closes one of the biggest loopholes in American property rights, and it ensures that 'compensation' means actual payment, not meaningless IOUs."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The jokes about Joe Biden's cognitive decline, made apparent to shocked Americans during the presidential debate with President Donald Trump, now are legion.
One cartoon has a military leader explaining to Biden, "Sir, the Russian army is failing, and Putin feels only nuclear weapons can deter NATO." The second panel then reveals Biden, with his back to the general, reaching out to shake hands with … no one.
But the cognitive issues Biden obviously is experience are nothing to laugh at, really, according to a government watchdog.
In a column,Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch cited videos of Biden "freezing, getting lost in his thoughts, shuffling, slurring his words, wandering off and simply checking out."
He continued, "Mr. Biden and his increasingly bizarre behavior have become the punch line for jokes and memes. But cognitive decline isn’t funny; it’s tragic. In that respect, the president deserves our empathy and compassion. But Americans are right to be concerned about the immediate national security and other consequences caused by Mr. Biden’s evident disability."
He called for Kamala Harris and Biden's cabinet members to "do their duty under the 25th Amendment and consider whether the president's cognitive issues preclude him from continuing to discharge his duties."
He said a medical review should be first, and that could, if its results are positive for Biden, close the matter.
"If the results confirm a cognitive issue, there must be no delay in invoking the 25th Amendment to protect the country," he said. If fact, he's one among a multitude seeking application of the 25th Amendment.
Given that Biden has stated he will not drop out of the presidential race, his voluntary departure from the White House is unlikely, the commentary said.
But the dispute could end up in Congress, with a two-thirds vote required for Biden to be set aside from Oval Office powers and duties.
The commentary said, "The process is designed to make it difficult to remove Mr. Biden or any president from office without a bipartisan consensus and agreement by the president. But we have all seen the alarming signs leading up to the present presidential competency crisis."
The piece concluded, "I have a simple question: Would any American trust Mr. Biden to be a judge deciding a case in court?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A youth ministry operating in Oregon has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals asking the judges to reverse a plan that discriminates based on the organization's religious faith.
Officials with the ADF are representing Youth 71Five Ministries, which works to serve at-risk youth.
The organization was approved earlier for state funding, but it abruptly was stripped away because the organization asks employees and volunteers to sign a statement of faith.
The lawsuit over the fight was filed a few months ago, and a lower court declined to give it a responsive hearing.
"71Five provides vital support and care to anyone who needs it, but Oregon state officials are punishing it because it's a Christian ministry that simply and reasonably asks volunteers and staff to agree to Christian beliefs," explained lawyer Jeremiah Galus. "By stripping 71Five of its funding, Oregon is putting religious ministries to an impossible choice: hire those who reject your beliefs to receive funding that everyone else can access or go without the funding. We will be urging the 9th Circuit to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent that upholds the First Amendment freedom of faith-based organizations to hire like-minded individuals."
The organization reported from 2017 to 2023, 71Five Ministries applied for—and was granted—funds from Oregon’s biennial Youth Community Investment Grants program.
When it applied for the next cycle, the ministry was first approved and then denied funding due to a new rule that requires that applicants "do not discriminate" based on religion "in [their] employment practices"
The scheme is one of the ways that leftists in power, including those in the Joe Biden administration, have used to attack Christian organizations.
The strategy is simple, and involves forcing Christian organizations, in order to participate fully in their communities, to hire LGBT individuals and thus give the minority special interest group a greater influence.
A lower court had dismissed the case by the organization that serves at-risk youth.
"71Five Ministries welcomes everyone to participate in its programs, and it serves young people in Oregon of all faiths and backgrounds, including at-risk youth, young people in detention centers and correctional facilities, and expectant and parenting teens. The ministry’s mission statement says it 'exists to share God's Story of Hope with young people through trusting relationships in any relevant way.' It achieves its goal through employees and volunteers who share its mission and beliefs, as outlined by its statement of faith," the ADF reported.
The report noted that the state continues to fund other programs with blatantly discriminatory requirements, including one that serves girls but not boys.
"In 2021, 71Five had the top-rated application for the Youth Violence and Gang Prevention grant. After applying for several grants during the 2023-2025 grant cycle, the state first accepted the applications, and 71Five was set to receive more than $400,000 in grant funding. But three months later, an Oregon state official contacted the ministry’s executive director and informed him the ministry had been disqualified because of the statement of faith that employees and volunteers sign," the ADF reported.
Former President Donald Trump's lawyers have requested that Trump's classified documents trial be paused after a U.S. Supreme Court decision granting presidents immunity for official acts.
Lawyers representing Trump requested a pause on all proceedings in the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith except those dealing with Smith's requested gag order on Trump.
They want the trial paused until presiding Judge Aileen Cannon can apply the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to the facts of the case.
It's expected that the decision will have a massive impact on Smith's indictment. Some suspect that the indictment could fall apart entirely thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Trump's lawyers filed a request with the court on Friday that read, "Consistent with President Trump’s pending motion to dismiss based on Presidential immunity, the Supreme Court explained in Trump that it would ‘eviscerate the immunity we have recognized’ if a prosecutor could "do indirectly what he cannot do directly — invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge."
The Supreme Court recognized that the tangled web of charges and evidence that has been brought against Trump could very well run afoul of presidential immunity.
Even if not all parts of Smith's indictment are not covered under presidential immunity, the effect of even parts of Smith's indictment being wiped out will likely bring the whole complicated prosecution down.
The filing continues by saying, "Thus, ‘even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct,’ which is not the case here, prosecutors cannot ‘[u]se evidence' of official acts. Based on this reasoning, like the trial court in the Trump case, Your Honor must undertake the ‘necessarily factbound analysis’ regarding whether alleged conduct ‘is official or unofficial.'"
Basically, the trial will have to be paused while Judge Cannon works to determine what evidence covers official acts, and therefore cannot be used, and what evidence covers unofficial acts.
The trial was already delayed but this could push things well past the election in November which is horrible news for Democrats.
Democrats hoped to get a conviction of Trump before the election in order to help President Biden. Now there is virtually no chance of that happening anytime soon and should Trump win in November, there's virtually no chance of this case going anywhere.
All of that comes before you even consider whether Trump is innocent or guilty based on the facts of the case alone.
Smith's case was a long shot from the beginning that needed a favorable judge in a friendly state. Judge Cannon has been impartial and isn't helping the prosecution along while the case is being tried in Florida which is a very red state.
While Smith's case isn't officially dead, for all intents and purposes, this case is dead as far as this election cycle is concerned.
In a shocking development, Associate District Judge Brian Lovell has been temporarily suspended following serious accusations of sexual misconduct and corruption within his courthouse duties. The allegations surfaced in a detailed petition presented to the court on June 27.
An extensive investigation has exposed years of alleged sexual misconduct and unethical behavior by Judge Lovell.
The suspension came after claims emerged about Lovell's improper interactions with court staff, including sexual activities during court hours. According to the filed petition, these actions date back to 2011 and have evolved over the years.
Initially, undisclosed relationships between Lovell and court staff were noted, but recent evidence suggests that these interactions included exchanging sexually explicit messages and engaging in sexual intercourse within the courthouse premises during official hours. The petition highlights these activities, emphasizing their occurrence during times when Lovell should have been performing his judicial duties.
In 2023, more specific accusations were detailed against Lovell, including engaging in sexual acts with court bailiff Cynthia Tubbs and exchanging explicit images and texts. These recent allegations shed light on a pattern of behavior that has reportedly been known among some of his peers on the bench.
Lovell, aged 58, has admitted to flirtatious texting but denied any physical sexual activities, a claim contradicted by Tubbs' testimony confirming their involvement.
The issues extend beyond sexual misconduct. Lovell is also accused of engaging in corruption, including collusion with an attorney and pressuring witnesses to provide false testimonies. These actions suggest a misuse of his position to influence legal outcomes, adding a layer of gravity to the accusations against him.
Despite previous opportunities to address these issues, Lovell repeatedly avoided appearing before the Council on Judicial Complaints, which has raised concerns about his willingness to cooperate with judicial oversight mechanisms.
This avoidance strategy culminated in his recent suspension, issued directly by Oklahoma Chief Justice John Kane IV, emphasizing the severity of the situation.
The judicial community and the public alike have reacted with concern to the revelations about Lovell's behavior. His attorney, Stephen Jones, has labeled the filing of the petition as an attempt "to humiliate and embarrass Judge Lovell and his family." Jones vehemently denies all allegations of misconduct on behalf of his client.
The scope of the allegations and the involvement of multiple court personnel suggest systemic issues within the courthouse operations. The detailed petition includes accusations from Lovell's tenure beginning in 2011, pointing to a long-standing pattern of problematic behavior.
Lovell faces serious charges outside of the judicial complaints, including unrelated criminal activities involving shootings in Oklahoma and Texas. These criminal allegations further complicate the case against him.
As the community and legal professionals await further developments, the seriousness of the allegations has prompted calls for a thorough investigation and appropriate actions based on the findings. Lovell has until July 8 to appeal his suspension, with a removal hearing scheduled for July 30.
This case presents significant implications for judicial accountability and the integrity of legal institutions, highlighting the critical need for transparency and ethical conduct within the judiciary.
Embattled Associate District Judge Brian Lovell has been suspended over allegations he engaged in sexual activity and other misconduct at the courthouse during working hours, the Daily Caller reported. Lovell, 58, was previously implicated in a pair of drive-by shooting incidents.
The judge was given an immediate suspension for allegedly "exchanging sexually graphic messages and images with court staff during courthouse hours and engaging in sexual intercourse with court staff inside the courthouse during courthouse hours." The suspension is temporary, and Lovell has until July 8 to respond.
Lovell's troubles date back to 2011, when he was hired. The judge did not disclose his romantic relationship with bailiff Natalie Marshall at the time, which came to light after Marshall revealed it upon her exit from the job.
The judge then engaged in sexual activity "during courthouse hours" with Cynthia Tubbs, who was hired as bailiff in 2011 to replace Marshall. Tubbs and Lovell exchanged explicit messages and images, including one sent just as the judge was about to record a defendant's plea.
Aside from the romantic trysts, Lovell has also allegedly engaged in corruption during his tenure with the Garfield County, Oklahoma, court, Fox News reported. He favored one attorney in particular, who was able to hammer out advantageous deals for his clients through text messages with Lovell.
The judge congratulated the attorney on his "brilliant" decision not to cross-examine one of the witnesses in a case while complimenting him on his technique with another. Lovell called the attorney's professional work "excellent" but failed to compliment any other lawyers.
Lovell was so enamored with this attorney that the judge admitted he gave his client a better bond arrangement because of him. He even went out of his way for one of the attorney's other clients by granting a protective order to a funeral home that the favored lawyer represented.
When all of this was about to come to light during an investigation, Lovell attempted to cover it up. He allegedly "seal[ed] a court file with no justification" before he "attempt[ed] to persuade an attorney to give false testimony to the Council on Judicial Complaints."
The council concluded that the judge "has demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial office with which he is entrusted and an ongoing pattern of misconduct and dishonesty." Its petition said that Lovell's "lack of temperament to serve as a judge, undermining public confidence in the independence, integrity, impartiality, and competence of the judiciary."
The most sensational of Lovell's alleged misdeeds include drive-by shootings in two states. In September 2023, Lovell racked up eight felonies after allegedly unloading five shots from his Glock 23 .40-caliber pistol while driving in Austin, Texas, the New York Post reported.
After leaving bullet holes in several vehicles, Lovell allegedly turned up an hour later and rear-ended a woman's vehicle in a road rage incident. He was accused of trying to force her vehicle into the oncoming lane during this twisted rampage.
Then, in March of this year, Lovell was charged with a similar crime in Oklahoma, this time for allegedly shooting up his brother-in-law's home. He's accused of using the same weapon as the other incident but claimed the gun was stolen just two days after the crime.
Lovell's attorney, Stephen Jones, who is defending him in the Oklahoma case, claimed that there was no proof. "As far as the merits of the charge and the defense, we do not at this time have the discovery material which, in due course, will be made available to us. From our own investigation, the evidence is insufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt," Jones said.
If these allegations are true, this judge must have believed he was above the law. Perhaps he was able to operate as such for a long time, but now it appears to be catching up to him.
Will Scharf, a lawyer for former President Donald Trump, appeared on the Charlie Kirk Show on Real America's Voice on Wednesday to declare that Trump is not a convicted felon at this point, and may never be.
Trump lawyer Will Scharf makes an important point.
Trump is not a convicted felon until he's sentenced by Judge Merchan.
And the sentencing has been delayed and possibly cancelled all together. Media outlets should be careful with their language.pic.twitter.com/DQhDjsaxrf
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 3, 2024
"Trump is not a convicted felon," Scharf said. "A jury verdict is not a final judgment until the moment of sentencing, which now may never occur."
"Ooh, I love that," Kirk replied.
Kirk followed up Scharf's comments by asking him whether media outlets and Democrat mouthpieces could be sued for defamation for calling him a convicted felon.
"I'm going to watch my words here," Scharf answered with a toothy grin. "We have sued--Trump has sued George Stephanopoulos for defamation. If I were folks on the left, I would choose their words very carefully in the months ahead."
One person Trump could potentially sue would be President Joe Biden, who said during Thursday night's debate, "Only one of us here is a convicted felon, and it's not me."
Whether the public--particularly the Trump-haters--will see the statement that he's not a convicted felon as splitting hairs after he was convicted by a jury of 34 counts of falsifying business records is a valid question, however.
Charlie Kirk's show audience is primarily Trump supporters, so he and Scharf are preaching to the choir for the most part.
Democrats are gleefully throwing the term "convicted felon" around every chance they get, hoping it sticks to something.
It's election interference because it's untruthful, but then what isn't these days?
Maybe Trump can recoup some of his legal fees by suing them all into oblivion.
So far, their attempt at branding Trump as a felon has backfired like everything else they've tried.
Is there anything that will make Trump look worse than a nearly catatonic Biden at the debate last week? It's doubtful.
The Supreme Court's immunity ruling has dealt a devastating blow to Jack Smith and his furious push to prosecute Donald Trump.
While the court's ruling is likely to delay Smith's January 6th trial past the 2024 election, the Supreme Court also entertained arguments that Smith wasn't appointed legally in the first place.
In a sharp concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Smith, a private citizen, even has the legal authority to prosecute a U.S. president.
The issue of Smith's appointment has already come before the judge in Trump's classified documents case, Aileen Cannon. Legal analysts expect Thomas' opinion to have an impact.
“This issue is already before Judge Cannon in Smith’s classified documents case against Trump, but Justice Thomas’ decision makes it all the more likely this issue will soon be front and center and possibly before the full Supreme Court,” former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno told the Daily Caller.
In his concurrence, Thomas wrote that Attorney General Merrick Garland "purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States."
If Smith is what is called a "principal officer," then his appointment required Senate confirmation. On the other hand, if Smith is an "inferior officer," Garland could appoint him on his own only with explicit authorization from Congress, Thomas argued.
Thomas was also skeptical that Smith's office of Special Counsel was created lawfully.
Thomas urged "lower courts" to resolve the matter before Smith continues.
"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel's appointment before proceeding," he wrote.
Even if Smith is not disqualified, he is running out of time to prosecute Trump before the election.
The Supreme Court struck out a significant part of Smith's January 6th case, finding U.S. presidents are immune for their official acts. The ruling is understood to have derailed Smith's prosecution, since the trial judge now has to sort through the indictment to determine which parts are still valid.
Smith is also pursuing the documents case in Florida, but that has also been postponed indefinitely over various legal issues.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Smith plans to keep pursuing Trump even if he wins the presidency. That is, Smith plans to run out the clock until the moment Trump is inaugurated.
Talk about desperate.
An appeals court has allowed Joe Biden's student loan plan to go ahead, handing him a small victory to tout on the campaign trail as Democrats question his political future.
The whiplash ruling came only days after two federal judges blocked aspects of Biden's plan, called SAVE. The income-based repayment plan lowers monthly payments for borrowers depending on income level, with the poorest paying as little as $0.
This is the second time Biden has tried to fulfill a 2020 campaign promise to forgive student loans. His first effort was blocked by the Supreme Court last summer.
The Biden administration has touted SAVE as the most affordable income-driven repayment plan ever.
The plan allows borrowers with loans smaller than $12,000 to have their loans forgiven after 10 years of payments, a faster timeline than the 20 to 25 years that income-based plans typically require. SAVE also reduces payments to 5% of discretionary income for the majority of borrowers.
Last week, a pair of federal judges in Missouri and Kansas blocked aspects of SAVE in response to Republican challenges.
As a result, a scheduled reduction in payments from 10% of discretionary income to 5% was blocked.
After last week's court rulings, the Biden administration oddly blamed Republicans even though both judges were Obama appointees.
The administration appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed, allowing the payment reduction that was scheduled for July 1 to go ahead.
On the other hand, Biden still can't use SAVE to forgive loans. Still, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona was eager to tout a victory.
“Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with student loan borrowers across the country who stand to benefit from the SAVE Plan – the most affordable repayment plan in history,” Cardona said.
“Borrowers will hear directly from their loan servicers and the Department as we implement the new, lower monthly payments for borrowers enrolled in SAVE,” Cardona said.
Republicans have criticized Biden's student loan efforts as a cynical attempt to bribe voters and transfer wealth from non-college voters to degree holders who are more likely to support Democrats.
The latest development on student loans comes as Biden faces a full-blown political crisis, with Democrats questioning his future following his poor debate performance last week.
Liberals aren't having an easy time with Donald Trump's recent winning streak. One journalist for the BBC went so far as to call for Trump to be murdered after Supreme Court handed him a huge victory.
69-year-old David Aaronovitch, host of BBC Radio 4's Briefing Room, called on Joe Biden to have Trump killed, suggesting Biden can do so legally in light of the Supreme Court's historic ruling on immunity.
“If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security,” he wrote on X.
As the backlash started to come in, Aaaronovitch said he was only joking and the "far right" was triggered.
"There’s now a far-right pile on suggesting that my tweet about the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity is an incitement to violence when it’s plainly a satire. So I’m deleting it. If nothing else though it’s given me a map of some the daftest people on this site," he wrote.
The back end of Aaronovitch's original post calling Trump "a threat to America's security" sounds like an earnest statement, not a joke. In any event, it's a twisted thing to joke about.
Besides being deeply disturbing, Aaronovitch's "take" is profoundly unoriginal.
Many, many liberals reacted to the court's ruling with the same "joke" that Joe Biden can now legally murder Trump.
Some aren't cloaking their malice in irony. Orange Is The New Black actress Lea DeLaria went on a deranged rant demanding that Biden "take out" Trump, whom she compared to Hitler.
"Trump is Hitler, and this is 1940. Take him the f*** out," she said.
The court's own liberal wing wrote a pair of hand-wringing dissents claiming the Supreme Court had placed presidents "above the law."
Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor directly invoked the scenario of the President ordering SEAL Team Six to take out political rivals.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, dismissed the dissents as "fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals." Roberts also accused the dissent of ignoring a more realistic danger of presidents prosecuting one another in a vicious cycle.
The court's ruling is widely seen as dashing any chance of Trump being prosecuted for January 6th before the election, so liberals are very angry to say the least.
The Supreme Court's ruling came days after Joe Biden imploded in his debate with Trump, sending Democrats into a panic.