This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Colorado man, Barry Morphew, has been arrested and charged with his wife's murder five years after she disappeared.
And two years after her body was found.
KDVR television in Denver said Morphew was indicted by a grand jury on a charge of first-degree murder for the death of Suzanne, apparently in 2020. Her remains were found in Saguache County in 2023.
He was arrested in Arizona on Friday and the 12th Judicial District is working to have him extradited to Colorado, the report said.
He had been charged earlier, but that case was dismissed before her body was found.
In a statement, District Attorney Anne Kelly said, "Federal, State and local law enforcement have never stopped working toward justice for Suzanne. The Twelfth Judicial District Attorney's Office stands in solidarity with Suzanne's family and the citizens of Chaffee and Saguache Counties in pursuing the Grand Jury's indictment.":
Suzanne Morphew, 43, was reported missing on May 10, 2020, after she went for a bike ride and didn't return.
Barry Morphew quickly was suspected and charged, but the case fell apart over claims a district attorney at the time had withheld information from the court.
Reports at the time confirmed the marriage was turbulent, with Suzanne reportedly having an affair and Barry facing claims he was an abuser.
Suzanne's bike was found abandoned close to the family's $1.5 million home but reports say police suspected it was staged.
The Daily Mail reported, "Barry told police he was out of town for a landscaping job three hours away in Broomfield, just outside of Denver. He had spent the night before her murder in a cheap hotel room that his coworker later found scattered with wet towels and stinking of chlorine."
Her body was found later, and an autopsy concluded she died by murder after a cocktail of drugs used to tranquilize wildlife was found in her bones.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly published report says that CBS parent Paramount is hesitating to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump over the network's decision to edit a Kamala Harris interview during last year's presidential race, eliminating her word salad response and inserting a coherent statement.
The report in the New York Post confirms it's because the corporation fears accusations of bribery should Democrats take over the U.S. House in the 2026 elections.
That fear is because there have been charges, without evidence, that the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission may not approve a pending merger involving Paramount absent a settlement.
The report said, "Approval of the deal by Trump's regulators at the Federal Communications Commission is seen as contingent on settlement of the case, people at Paramount tell The Post. Trump legal reps and officials deny that the two issues are related, but Paramount executives are concerned that any large settlement would be considered a bribe since the fate of the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger is at stake."
The report said Trump's legal team had tried to settle for $50 million, but then reportedly agreed to the slightly lower figure.
"(The Trump people) appeared to be willing to settle for less, but even that amount worries the Paramount people," one deal insider was quoted in the Post report.
Meanwhile, the report said a source close to the Trump legal team denied the $35 million figure was acceptable.
"CBS has denied the charges and the main allegation that it purposely edited the Kamala Harris interview to edit out her famous 'word salad' vernacular to make her sound more presidential," the report said.
Media heiress Shari Redstone is wanting to sell Paramount to independent studio Skydance, and she has indicated previously her willingness to pay as much as $50 million to end the case.
She's wants to "preserve some semblance of her inheritance from her late father, media mogul Sumner Redstone."
Earlier, the Disney-owned ABC settled a Trump lawsuit, over anchor George Stephanopolous' claims Trump was guilty of "rape," paying $15 million.
"Skydance is run by movie maven David Ellison, the son of Trump friend and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is worth approximately $250 billion," the report said.
The report noted, "A Paramount spokesman declined comment. A legal rep for Trump didn't return a request for comment. A Redstone rep didn't return a request for comment."
Democrats in Congress already have "raised the bribery issue and the worry is that a state attorney general or Congress — if it changes hands in the midterms — could launch an investigation," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Not guilty of murder but guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
That's the jury's determination in the case against Karen Read.
She was charged for the death of her Boston policeman boyfriend John O'Keefe.
Prosecutors claimed she ran into him and killed him during a blizzard in January 2022.
The verdict from jurors said she was not guilty of second-degree murder, which was the most serious claim. But they convicted her on of a lesser offense of driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of .08% or more.
A report from Fox News said a special prosecutor in the case, Hank Brennan, asked the judge for a sentence of a year of probation and for her to be ordered into an outpatient program, which is routine in the jurisdiction for first drunken driving offenses.
The jury also returned not guilty verdicts to drunken driving manslaughter and fleeing the scene of a deadly accident.
It was her second trial. During the first, last year, jurors deadlocked.
Her supporters burst into cheers on hearing the decision.
The month-long testimony included statements from two women, Jennifer McCabe and Kerry Roberts, who said they were with Read when O'Keefe was found lying in the snow and unresponsive. McCabe claimed Read said, three times, "I hit him."
The report said the couple and others had been out drinking before an after-party at the home of Brian Albert. O'Keefe was found on Albert's lawn hours later.
Prosecutors alleged Read hit O'Keefe and drove to his house without him. Read's defense said she never hit him, suggesting the injuries came from a dog attack and a party altercation.
The Norfolk County jury had been deliberating since June 13.
"Today, our hearts are with John and the entire O'Keefe family. They have suffered through so much and deserved better from our justice system," said a statement released by members of the Albert and McCabe families. "While we may have more to say in the future, today we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Read, her defense team, and some in the media."
The jury has posed several questions to the judge during deliberations, including about whether there could be a split verdict.
Beverly Cannone, the judge, said she was unable to answer hypotheticals.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
MyPillow chief Mike Lindell, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump throughout the Democrat lawfare against him, has been told by a federal jury to pay an ex-voting systems executive $2.3 million in a defamation case.
Lindell immediately called it a victory, since the plaintiff had demanded $62.7 million, and confirmed the amount awarded will be appealed.
Lindell was found liable by a jury in the far-left enclave of Denver for claiming election fraud in the 2020 election.
He was sued by Eric Coomer, ex-official at Dominion Voting Systems, a company that was under fire from a number of critics after the 2020 election results.
In that election, there was confirmed fraud in multiple cases as well as significant levels of undue influence. For one, Mark Zuckerberg dished out hundreds of millions of dollars to local election officials who often used the cash to recruit voters in Democrat districts. Further, the FBI actually interfered in the election by instructing media outlets to suppress the damaging information about the Bidens revealed in a laptop computer that was abandoned at a repair shop by Hunter Biden. Polling showed the influenced probably cost Trump that election.
The jury claimed Lindell's comments were "baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election."
Coomer claimed Lindell and his companies "helped spread a conspiracy theory that he rigged the election against President Donald Trump," according to locally published reports.
Coomer's lawyer said he was thrilled with the verdict.
Lindell issued a press release explaining MyPillow was "fully exonerated," and he was cleared of claims of "malice" and "conspiracy" and no punitive damages were awarded.
His statement said, "In a defiant stand for the First Amendment, Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow, has emerged largely victorious in a closely watched defamation trial brought by former Dominion Voting Systems executive Eric Coomer. While corporate media giants like Fox News surrendered under pressure – paying $787.5 million to Dominion to avoid a courtroom showdown – Lindell took the fight all the way to a jury trial and was overwhelmingly cleared of wrongdoing."
Lindell said, "This was huge victory for our country! MyPillow was sued for No reason and they won!"
The statement confirmed the jury's award was being appealed.
The statement added, "While we do not agree that the plaintiff was entitled to any award whatsoever, and his motivations were to harm Mike Lindell, this was nevertheless a victory for Lindell, a victory for MyPillow, and a historic win for free speech in America."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A dedicated pro-life activist has gone to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge San Diego's decision to make speech in some parts of the city conditional on the viewpoint expressed.
The situation is that in some "no-speech zones" in the city, abortion business workers, agents and volunteers can say anything they want in support of abortion, but pro-lifers are banned from expressing their perspective in opposition.
It is the Thomas More Society that is working on the case on behalf of Roger Lopez.
He objects to the district court ruling that has created a "constitutional double standard outside abortion businesses."
"San Diego has created a constitutional travesty where Planned Parenthood employees can freely harass and pressure vulnerable women right up to the clinic door, but peaceful sidewalk counselors offering help and hope face criminal prosecution for normal conversation," explained Peter Breen, of the society.
"The city has made sidewalk counseling virtually impossible, which violates both the rights of pro-life advocates to speak and women's rights to receive life-saving information. We will continue to defend Roger and pro-life advocates like him, protecting their right to serve pregnant women in need, and to put a permanent end to the 'abortion distortion' that has stripped so many Americans of their First Amendment rights in front of abortion facilities."
The city is accused of setting up a censorship scheme that violates both the First and the 14th Amendments.
"Courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of pro-life individuals to offer information on life-affirming alternatives to pregnant women in need, and San Diego's ordinance runs roughshod over those precedents," the society lawyers explained.
They have argued to the appeals court how the ordinance "creates an egregious double standard: abortion facility employees, agents, and volunteers are completely exempt from all speech restrictions and can freely approach and harass anyone within the 8-foot 'bubble zone,' while peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors like Roger Lopez risk six months in jail for merely offering a leaflet or holding a sign that city officials deem harassing."
The restrictive pro-abortion law was adopted last year and creates a host of burdens to speech for those who disagree with the abortion-for-all agenda, prompted across the country in recent years by Joe Biden.
It forbids them from coming near to a passerby, restricts the volume they can use by prohibiting noise that is 'disturbing, excessive, or offensive … which causes discomfort or annoyance,' and prohibits signage or speech that is claimed to 'aggravate' or 'cause substantial distress.'"
"Sidewalk counselors like Roger empower tens of thousands of expecting moms to choose life by connecting them with free pregnancy and parenting resources that local abortion businesses try to hide from them," said Christopher Galiardo, staff lawyer at the Thomas More Society.
"The ordinance was drafted to suppress pro-life views and approved by an openly hostile city council. I look forward to the Ninth Circuit, long a champion of free speech, vindicating Roger's right to offer women in need help and hope."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Presidents discussed Iran, agreed hostilities should end
In a Truth Social post Saturday, President Trump reported that he had a one-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Beginning with niceties involving Trump's 79th birthday, the call included discussion of both the Israel-Iran conflict and Russia-Ukraine war.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Amid a Trump administration war on anti-Semitism, which has moved from a number of universities with such policies to the broader scope of American society, a lawsuit has been filed by the Department of Justice over the alleged actions at a California coffee shop.
And the action was accompanied by a warning from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
"You can't do that. And so we've sued them, and we're going to stop this from happening. And anywhere in the country, if you do this, we're coming after you," she said.
Newsweek reports that a lawyer, Glenn Katon, for the "Jerusalem Coffee House," denied all the accusations it refused to serve Jews.
"Neither the owner nor staff are anti-Semitic, and they would not tolerate anti-Semitism in their cafe," Katon said.
The action alleges the coffee shop denied service to two customers wearing the Star of David, which the owner denied.
"According to the civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, one customer visited the coffee shop while scoping out a nearby venue for a workplace event. He was wearing a baseball cap with the Hebrew words 'Am Yisraeli Chai,' which translates to 'The people of lsrael live,'" the report said.
He was confronted by a man who accused him, as a Jew, of being complicit in Israel's defense of its own population following the Hamas terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
The customer returned later, to be told he was not welcome, with "owner Fathi Abdulrahim Harara then allegedly joining yelling 'Jew' and 'Zionist' at him in the street," the report said.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said, "It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers. Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans."
The report said a similar circumstance happened to another Jewish customer, who allegedly was told to leave.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said the events also have triggered a private lawsuit by the Anti-Defamation League.
"The federal lawsuit notes that, on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the Jerusalem Coffee House announced two new drinks: 'Iced In Tea Fada,' an obvious reference to 'intifada.' It also introduced as drink, 'Sweet Sinwar,' an apparent reference to Yahya Sinwar, the former leader of Hamas who orchestrated the massacre," he explained.
The complaint also charges the coffee house's exterior side wall displays inverted red triangles, a symbol of violence against Jews that has been spray-painted on Jewish homes and synagogues in anti-Semitic attacks, he noted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Following years of science-defying agendas imposed by the Joe Biden administration for students, teachers and more, the U.S. Department of Educations has concluded that sororities are for women.
A commentary in the Daily Signal explains the precedent that is a direct hit on the common pro-LGBT agendas that have been imposed on colleges and schools, especially the "T" agenda, which claims men can become women and vice versa.
Following science, that doesn't happen, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level, and no chemical or surgical treatment changes that.
"The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights just affirmed what every sorority woman in America knew the first time she walked into her chapter—a sorority is for women," the report explained.
"A sorority that admits male students is no longer a sorority by definition and thus loses the Title IX statutory exemption for a sorority's single-sex membership practices," the department statement said.
"Translation: If you let men in, you're not a women's organization anymore. You're just another coed club—one that fails to understand basic biology and forces radical leftist groupthink on its female members," the report said.
."This Education Department clarification carries enormous weight—it reaffirms the long-standing legal basis for single-sex sororities under Title IX," the report said.
The report cited the fracas that developed at the University of Wyoming in 2022.
Then, "Kappa Kappa Gamma's national leadership forced its University of Wyoming chapter to accept Artemis Langford, a 6-foot-2, 260-pound man, despite the protests of women in the house. When some brave sorority members took legal action, they were dismissed as bigots," the report said.
"According to court documents, multiple female collegiate sorority members testified that Langford would linger in common areas in the KKG house, stare at them, and become visibly aroused. To add insult to injury, the activist judge told the young women they had no right to define what 'woman' even means in their own sorority," it explained.
The report said the Office for Civil Rights in the federal government now is investigating the school for "allegedly allowing males to join and live in female-only intimate and communal spaces."
The report explained sorority officials, from Kappa Kappa Gamma as well as Phi Mu actually expelled longtime members for opposing males inside sorority houses.
"We watched as Payton McNabb—the young woman permanently injured by a trans-identifying male volleyball player—was kicked out of Delta Zeta for daring to confront a man wearing a dress in the women's restroom on her college campus at Western Carolina University," the report said.
The report said, "Here's the reality: Title IX has had a carve-out for single-sex organizations almost from its inception. That means sororities and fraternities have a legal right to exist as women-only and men-only spaces. But if you start letting men who 'identify as women' into the sisterhood, you forfeit that protection. The colleges and universities that support you are now on notice: Support a sorority that admits men and you lose the legal exception."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Many schools across America now are under the influence of leftist administrators, anti-faith teachers' unions, anti-Christian teachers.
And the schools' actions reflect the personal ideologies and religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, of their faculty and managers.
But the American Center for Law and Justice has come across one that has gone to extremes.
It ripped down posters for being too Christian, it ordered a student club to discontinue using the "Good News" name, it ordered censorship of well-known Bible verses and a cross image, it demanded access to planned promotions to determine "whether they were too religious," it banned an entire video series planned by the club, and tore down posters a second time.
"School officials took over and started running the club, insisting on what religious materials were and were not acceptable," the ACLJ reported. "This is viewpoint discrimination in its purest form – and it's unlawful."
The organization explained it has dispatched a demand letter, often a precursor to a lawsuit, to the school as it defends "the constitutional rights of a high school student in New York whose Christian beliefs and religious expression have been repeatedly blocked by school officials."
The organization cited violations of both the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act.
"We are representing a family whose daughter, Jenna, a ninth-grade student at Carmel High School, was denied her right to express her Christian faith and conduct a student Bible club – something countless other students at the school are freely allowed to do. Jenna's only 'offense' was her desire to encourage her peers and share the hope of her faith. For that, school officials took extreme measures to silence her," the ACLJ reported.
"After persistent efforts to gain approval for her faith-based group, Jenna finally received permission to form her club. But her constitutional struggle was far from over. To kick off the Bible club, she created simple posters that announced the club's upcoming meeting. The posters included a welcoming message, a handful of well-known Bible verses, a cross, and an invitation for all students – something Jenna herself feels strongly about – to attend and be encouraged by the words of Jesus. Still, school officials removed the posters from the hallways."
They explained she used "too many Bible verses." And they told her the club could not be the "Good News Club."
"Her posters were censored because they were Christian, and she had her religious messages removed. School officials went as far as insisting on reviewing her posters to determine whether they were too religious," the legal team explained.
Even after she met every demand from the school, officials there decided to "double down."
"When her group decided to show a faith-based video series meant to strengthen students in their personal battles of the mind and spirit – her new posters were again torn down. This time, administrators went even further, banning the entire video series from being shown, citing vague 'complaints' about the religious content," the report said.
Then the school officials demanded to decide "what religious materials were and were not acceptable."
The ACLJ pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed students' rights to have Bible clubs. It fought and won the Board of Education v. Mergens precedent more than three decades ago.
The student is protected under both of the federal precedents, and "The law is clear: School officials cannot censor religious speech simply because others might disagree with it," the report said.
What the school needs to do is end its "unconstitutional suppression of this student's rights and provide written assurances that Jenna and her peers may meet and express their religious views without interference. If the district refuses, we are fully prepared to file a lawsuit," the ACLJ said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Elon offers 'olive branch' as conversation being set up
The day-long word war between Tesla and X billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump may be reaching a détente.
The two had worked together on the president's Department of Government Efficiency for months, and reportedly had found about$170 billion in spending to cut in their war on criminal activity, waste, fraud and corruption.
Then, when the House adopted a piece of legislation turning many of Trump's executive orders into law, Musk erupted in frustration that it didn't cut enough.
Trump, meanwhile, is working with a fractious Congress and even multiple factions within his own GOP.
The two exchanged hot words for hours. Musk said Trump was in the Epstein files and Musk called for Trump's impeachment.
White House aides tried to organize a call and Musk, late Thursday "tried to de-escalate," according to a report in the Daily Mail.
Trump even had called for Musk to be deported, and Musk's stock dropped billions in value as traders fled his companies.
"Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman stepped into the fray, posting a plea on X for the two men to reconcile 'for the benefit of our great country,' warning that 'we are much stronger together than apart,'" the report explained.
Musk responded, "You're not wrong."
The comment appeared to some as an olive branch, and reports said the two megawealthy men would speak Friday.
Trump, in a late-night interview, shrugged off the feud, explaining, "It's okay."
The rhetoric had escalated to the point Trump called for Musk's federal contracts to be canceled and his companies stripped of security clearances and Musk responded to a social media call for the issue to "Cool off" and the two to "step back for a couple of days," with "Good advice."
Social media comments suggested Musk was upset that federal subsidies for the purchases of electric cars – his Teslas – were being cut. Trump said Musk was familiar with the details of the plans.
The lawyer who represented Jeffrey Epstein, who was a convicted sex offender and was awaiting the processing of more charges when he died, apparently by suicide, in a jail, confirmed in a statement that he had asked Epstein before he died, and Epstein confirmed he had no damaging information on Trump, although the two knew each other.
Trump said he had asked Musk to leave, prompting Musk's response.
"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," he said.
Musk offered no evidence for his claim.
The two previously have been compatriots, and enemies, consecutively. Musk was on two of Trump's advisory councils during his first term, but later stepped down. They also were at odds off and on in 2022 in social media.
Leftists unleashed a flood of insults at both men, with one claiming, "so the girls are fighting."