ReportWire

Tag: LAW

  • Attorneys allege Rikers staff prevents them from speaking with detained clients – amNewYork

    A New York City Department of Correction officer forged the signature of a person incarcerated on Rikers Island to prevent him from meeting with his defense counsel, according to testimony provided at a Wednesday New York City Council hearing where attorneys said they are subject to hostile treatment by officers. 

    Attorneys from the Legal Aid Society, New York County Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Services and The Bronx Defenders said getting to meet with a client in a timely manner at Rikers Island frequently felt like “sheer luck” because of hours-long wait times and officers fabricating detainee refusals to meet with their attorneys.

    Julia Tedesco, an attorney with the New York County Defender Services, said she was told her client refused to meet with her at a scheduled Nov. 12 televisit and was provided with a refusal slip apparently bearing the client’s signature. When she went to visit her client in person on Rikers Island on Nov. 20, officers told her he refused again. She found it suspicious, questioned officers further on the matter and was told about half an hour later that her client was “no longer refusing” to meet.

    “When we spoke, he told me unequivocally that he never refused a visit that morning, so there was no refusal,” Tedesco said of her client. “He also said that he never signed a refusal slip on Nov. 12. I compared that signature to the documents he signed in front of me on Nov. 20. They did not match. A correction officer forged my client’s signature.” 

    Tedesco said officers lying about clients refusing to meet with her and other attorneys violated their constitutional rights.

    “Pretrial detention is dehumanizing. We know this, and the persistent denial of counsel access through fabricated refusals is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” Tedesco said. “This is not a clerical error or misunderstanding. It is a deliberate obstruction when Rikers staff fabricate refusals. They do not merely inconvenience attorneys. They silence crimes and sever one of the few lifelines available to people to take pretrial. They prohibit clients’ opportunity to meaningfully participate in their own defense.”

    When asked about this situation, a DOC representative said the department is exploring options to improve visitors’ experiences.

    “The Department is both reviewing visit operations and implementing improvements to upgrade the process and experience for all who visit our facilities,” the DOC said in an emailed statement. “We have made numerous improvements to our visitor experience in recent years, including through partnerships with nonprofit organizations to provide opportunities to connect with loved ones both on and off Rikers Island. We know there is more work to do, and it remains a priority for our staff to get it done.”

    Tedesco’s experience with DOC officers fabricating client refusals is not an isolated incident, Tahanee Dunn, an attorney with The Bronx Defenders attested.

    “Recently, I had a client whose case was in a hearing and trial posture. Thus, visiting him was essential,” Dunn said. “His legal team and I went on three consecutive occasions and were told he refused our visit…When we spoke to him later, he assured us that he had not refused. Rather, no one had come to his housing area to notify him of the visit.” 

    Dunn said this happened to her on “many” visits, sometimes cutting her and her team off from their clients for over a month. 

    “I receive dozens and dozens of complaints from our staff and our clients every month [about this,” she said. “It is appalling.”

    City Council Members Sandy Nurse and Gale Brewer listen to attorney testimony at Wednesday’s hearing.

    The fabricated refusals are just part of a hostile culture attorneys experience when trying to meet and speak with clients detained on the island to develop cases, criminal defenders testified. 

    Elizabeth Bender, senior policy counsel with the Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem, said a DOC officer threatened one of her colleagues who was attempting to conduct a client meeting. 

    “As [an officer] saw her approaching, he said, ‘Oh, it’s you. I have a chloroform-soaked rag behind my desk just for you,’” Bender said of her colleague’s recent experience at Rikers. “There is no circumstance under which a comment like that is acceptable, but everyone…who has spent time visiting Rikers Island will know that it is emblematic of a system that’s designed to make it as unpleasant, difficult and time-consuming as possible to visit our clients and provide them with the legal representation that they deserve.” 

    Bender said the DOC’s claims that attorneys could schedule client meetings online to bypass long waits and that legal visits should always start within 45 minutes of an attorney registering at the jail were “a joke.”

    She and others said that the long waits and a lack of privacy during client meetings prevented attorneys from seeing as many clients as they otherwise could, making it difficult to listen to vulnerable client stories and build the best case possible. 

    “Almost all of the visit areas force us to shout at our clients through plexiglas,” Bender said. “There are [officers] and sometimes other detained people very nearby who can see and probably hear everything that we are talking about in these immensely vulnerable conversations.”

    The attorneys’ testimony came in a hearing on visitation for both families and attorneys at Rikers held by the City Council Committee on Criminal Justice and Oversight and Investigations. A recently published investigation by the committee found many family members trying to visit their incarcerated loved ones on the island face similar issues of long wait times, potentially fabricated refusals and “rude” behavior from officers. 

    DOC representatives, who left before the attorneys provided council members their testimony, told the committee they were working on improving the visiting experience. 

    Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie said the department agreed current wait times were too long, was working to ensure officers treated visitors respectfully, was expanding programs that supported young children and families during the visiting process, is moving to increase televisits, improve signage and form a new 13-person team specifically committed to facilitating and improving the visiting experience. 

    Advocates, including Tanya Krupat, the vice president of policy and advocacy with the Osborne Association, who said the news of a team focused on improving the visiting experience made her “hopeful,” though there was a great deal of work to be done.

    “I am very excited to work with this new group of people,” Krupat said. “I really hope that they approach this collaboratively…and in a solutions-oriented way. We all want to improve the visiting process…It improves the correctional environment and improves outcomes. This is not an ‘us’ and ‘them’ issue. This is an ‘all of us’ issue.”

    Isabella Gallo

    Source link

  • Moulton bill would allow ICE lawsuits

    BOSTON — Immigrants would be allowed to sue federal authorities for “misconduct” under a proposal filed Monday by U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, which the Democrat named ostensibly after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

    The National Oversight and Enforcement of Misconduct Act, or NOEM Act, as filed Monday would update federal law to allow people “under federal immigration enforcement authority” to file lawsuits if they believe their “constitutional rights” have been violated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm|@F=E@?[ H9@ 😀 D66<:?8 E96 A2CEJ’D ?@>:?2E:@? E@ CF? 7@C &]$] $6?2E6 ?6IE J62C[ D2:5 E96 492?86D 2C6 ?66565 2D #6AF3=:42? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 6IA2?5D 9:D 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 4C24<5@H?]k^Am

    kAm“#:89E ?@H[ :7 2? xrt @77:46C G:@=2E6D D@>6@?6’D u@FCE9 @C u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ G:4E:>D 92G6 2=>@DE ?@ =682= C64@FCD6[” |@F=E@? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 }~t| p4E 7:I6D E92E]”k^Am

    kAmw6 25565[ “xrt 😀 ?@E 23@G6 E96 =2H – 2?5 :7 :ED @77:46CD 3C62< E96 =2H[ E96J D9@F=5 36 96=5 244@F?E23=6 😕 4@FCE]”k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ 5:5 ?@E :>>65:2E6=J C6DA@?5 E@ 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E 23@FE E96 AC@A@D2=]k^Am

    kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=65 😕 2 42D6 42==65 q:G6?D G] $:I &?65 p86?ED 😕 `hf` E92E 7656C2= 286?ED 4@F=5 36 DF65 :?5:G:5F2==J 3FE DF3D6BF6?E CF=:?8D 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE 92G6 E:89E6?65 E96 D@42==65 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6] pD HC:EE6?[ E96 DE2EFE6 @?=J 2AA=:6D E@ =@42= 2?5 DE2E6 2FE9@C:E:6D]k^Am

    kAmp a_aa $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=:?8 96=5 E92E q@C56C !2EC@= 286?ED 42??@E 36 DF65 7@C G:@=2E:?8 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED]k^Am

    kAm%96 23:=:EJ @7 A6@A=6 E@ DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E F?56C E96 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6 92D 366? “D6G6C6=J C6DEC:4E65” @G6C E96 J62CD 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE’D 4@?D6CG2E:G6 >2;@C:EJ[ |@F=E@? D2:5[ “=62G:?8 G:4E:>D H:E9 G:CEF2==J ?@ A2E9 E@ ;FDE:46 H96? 7656C2= @77:46CD G:@=2E6 E96:C C:89ED]”k^Am

    kAmw:D AC@A@D2= 😀 E96 =2E6DE 3J 4@?8C6DD:@?2= s6>@4C2ED D66<:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E xrt’D 6?7@C46>6?E 24E:@?D 2>:5 4=2:>D E92E >2D<65 7656C2= 286?ED 2C6 FD:?8 6I46DD:G6 7@C46 2?5 G:@=2E:?8 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED 2D E96J D66< 2?5 56E2:? :>>:8C2?ED H2?E65 7@C 4C:>6D 2?5 56A@CE2E:@? AC@4665:?8D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D D:>A=6[ E2C86E65 2>6?5>6?E 6?DFC6D E92E xrt 2?5 @E96C 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46CD 42? 36 96=5 =:23=6 😕 E96 D2>6 H2J 2D 2?J DE2E6 @C =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46C H96? E96J G:@=2E6 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED[” |@F=E@?’D DE2E6>6?E D2JD]k^Am

    kAm%96 =68:D=2E:@? 5:776CD 7C@> 2 A6C6??:2= 3:== C67:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 w@FD6 s6>@4C2ED 62C=:6C E9:D J62C E92E D666?5 2 7656C2= =2H E@ A6C>:E 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED =2HDF:ED 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 4=2:>D 282:?DE 7656C2= 286?4:6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C 4FCC6?E =2H[ A6@A=6 42? DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 5:C64E=J F?56C 2 =2H 42==65 E96 u656C2= %@CE r=2:>D p4E[ 3FE 52>286D 2C6 42AA65 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ @AE:@? E@ C6BF6DE 2 ;FCJ EC:2=]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Supreme Court sounds ready to give Trump power to oust officials of independent agencies

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.

    The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

    The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”

    A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.

    Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.

    The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.

    If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.

    It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

    But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.

    It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.

    For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.

    But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.

    Past presidents had signed those measures into law, and a unanimous Supreme Court upheld them 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S.

    In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

    The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

    During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

    Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

    Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

    Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

    But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.

    “The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.

    Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.

    The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

    The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.

    “Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.

    Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

    But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.

    In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.

    At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

    In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.

    During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.

    “Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.

    But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.

    The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.

    Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Watchdog group hits Letitia James with bar complaint after federal judge tosses case

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    A conservative-aligned watchdog group has filed a bar complaint accusing New York Attorney General Letitia James of professional misconduct tied to her Norfolk, Virginia, mortgage, allegations that were also at the center of her recently dismissed federal charges.

    The Center to Advance Security in America (CASA) filed the complaint with the state’s Attorney Grievance Committee, accusing James of engaging in “illegal and dishonest conduct” in connection with the mortgage she took out on the property, according to the New York Post.

    According to the complaint and related public statements, the group alleges that James’ actions raise concerns under the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the ethical standards that govern lawyers in New York.

    “Fraud, misrepresentation, honesty and trustworthiness are all factors that the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly consider when weighing whether to discipline an attorney,” Curtis Schube, the group’s director of research and policy, wrote in the four-page complaint, according to the outlet.

    A TALE OF TWO INDICTMENTS: TOP DEMS SAY ‘NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW’ ON TRUMP, BUT DECRY COMEY CASE

    New York Attorney General Letitia James attends a press conference in New York. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

    “The Committee, therefore, should immediately investigate the allegations against James and, if by ‘preponderance of the evidence’ the allegations are substantiated, she should be disciplined accordingly.”

    A federal judge threw out the indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey on Monday, finding they were illegitimate because they had been brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney.

    Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the bank fraud charges against James and the false statements charges against Comey without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum that the Department of Justice plans to appeal.

    “We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsey Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position, but she was in fact legally appointed,” Leavitt said. “And I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very short order.”

    special assistant to the president lindsey halligan

    Lindsey Halligan, special assistant to the president, speaks with a reporter outside the White House, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2025, in Washington. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

    LETITIA JAMES VOWS TO CONTINUE TARGETING TRUMP AFTER YEARS IN THE COURTROOM: ‘TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME’

    Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

    Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to the grand juries shortly after Trump ousted the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to replace him with Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer. Bondi complied, but Currie found the interim U.S. attorney term had already expired under Siebert and that the Virginia judges were now responsible for appointing a temporary U.S. attorney to serve until Trump could get one confirmed in the Senate. 

    James was indicted on Oct. 9 for allegedly falsifying mortgage documents to secure a $109,600 loan on the property. She was also charged with making false statements to a financial institution.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the Department of Justice plans to appeal the dismissal of the case against James.  (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    James, a second-term Democrat, was accused of claiming the property as her principal residence in 2023 despite being a public office holder in New York at that same time.

    She has denied wrongdoing. She previously said she made an error while filling out a form related to the home purchase but fixed it. She noted that she had never tried to deceive the lender.

    Fox News Digital reached out to both the New York attorney general’s office and CASA but did not immediately receive a response.

    Fox News’ Ashley Oliver and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • US military carries out second strike, killing survivors on suspected drug boat, sources say

    The U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF , because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    The U.S. military carried out a followup strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.

    While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.

    The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.

    Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.

    “I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility], because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”

    People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

    “They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

    Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.

    Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

    “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.

    The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.

    The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.

    It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.

    In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”

    The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.

    Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.

    Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.

    But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.

    That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.

    Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.

    Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.

    The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    Source link

  • Will California’s new K-12 antisemitism law make up for Trump’s civil rights cuts?

    At a time when the federal government is dismantling civil rights protections in K-12 schools, California is expanding them — although some wonder how far the state will go to combat discrimination in schools.

    A new law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, creates an Office of Civil Rights within the California Department of Education. The office will have a staff of at least six, including an antisemitism coordinator, who will educate school districts about the harms of bias and investigate discrimination complaints.

    “I think it’s a good idea and the state of California will pull it off. The risks are small and the possibility for good is large,” said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. “But for it to be successful, it has to have real responsibility and real power.”

    The new law stems from a surge in antisemitic incidents in California last year following the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks in Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza. Authored by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), the law is intended to eliminate anti-Jewish and other bias in the classroom and ensure that students of all ethnicities and religions feel protected.

    But the road to Newsom’s desk was not smooth. The bill faced tough opposition from the California Teachers Assn. , the state’s largest teachers union, which argued that the law would limit teachers’ right to free speech by curbing their ability to discuss the conflict in Gaza or other topical issues. The union declined to comment for this article.

    Zbur, who was among the law’s authors, said the new Office of Civil Rights and the antisemitism coordinator are not intended to punish teachers. The idea, he said, is to help schools stamp out bullying, discrimination and other acts targeting specific groups of students.

    “The idea that this law is about policing is hogwash,” Zbur said. “It’s intended to be productive, to provide districts with resources so they can prevent students from being harmed in school.”

    Federal layoffs and closures

    Discrimination has long been illegal in California schools. Individuals who feel they’ve been discriminated against can file complaints with the state’s Civil Rights Department or with their local school district. But much K-12 anti-discrimination enforcement has fallen on the federal government’s Office of Civil Rights. Created in the mid-1960s, the office investigates complaints about a range of issues, such as school segregation, unfair discipline practices and whether students with disabilities or English learners are receiving the services they’re entitled to.

    In March, the Trump administration announced it was laying off nearly half of the U.S. Department of Education workforce and closing numerous branches of the Office of Civil Rights, including the one in California. That’s meant a steep decline in the number of cases and long delays for those the office investigates. In the three months after the Department of Education cuts, for example, the office received nearly 5,000 complaints but investigated only 309.

    On Tuesday, the Department of Education went even further, spinning off some of the agency’s largest responsibilities to other federal departments — including much of the administration of elementary and high school funding. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative vision for the country that so far Trump has followed, calls for the Office of Civil Rights to become part of the Department of Justice and for it to “reject gender ideology and critical race theory.”

    The U.S. Department of Education didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    ‘Cutting off funding, that’s what works’

    California’s new Office of Civil Rights will have a director and several coordinators who will oversee anti-discrimination cases based on race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and religion. The director and anti-discrimination coordinators will be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature, likely after Jan. 1.

    The office will provide schools with materials about preventing discrimination, and work with districts that have been the subject of complaints from students, families or the public. In serious cases, the office will recommend more intensive assistance to the state Department of Education to correct problems. For districts that persistently flout anti-discrimination laws, “the department may use any means necessary to effect compliance,” according to laws already in place. That may include cutting funding for textbooks or other materials found to be discriminatory.

    The office will also submit an annual report to the Legislature on the overall picture of discrimination in schools, including the number of complaints, how they were resolved, and their outcomes.

    But to be successful, the office will have to be nonpartisan, transparent and fair, Orfield said. Cases against a school should include strong evidence, and schools should have the opportunity to defend themselves and appeal a verdict if they believe it was wrongly issued.

    And the office should not shy away from cutting funds to schools that don’t comply, he said. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the federal Office of Civil Rights cut funds to more than 100 schools in the South that refused to desegregate — a move that may have been the only way to force compliance, Orfield said.

    “Cutting off funding, that’s what works,” he said. “Although if you’re going to have sanctions, there must be due process.”

    Photo ops and reports?

    Mark Rosenbaum, senior special counsel for strategic litigation for the public interest law firm Public Counsel, agreed that enforcement will be the key to whether the new office is effective.

    “If the office just issues reports and does photo ops, we don’t need another one of those,” Rosenbaum said. “The issue is whether or not they can enforce these rights across the board.”

    He’d also like to see the office take a more proactive approach instead of only responding to individuals’ complaints. Education itself, he said, is a civil right, and too many students are not receiving the high-quality lessons in safe, well-equipped schools that they’re entitled to.

    Still, he’s happy to see the office get off the ground, particularly in light of the federal cuts to civil rights enforcement.

    “There’s an urgency for California to fill a void,” Rosenbaum said. “It should have happened decades ago, but it’s a good start.”

    Jones is a reporter for CalMatters.

    Carolyn Jones

    Source link

  • Rep. Swalwell’s suit alleges abuse of power, adds to scrutiny of Trump official’s mortgage probes

    In a fiery rebuttal to allegations he’d criminally misrepresented facts in his mortgage documents, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte on Tuesday — accusing him of criminally misusing government databases to baselessly target President Trump’s political opponents.

    “Pulte has abused his position by scouring databases at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — two government-sponsored enterprises — for the private mortgage records of several prominent Democrats,” attorneys for Swalwell wrote in a federal lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C. “He then used those records to concoct fanciful allegations of mortgage fraud, which he referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.”

    They said Pulte launched his attack on Swalwell at a particularly inopportune time, just as Swalwell was launching his campaign for California governor.

    Pulte’s attack, Swalwell’s attorneys wrote, “was not only a gross mischaracterization of reality” but “a gross abuse of power that violated the law,” infringing on Swalwell’s free speech rights to criticize the president without fear of reprisal, and violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which they said bars federal officials from “leveraging their access to citizens’ private information as a tool for harming their political opponents.”

    Pulte, the FHFA and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

    Pulte has previously defended his work probing mortgage documents of prominent Democrats, saying no one is above the law. His referrals have exclusively targeted Democrats, despite reporting on Republicans taking similar actions on their mortgages.

    Swalwell’s lawsuit is the latest counterpunch to Pulte’s campaign, and part of mounting scrutiny over its unprecedented nature and unorthodox methods — not just from targets of his probes but from other investigators, too, according to one witness.

    In addition to Swalwell, Pulte has referred mortgage fraud allegations to the Justice Department against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who have all denied wrongdoing and suggested the allegations amount to little more than political retribution.

    James was criminally charged by an inexperienced, loyalist federal prosecutor specially appointed by Trump in Virginia, though a judge has since thrown out that case on the grounds that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed. The judge also threw out a case against former FBI Director James Comey, another Trump opponent.

    Cook’s attorneys slammed Pulte in a letter to the Justice Department, writing that his “decision to use the FHFA to selectively — and publicly — investigate and target the President’s designated political enemies gives rise to the unmistakable impression that he has been improperly coordinating with the White House to manufacture flimsy predicates to launch these probes.”

    Schiff also has lambasted Trump and Pulte for their targeting of him and other Democrats, and cheered the tossing of the cases against James and Comey, calling it “a triumph of the rule of law.”

    In recent days, federal prosecutors in Maryland — where Schiff’s case is being investigated — have also started asking questions about the actions of Pulte and other Trump officials, according to Christine Bish, a Sacramento-area real estate agent and Republican congressional candidate who was summoned to Maryland to answer questions in the matter last week.

    Pulte has alleged that Schiff broke the law by claiming primary residence for mortgages in both Maryland and California. Schiff has said he never broke any law and was always forthcoming with his mortgage lenders.

    Bish has been investigating Schiff’s mortgage records since 2020, and had repeatedly submitted documents about Schiff to the federal government — first to the Office of Congressional Ethics, then earlier this year to an FHFA tip line and to the FBI, she told The Times.

    When Trump subsequently posted one of Schiff’s mortgage documents to his Truth Social platform, Bish said she believed it was one she had submitted to the FHFA and FBI, because it was highlighted exactly as she had highlighted it. Then, she saw she had missed a call from Pulte, and was later asked by Pulte’s staff to email Pulte “the full file” she had worked up on Schiff.

    “They wanted to make sure that I had sent the whole file,” Bish said.

    Bish said she was subsequently interviewed via Google Meet on Oct. 22 by someone from the FHFA inspector general’s office and an FBI agent. She then got a subpoena in the mail that she interpreted as requiring her to be in Maryland last week. There, she was interviewed again, for about an hour, by the same official from the inspector general’s office and another FBI agent, she said — and was surprised their questions seemed more focused on her communications with people in the federal government than on Schiff.

    “They wanted to know if I had been talking to anybody else,” she said. “You know, what did I communicate? Who did I communicate with?”

    Schiff’s office declined to comment. However, Schiff’s attorney has previously told Justice Department officials that there was “ample basis” for them to launch an investigation into Pulte and his campaign targeting Trump’s opponents, calling it a “highly irregular” and “sordid” effort.

    The acting FHFA inspector general at the time Bish was first contacted, Joe Allen, has since been fired, which has also raised questions.

    On Nov. 19, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) — the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — wrote a letter to Pulte denouncing his probes as politically motivated, questioning Allen’s dismissal and demanding documentation from Pulte, including any communications he has had with the White House.

    Swalwell’s attorneys wrote in Tuesday’s lawsuit that he never claimed primary residence in both California and Washington, D.C., as alleged, and had not broken any laws.

    They accused Pulte of orchestrating a coordinated effort to spread the allegations against Swalwell via a vast network of conservative influencers, which they said had “harmed [Swalwell’s] reputation at a critical juncture in his career: the very moment when he had planned to announce his campaign for Governor of California.”

    They said the “widespread publication of information about the home where his wife and young children reside” had also “exposed him to heightened security risks and caused him significant anguish and distress.”

    Swalwell said in a statement that Pulte has “combed through private records of political opponents” to “silence them,” which shouldn’t be allowed.

    “There’s a reason the First Amendment — the freedom of speech — comes before all others,” he said.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • FBI investigates video urging US troops to defy illegal orders

    A video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” has led to the FBI requesting interviews with the Democratic lawmakers involved, indicating an investigation may be underway. The lawmakers did not mention specific reasons for their comments in the clip, but it comes after the Trump administration ordered the military to blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, accusing them of smuggling drugs into the U.S., and the deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities.All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.” The Pentagon said Monday it was reviewing Senator Mark Kelly, who is in the video, for violating military law. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by death.”Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of six Democrats in the video, told reporters Tuesday this is a scare tactic by the president. The FBI declined to comment, but Director Kash Patel described the situation in an interview as an “ongoing matter.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    A video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” has led to the FBI requesting interviews with the Democratic lawmakers involved, indicating an investigation may be underway.

    The lawmakers did not mention specific reasons for their comments in the clip, but it comes after the Trump administration ordered the military to blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, accusing them of smuggling drugs into the U.S., and the deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities.

    All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.

    In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.”

    The Pentagon said Monday it was reviewing Senator Mark Kelly, who is in the video, for violating military law. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by death.”

    Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of six Democrats in the video, told reporters Tuesday this is a scare tactic by the president.

    The FBI declined to comment, but Director Kash Patel described the situation in an interview as an “ongoing matter.”

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    Source link

  • Why outrage is erupting over Trump plan to exclude nursing from ‘professional’ designation

    A coalition of nursing and other healthcare organizations are outraged over a Trump administration proposal that could limit access to federal loans for some students pursuing graduate degrees, because the government would no longer label their studies as “professional” programs.

    Without such a U.S. Department of Education designation, students pursuing graduate degrees in nursing and at least seven other fields, including social work and education, would face tighter federal student loan limits.

    The revamp is part of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress, and is prompting anger and confusion, particularly among nurses who are lashing out online. Some social media posts have amplified inaccurate information about the changes — leading the Education Department to issue a “Myth vs. Fact” explainer on the proposed modifications.

    But it has done little to quell the furor. Nurses and others affected not only oppose potential limits on educational borrowing to advance their careers, but perceive the move as a semantic insult that disrespects the intense training that is required to achieve their professional credentials.

    One Instagram user — a self-described registered nurse with more than 250,000 followers on the platform — said that she had planned to attend graduate school to become a nurse practitioner, but the proposed loan caps may put that out of reach. “They don’t want us to continue our education,” she said. “They want women to be barefoot and pregnant.”

    Susan Pratt, a nurse who is also president of a union representing nurses in Toledo, Ohio, called the move “a smack in the face.”

    “During the pandemic, the nurses showed up, and this is the thanks we get,” she said.

    The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment about the proposed rule changes. But its explainer said that “progressive voices” had “been fear mongering” about the changes and spreading “misinformation.”

    The Trump administration has said limits on graduate school loans are needed to reduce tuition costs and believes that capping student loans will push universities charging higher-than-average tuition to look at lowering rates.

    What counts as a ‘professional’ program

    While graduate students could previously borrow loans up to the cost of their degree, the new rules would set caps depending on whether the degree is considered a graduate or professional program. For program without a “professional” designation, students would be limited to borrowing $20,500 a year and up to $100,000 total.

    Students in a designated professional program would be able to borrow $50,000 a year and up to $200,000 in total.

    To define what counts as a professional program, the department turned to a 1965 law governing student financial aid. The law includes several examples of professional degrees but says it isn’t an exhaustive list. The Trump administration’s proposal, by contrast, says only the degrees spelled out in the new regulation can count as professional programs.

    The Education Department would define the following fields as professional programs: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology.

    Left out are nursing, physical therapy, dental hygiene, occupational therapy and social work — as well as fields outside of healthcare such as architecture, education, and accounting.

    One in six of the nation’s registered nurses held a master’s degree as of 2022, according to the American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing.

    The federal fact sheet noted that a “professional degree” is merely an internal definition it uses “to distinguish among programs that qualify for higher loan limits.” It is “not a value judgement about the importance of programs … It has no bearing on whether a program is professional in nature or not.”

    The federal rules would take effect in July, but can still be changed by the Education Department after a public comment period.

    Nursing leaders decry the change

    Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, president of the American Nurses Assn., decried the proposed changes, saying they would widen an already painful shortfall of advanced practice nurses — whose roles require graduate degrees. Among them are nurse practitioners, who are able to diagnose illnesses and write prescriptions.

    “Nurse practitioners provide the largest amount of primary care services in the United States,” she said. “We have a primary care shortage right now. And we’re going to continue [to have one]. Now we’re not going to fully allow nurse practitioners to get the funding they need.”

    Kennedy said the new rules would exacerbate the California and nationwide nursing shortage because in most cases a doctoral degree is required to teach other nurses.

    “We are short over 2,000 nursing faculty in the United States,” she said. “So this has a downward spiral effect.”

    But the Education Department’s “Myth vs. Fact” sheet, released Monday, argued that its data shows that “95% of nursing students borrow below the annual loan limit and therefore are not affected by the new caps.”

    “Further, placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt,” the department said.

    Kennedy said it would be very difficult for graduate nursing programs to cut costs, because of their focus on hands-on training. “I’m not quite sure where the schools in nursing are supposed to cut, because the faculty are already underpaid, and those workloads are at a point where it’s keeping the public safe training new nurses,” she said.

    Lin Zhan, dean of the UCLA Joe C. Wen School of Nursing, said the proposed changes are “deeply concerning” and urged policymakers to reject them.

    “We cannot afford to create barriers that limit entry and growth in this essential profession and any policy changes must prioritize expanding access and enabling professional nurses to practice with knowledge and compassion,” Zhan said. “Graduate-prepared nurses play a critical role across health care. … Their expertise is vital, especially as care becomes more complex and patient needs grow.”

    A coalition of healthcare organizations has also urged the Education Department to change course and noted that fields being excluded are largely filled by women. According to a U.S. Census Bureau report in 2019, women made up about three-fourths of the full-time, year-round healthcare workers in the U.S. and accounted for a much higher share in jobs such as dental and medical assistants.

    Deborah Trautman, president of American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, said in a statement to The Times that “reducing the federal student loan limit for nurses pursuing master’s and doctoral degrees will likely discourage many from advancing their education.”

    “Yet nurses prepared at these levels are essential to the workforce — as advanced practice nurses, faculty, researchers, and expert clinicians,” she said.

    Associated Press reporters Collin Binkley and John Seewer contributed to this story.

    Daniel Miller

    Source link

  • Trial date set for wounded police officer

    SALEM — Now that a wounded North Andover police officer has a 2026 trial date, her defense team is turning its attention to the culture of the North Andover Police Department and what transpired before the shooting nearly five months ago.

    A jury trial has been set for Feb. 9 in Essex County Superior Court following a trial assignment conference on Tuesday for Kelsey Fitzsimmons, 29, who was shot by a responding officer and colleague in her North Andover home after being served with an abuse prevention order filed by her then-fiance, North Andover firefighter Justin Aylaian.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmu:EKD:>>@?D 7246D 2 492C86 @7 2DD2F=E 3J >62?D @7 2 52?86C@FD H62A@? DE6>>:?8 7C@> E96 D9@@E:?8 :?D:56 96C 9@>6 yF?6 b_]k^Am

    kAm!@=:46 2==6865 u:EKD:>>@?D 2:>65 2 8F? 2E @?6 @7 E96 @77:46CD[ H9:49 =65 E@ 96C 36:?8 D9@E 😕 E96 496DE] u:EKD:>>@?D 92D 4=2:>65 D96 ?6G6C 2:>65 96C 7:C62C> 2E 2?@E96C A6CD@?[ 3FE H2D D9@E 3642FD6 @7 2 72:=65 DF:4:56 2EE6>AE 2D 96C :?72?E D@? H2D 36:?8 E2<6? 7C@> 96C]k^Am

    kAm%96 EC:2= 😀 D4965F=65 E@ 36 962C5 3J yF586 z2E9=66? |4r2CE9J}6J>2?[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 4@FCE 5@4<6E]k^Am

    kAmu:EKD:>>@?D 92D 366? 96=5 H:E9@FE 32:= D:?46 $6AE] “ 27E6C |4r2CE9J}6J>2? C6G@<65 96C E6C>D @7 C6=62D6] u:EKD:>>@?D C6>2:?D 2E E96 (6DE6C? |2DD249FD6EED #68:@?2= (@>6?’D r@CC64E:@?2= r6?E6C 😕 r9:4@A66]k^Am

    kAmpE E96 4@?76C6?46 %F6D52J[ yF586 %9@>2D sC649D=6C 42==65 E96 42D6 D6C:@FD 3FE ?@E 4@>A=:42E65 2D 96 6?4@FC2865 E96 2EE@C?6JD E@ 2CC:G6 2E 2 EC:2= 52E6 2?5 7@C E96 EC:2= E@ 36 AC:@C:E:K65 5F6 E@ u:EKD:>>@?D’ 56E2:?>6?E] pE 36DE[ 96 D2:5[ D96 4@F=5 36 @? C6DEC:4E:G6 4@?5:E:@?D 29625 @7 E96 EC:2= A6?5:?8 E96 $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE’D 7F== A2?6= 564:D:@? @? 96C C646?E 2AA62= E@ 36 C6=62D65 7C@> ;2:=]k^Am

    kAmw6C 5676?D6 E62>’D >@E:@? 7@C DA64:7:4 5:D4@G6CJ 7:=65 uC:52J H2D 5632E65 😕 4@FCE]k^Am

    kAmu:=:?8D 3J u:EKD:>>@?D’ =2HJ6CD %:>@E9J qC25= 2?5 |2CE92 r@2<=6J :?4=F56 6G:56?46 C6BF6DED C6=2E65 E@ E96 }@CE9 p?5@G6C !@=:46 s6A2CE>6?E[ :ED DE2E:@?’D DFCG6:==2?46 7@@E286[ 5@4F>6?ED E92E D9@H @77:46C >:D4@?5F4E[ :7 @77:46CD 2C6 @? 2 ”qC25J =:DE” 2?5 DA64:7:4 EC2:?:?8 7@C @77:46CD @G6C E96 =2DE D6G6C2= J62CD]k^Am

    kAmqC25= D2:5 @? yF?6 b_[ A@=:46 @77:46CD H6C6 G:6H65 @? E96:C A9@?6D E6IE:?8 2E E96 D9@@E:?8 D46?6 2?5 9:D E62> H2?ED E96 >6DD286D]k^Am

    kAmqC25= 25565 E92E 96 36=:6G6D E96C6 H6C6 2=D@ E6IE >6DD286D 6I492?865 36EH66? pJ=2:2? 2?5 E96 @77:46CD H9@ D6CG65 E96 C6DEC2:?:?8 @C56C =625:?8 FA E@ E96 @77:46CD’ 2CC:G2= 2E E96 9@FD6] qC25= C6BF6DE65 E9@D6 >6DD286D 36 AC@5F465 2D H6==]k^Am

    kAmx? E96 DA64:7:4 5:D4@G6CJ >@E:@?[ E96 C6BF6DE 42==D 7@C 2== E6IE[ A9@?6[ ?@E6D 2?5 6>2:= 4@?G6CD2E:@?D @G6C E96 =2DE EH@ J62CD 36EH66? pJ=2:2? 2?5 E9@D6 @77:46CD]k^Am

    kAmqC25= C6>:?565 sC6D9D=6C 96 925 >256 2 >@E:@? @? pF8] ae[ 7@==@H:?8 u:EKD:>>@?D’ 2CC2:8?>6?E 😕 $FA6C:@C r@FCE[ E@ >2<6 2?J G:56@ 7@@E286 7C@> E96 DE2E:@? @? yF?6 b_ 2G2:=23=6] qC25= D2:5 u:EKD:>>@?D H2D 2E E96 DE2E:@? E92E 52J[ H:E9 96C 323J[ AC:@C E@ E96 D9@@E:?8 7@C 96C r!# C646CE:7:42E:@?]k^Am

    kAmu:EKD:>>@?D’ E62> C6BF6DE65 ?@E @?=J E96 G:56@ 7@@E286[ 3FE 2=D@ E96 ?2>6D 2?5 4@?E24E :?7@C>2E:@? @7 2?J @77:46C H9@ 6:E96C :?E6C24E65 @C D2H 96C 5FC:?8 E92E DA64:7:4 E:>6]k^Am

    kAm~? $6AE] `g[ qC25= D2:5 DE2E6 AC@D64FE@C y2>6D vF3:E@D6 E@=5 9:> E96 DE2E:@? G:56@ H2D @?=J 2G2:=23=6 324< E@ yF=J d]k^Am

    kAmq2D65 @? >2E9[ qC25= D2:5 E96 yF?6 b_ G:56@ D9@F=5 92G6 366? 2G2:=23=6 H96? 7:CDE C6BF6DE65 😕 pF8FDE[ 32D65 @? yF=J G:56@D DE:== 36:?8 D2G65 😕 $6AE6>36C] w6 DEC6DD65 E96 :>A@CE2?46 E@ 96C 5676?D6 E92E E96J 92G6 E96 G:56@]k^Am

    kAmvF3:E@D6 @3;64E65 E@ qC25=’D >@E:@? 7@C E96 G:56@ %F6D52J[ D2J:?8 96’D 4@?7:56?E E96 G:56@ ?@ =@?86C 6I:DED] xE 😀 F?4=62C 9@H @7E6? E96 56A2CE>6?E E2A6D @G6C :ED DFCG6:==2?46 G:56@D]k^Am

    kAmw6C E62> 2=D@ H2?ED E@ =@@< 2E E96 !@=:46 s6A2CE>6?E’D EC2:?:?8 C6=2E65 E@ FD6 @7 7@C46[ 5@>6DE:4 42==D[ >6?E2= 962=E9 42==D[ D6CG:46 @7 C6DEC2:?:?8 @C56CD 2?5 E2<:?8 4FDE@5J @7 49:=5C6?[ 2?5 H92E :ED A@=:4:6D 2?5 AC@465FC6D 2C6 C6=2E65 E@ E9@D6 EJA6D @7 42==D] qC25= 2?5 r@2<=6J 2=D@ H2?E 2 =:DE @7 EC2:?:?8 @776C65 @C 4@?5F4E65 3J E96 56A2CE>6?E 2?5 :7 E96 C6DA@?5:?8 @77:46CD 2EE6?565 2?J 5FC:?8 E96 =2DE D6G6? J62CD]k^Am

    kAm%96 DA64:7:4 5:D4@G6CJ >@E:@? 2=D@ 42==D 7@C E96 EC2:?:?8 C64@C5D @7 E96 E9C66 @77:46CD H9@ H6?E E@ 96C 9@FD6 H:E9 E96 C6DEC2:?:?8 @C56Ci {E] $62? s2=6J[ @77:46CD %:>@E9J w@FDE@? 2?5 !2EC:4< }@@?2?] xE 2=D@ C6BF6DED 2== 5:D4:A=:?2CJ 2?5 EC2:?:?8 C64@C5D 7C@> E96 }@CE9 p?5@G6C 2?5 {2HC6?46 A@=:46 56A2CE>6?ED 7@C }@@?2?[ E96 @77:46C H9@ D9@E u:EKD:>>@?D 😕 E96 496DE]k^Am

    kAmu:EKD:>>@?D’ 4@>A=6E6 A6CD@??6= 7:=6 H:E9 2?J 5@4F>6?ED C67=64E:?8 4@>A=2:?ED @C 56>2?5D 7@C C6=:67 >256 3J 96C 282:?DE E96 56A2CE>6?E @C 😕 C6=2E:@? E@ 96C 6>A=@J>6?E 😀 :?4=F565 😕 96C 5676?D6’D C6BF6DE 7C@> E96 DE2E6]k^Am

    kAm%96 C6BF6DED 2=D@ =@@< 7@C A9@?6 C64@C5D 7C@> H:E?6DD @77:46CD[ :?4=F5:?8 r9:67 r92C=6D vC2J[ C6=2E65 E@ E96 D9@@E:?8 2?5 9@H C6DA@?5:?8 @77:46CD E@ u:EKD:>>@?D’ 9@>6 @? yF?6 b_ H6C6 5:D4:A=:?65 5F6 E@ E96 :?4:56?E]k^Am

    kAmp 5:D4@G6CJ >@E:@? 962C:?8 😀 D4965F=65 7@C s64] `h 😕 tDD6I r@F?EJ $FA6C:@C r@FCE 29625 @7 E96 EC:2=]k^Am

    By Angelina Berube | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Federal judge asked to strike down firearm age restrictions

    BOSTON — A coalition of gun rights groups are asking a federal judge to strike down Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of handguns to anyone age 18 to 20 in response to a federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal ban.

    In a filing in U.S. District Court, the Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups ask the judge to grant an injunction blocking the state’s age-based prohibitions from being enforced. The groups argue that the 18 to 20 age group is protected by the Second Amendment and that there is “historical tradition” supporting the states restrictions.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“x? DF>[ `gE@a_J62C@=5D 2C6 A2CE @7 ‘E96 A6@A=6’ H:E9 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ H6==6DE23=:D965 2?5 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 7@F?5:?86C2 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? E92E E96 DE2E6 4@F=5 A@DD:3=J A@:?E E@ E92E H@F=5 ;FDE:7J AC@9:3:E:?8 E96> A@DD6DD:?8 2?5 42CCJ:?8 7:C62C>D @? 2? 6BF2= 7@@E:?8 H:E9 @E96C 25F=E 4:E:K6?D[” =2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 E96 acA286 4@FCE 7:=:?8]k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA’D >@E:@? 7@C 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E 😀 E96 =2E6DE =682= G@==6J 😕 2 =2HDF:E 7:=65 😕 u63CF2CJ @? 3692=7 @7 2? `gJ62C@=5 qC6HDE6C >2? H9@ 92D 2 DE2E6 7:C62C> :56?E:7:42E:@? 42C5] qFE 3642FD6 @7 9:D 286[ 96 42??@E 3FJ 2?5 42CCJ 2 92?58F? 7@C A6CD@?2= 5676?D6[ @C 2 D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@? H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm|:?@CD 286D `d E@ `f 42? 86E 2 =:>:E65 7:C62C> xs 7@C C:7=6D 2?5 D9@E8F?D 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8 H:E9 E96 A6C>:DD:@? @7 2 A2C6?E @C 8F2C5:2?]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 C6DEC:4E:@?D 92G6 =@?8 366? E2C86E65 3J 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD H9@ 2C8F6 E92E :7 `gJ62C@=5D 42? 6?=:DE 😕 E96 >:=:E2CJ 2?5 36 D6?E @77 E@ 7:89E[ E96J D9@F=5 36 23=6 E@ 6I6C4:D6 E96:C $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2D 4:G:=:2?D]k^Am

    kAmx? y2?F2CJ[ E96 u:7E9 r:C4F:E &]$] r@FCE @7 pAA62=D DECF4< 5@H? 2 =@?8DE2?5:?8 7656C2= 32? E92E AC6G6?E65 E96 D2=6 @7 92?58F?D E@ p>6C:42?D 36EH66? E96 286D @7 `g 2?5 a_[ CF=:?8 E92E E96 7656C2= =2H 32??:?8 92?58F? D2=6D E@ E66?D 😀 :?4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 ?2E:@?’D 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? 2?5 G:@=2E6D E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 ;F586D 2=D@ 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 42D6 😀 23@FE 6?5:?8 |2DD249FD6EED’ 2FE9@C:E2C:2?[ 28632D65 2EE24< @? A624623=6 25F=ED[” qC2?5@? r@>3D[ E96 8C@FA’D AC6D:56?E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 DE2E6’D 32? :D?’E ;FDE F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= – :E’D 2? :?DF=E E@ E96 G6CJ AC:?4:A=6D E9:D ?2E:@? H2D 3F:=E @?]”k^Am

    kAm~? q624@? w:==[ #6AF3=:42? =2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 =68:D=2E:@? E92E H@F=5 C6A62= E96 DE2E6’D `g E@ a_J62C@=5 C6DEC:4E:@?D] qFE E96 AC@A@D2= 7246D =@?8 @55D 😕 E96 s6>@4C2E:44@?EC@==65 DE2E6 {68:D=2EFC6[ H96C6 =2H>2<6CD 92G6 D@F89E E@ E:89E6? 8F? =2HD 😕 C646?E J62CD]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E 6IA2?5:?8 2446DD E@ 7:C62C>D 7@C J@F?8 25F=ED H@F=5 @?=J :?4C62D6 8F? G:@=6?46[ ?@E:?8 E92E 92?58F?D 2C6 E96 >@DE 4@>>@?=J FD65 H62A@?D 😕 >FC56CD 2?5 >2DD D9@@E:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96J 2=D@ ?@E6 E92E E96 >2;@C:EJ @7 >2DD D9@@E:?8D 2C6 42CC:65 @FE 3J J@F?8 25F=ED 2?5 4:E6 D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49 D9@H:?8 E92E 3C2:? 56G6=@A>6?E 😀 ?@E 7F==J 4@>A=6E6 2E `g J62CD @=5 E@ 2C8F6 E96J 42??@E 36 ECFDE65 E@ FD6 8F?D D276=J]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Bondi targets James Comey, Letitia James in legal battle: ‘Hold… accountable for unlawful conduct’

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi demanded legal action Monday against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, speaking at an event in Memphis where she was highlighting the work of the city’s “Safe Task Force.”

    Bondi’s comments came after U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the criminal indictments against Comey and James, and ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases, Lindsey Halligan, had not been lawfully appointed.

    The judge agreed with Comey’s defense, which argued that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, meaning the indictments were defective.

    COMEY AND JAMES CHALLENGE TRUMP APPOINTEE’S LEGITIMACY IN FEDERAL COURT HEARING

    “We’ll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal, to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct,” Bondi told reporters.

    “I’m not worried about someone who has been charged with a very serious crime,” she continued. “His alleged actions were a betrayal of public trust,” Bondi added.

    Comey was indicted in September 2025 on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional inquiry. This stemmed from his 2018 testimony about the origins of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

    DOJ DEFENDS TRUMP TRUTH SOCIAL POST AS COMEY SEEKS TO HAVE CASE DISMISSED

    President Donald Trump listens during remarks by Argentina’s President Javier Milei in the White House Cabinet Room.

    U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as Argentina’s President Javier Milei (not pictured) speaks during a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 14. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

    This was the probe into possible ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

    Comey has denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that his statements were “truthful to the best of my recollection” and calling the case “a political hit job, not a pursuit of justice.”

    Letitia James was separately indicted in October 2025 on mortgage and bank-fraud counts, accused of misrepresenting a Virginia home purchase as a secondary residence in 2020 to secure more favorable loan terms.

    Prosecutors allege she benefited by nearly $19,000 over the life of the loan.

    JAMES COMEY SEEKS TO DISMISS HIS CRIMINAL CASE, CITING ‘VINDICTIVE’ PROSECUTION

    Attorney General Pam Bondi

    Attorney General Pam Bondi is sworn in before a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2025. (Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo)

    Defense teams for both Comey and James have argued that the prosecutions were flawed, citing procedural irregularities and Halligan’s disputed appointment.

    Halligan, a former Trump legal aide, was the only federal prosecutor to sign Comey’s indictment, acting as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    On Monday in Memphis, Bondi acknowledged Halligan, defending her credentials and role.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    “We have made Lindsay Halligan a special US attorney so she is in court, she can fight in court just like she was, and we believe we will be successful on appeal,” Bondi said.

    “And I’ll tell you, Lindsay Halligan, I talked to all of our US attorneys, the majority of them around the country, and Lindsay Halligan is an excellent US attorney. And shame on them for not wanting her in office. Thank you,” she added.

    Source link

  • DiZoglio launches effort to pry open Beacon Hill

    BOSTON — With her voter-approved audit of the Legislature stalled, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is leading a new effort to pry open Beacon Hill’s secret legislative process.

    The Methuen Democrat has launched a ballot initiative to make the House of Representatives, Senate and the governor’s office subject to the state’s public records law and she said supporters have cleared a major hurdle to the 2026 ballot by collecting more than 100,000 signatures from registered voters.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“*@F A2J E2I6D[ D@ J@F 92G6 2 C:89E E@ 65:2 2??@F?4:?8 E96 677@CE] “%C2?DA2C6?4J[ 244@F?E23:=:EJ[ 2?5 2446DD:3:=:EJ >2EE6C]”k^Am

    kAmp DF>>2CJ @7 s:+@8=:@’D AC@A@D2= D2:5 :E H@F=5 >2<6 “>@DE C64@C5D” 96=5 3J E96 {68:D=2EFC6 2?5 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46 DF3;64E E@ C6BF6DE 3J E96 >65:2 2?5 AF3=:4]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D AC@A@D65 =2H H@F=5 6I6>AE 5@4F>6?ED C6=2E65 E@ E96 56G6=@A>6?E @7 AF3=:4 A@=:4J 2?5 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 36EH66? =68:D=2E@CD 2?5 E96:C 4@?DE:EF6?ED[ :7 E9@D6 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 2C6 C62D@?23=J C6=2E65 E@ 2 4@?DE:EF6?E’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2DD:DE2?46 😕 @3E2:?:?8 8@G6C?>6?EAC@G:565 36?67:ED @C D6CG:46D @C :?E6C24E:?8 H:E9 2 8@G6C?>6?E 286?4J[” E96 AC@A@D2= C625D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 😀 E96 @?=J DE2E6 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ H96C6 E96 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46[ {68:D=2EFC6 2?5 ;F5:4:2CJ 2== 4=2:> E96J 2C6 6I6>AE 7C@> E96 AF3=:4 C64@C5D =2H] %9:D 92D =65 @A6? 8@G6C?>6?E 8C@FAD E@ 4@?D:DE6?E=J =236= :ED u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D 2D E96 H62<6DE 😕 E96 ?2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm{2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 3:==D 😕 E96 A2DE E@ @A6? FA 2== E9C66 3C2?496D @7 8@G6C?>6?E E@ E96 C64@C5D =2HD[ 3FE E96J 72:=65 E@ 82:? EC24E:@?] v@@5 8@G6C?>6?E 8C@FAD 92G6 C68F=2C=J FC865 v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J 2?5 =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD E@ AC@G:56 >@C6 EC2?DA2C6?4J @7 E96:C :??6C H@C<:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6’D AF3=:4 C64@C5D =2H H2D @G6C92F=65 😕 a_`e E@ :>AC@G6 2446DD E@ :?7@C>2E:@? 2?5 >2<6 :E 92C56C 7@C DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?E E@ D9:6=5 :?7@C>2E:@?]k^Am

    kAmqFE E96 {68:D=2EFC6 564:565 E@ =62G6 :ED @H? 6I6>AE:@? :?E24E[ 2D H6== 2D E9@D6 7@C E96 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46 2?5 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAmtI6>AE:@?D E@ AF3=:4 C64@C5D 2?5 @A6? >66E:?8 =2HD >62? E96 DE2E6’D E@A 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D 42? 5@ >F49 @7 E96:C H@C< 369:?5 4=@D65 5@@CD]k^Am

    kAms6>@4C2ED H9@ 9@=5 2 >2;@C:EJ 😕 3@E9 E96 DE2E6 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 $6?2E6[ 7@C 6I2>A=6[ 42? 5:D4FDD 3:==D 2?5 E96 DE2E6 3F586E 369:?5 4=@D65 5@@CD] ~7E6?[ ?@ C64@C5D 2C6 <6AE]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6’D @A6? >66E:?8 =2H C6BF:C6D @E96C 8@G6C?>6?E2= 3@5:6D E@ 2==@H E96 AF3=:4 E@ 2EE6?5 2?J >66E:?8 😕 H9:49 2 >2EE6C F?56C :ED ;FC:D5:4E:@? 😀 5:D4FDD65]k^Am

    kAm{2H>2<6CD @7E6? 4@?G6?6 E96? G@E6 E@ 8@ :?E@ 4=@D65 D6DD:@? H:E9 =:EE=6 6IA=2?2E:@?[ 32CC:?8 E96 AF3=:4 2?5 ?6HD C6A@CE6CD]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Opinion | Israel Proves the Danger of an ‘Independent’ Justice System

    The Supreme Court could be enabling a criminal conspiracy to prosecute IDF reservists unjustly.

    Avi Bell

    Source link

  • Gang member pleads guilty to having machine gun

    BOSTON — A Trinitarios gang member from Lawrence pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to illegal possession of a loaded Uzi machine gun.

    Derek Mercado, 20, pleaded guilty to a count of possession of a machine gun, according to a statement from U.S. Attorney Leah Foley.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmw6 😀 ?@H D4965F=65 7@C D6?E6?4:?8 @? u63] `g 367@C6 &]$] $6?:@C s:DEC:4E r@FCE yF586 }2E92?:6= |] v@CE@?]k^Am

    kAmu@=6J D2:5 |6C425@ C6>2:?D 😕 DE2E6 4FDE@5J 7@C 5@>6DE:4 G:@=6?46 @776?D6D]k^Am

    kAmpFE9@C:E:6D 4@?7:C>65 |6C425@ 😀 2 >6>36C @7 E96 %C:?:E2C:@D 82?8[ 2 G:@=6?E 4C:>:?2= 6?E6CAC:D6 C6DA@?D:3=6 7@C ?F>6C@FD >FC56CD 2?5 24ED @7 G:@=6?46 24C@DD |2DD249FD6EED]k^Am

    kAm~? |2J e[ 2? 2=6CE E@ 2CC6DE |6C425@ H2D 3C@2542DE 3J =2H 6?7@C46>6?E 7@==@H:?8 2 C6A@CE @7 2 5@>6DE:4 G:@=6?46 :?4:56?E] %96 G:4E:> C6A@CE65 |6C425@ H2D 😕 A@DD6DD:@? @7 2 7:C62C> 😕 2 8C66? 5F776= 328] pE E96 E:>6[ |6C425@ H2D H2?E65 @? H2CC2?ED @? EH@ F?C6=2E65 >2EE6CD[ 2FE9@C:E:6D D2:5]k^Am

    kAm|6C425@ H2D =2E6C D66? =62G:?8 2 9@>6 H9:=6 A@DD6DD:?8 2 8C66? 5F776= 328] w6 H2D E2<6? :?E@ 4FDE@5J 2?5 2? xDC26= |:=:E2CJ x?5FDEC:6D &K: >@56= DF3>249:?6 8F? 4@?E2:?:?8 2? 6IE6?565 >282K:?6 =@2565 H:E9 ac C@F?5D H2D C64@G6C65 😕 E96 8C66? 328] %96 &K: H2D =2E6C E6DE 7:C65 2?5 56E6C>:?65 E@ 36 2 7F?4E:@?2= >249:?6 8F?[ u@=6J D2:5]k^Am

    kAmx? pF8FDE a_ac[ E96 &]$] pEE@C?6J’D ~77:46 492C865 E9C66 >6>36CD @7 E96 {2HC6?46 r92AE6C @7 E96 %C:?:E2C:@D 😕 4@??64E:@? H:E9 2? 2==6865 2C>65 C@336CJ]k^Am

    kAmx? u63CF2CJ[ ?62C=J EH@ 5@K6? >6>36CD @7 E96 {J?? 492AE6C @7 E96 %C:?:E2C:@D H6C6 2=D@ 492C865 3J E96 &]$] pEE@C?6J’D ~77:46 H:E9 2==6865=J 4@>>:EE:?8 D:I >FC56CD 😕 {J?? 2?5 {2HC6?46 2?5 😕 yF?6[ EH@ %C:?:E2C:@D >6>36CD H6C6 492C865 H:E9 4@>>:EE:?8 2 <:5?2AA:?8 😕 p?5@G6C[ u@=6J D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 492C86 @7 A@DD6DD:?8 2 >249:?6 8F? 42CC:6D 2 D6?E6?46 @7 FA E@ `_ J62CD 😕 AC:D@?[ FA E@ E9C66 J62CD @7 DFA6CG:D65 C6=62D6 2?5 2 7:?6 @7 FA E@ Sad_[___]k^Am

    kAmpDD:DE2?E &]$] pEE@C?6J !9:=:A |2==2C5 @7 E96 ~C82?:K65 rC:>6 2?5 v2?8 &?:E 😀 AC@D64FE:?8 E96 42D6]k^Am

    By Jill Harmacinski | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Chatbot Crackdown: How California is responding to the rise of AI

    California is quickly becoming a national leader in figuring out how families, educators, and lawmakers should adapt to life with artificial intelligence. From new classroom conversations to the state’s first major chatbot regulations, many are grappling with how to keep up with technology that moves faster than ever.Families Navigating AI at HomeRemember the dial-up days? Today, technology evolves in an instant—and many parents are struggling to keep pace.David and Rachelle Young have set strict rules for their 7-year-old daughter Dyllan’s online use.“Kids have a lot of access to the internet, and they can be shown something that we wouldn’t normally approve of, and that’s really scary,” Rachelle Young said.David says his daughter’s world looks nothing like what he had at her age—making parental guidance more important than ever.Lawmakers Respond: A New Chatbot CrackdownConcerns about children talking to AI-powered chatbots have reached the state Capitol.Senator Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson co-authored SB 243, signed into law this fall, marking California’s first major attempt at regulating chatbot interactions.The new law requires companies to: Report safety concerns—such as when a user expresses thoughts of self-harm Clearly notify users that they are talking to a computer, not a person“They don’t want you to turn your phone off. They want you to think that you’re talking to a real friend, but they don’t have that same level of morality,” she said. Her concerns stem from real-world consequences: last year, a 14-year-old in Florida took his own life after forming what his family described as a “relationship” with a chatbot.Inside the Classroom: Understanding AI’s InfluenceAt UC Davis, Associate Professor Jingwen Zhang is tackling these issues head-on. She created a course examining how social media, artificial intelligence and chatbots shape human behavior.”Children used to form social relationships by talking in person or texting. Now they’re having similar levels of conversations with chatbots,” she said.Zhang says SB 243 is a strong first step but believes more protections are needed—especially for minors.She recommends future regulations that: Create stricter guardrails for what topics children can discuss with AI Limit exposure to sensitive or harmful content Add tighter controls for minor accountsA Rapidly Changing LandscapeParents, educators, and policymakers all agree: keeping up with AI will require constant learning.“We have to get to a place where companies are rolling out things that will not hurt the future generation,” Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson said.What’s Changing NextParents told KCRA 3 they want schools to start teaching more about AI safety and digital literacy.Starting this month, the popular Character AI platform is rolling out several major changes: Users under 18 will no longer be able to participate in open-ended chat Younger users will face a two-hour daily limit See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California is quickly becoming a national leader in figuring out how families, educators, and lawmakers should adapt to life with artificial intelligence.

    From new classroom conversations to the state’s first major chatbot regulations, many are grappling with how to keep up with technology that moves faster than ever.

    Families Navigating AI at Home

    Remember the dial-up days? Today, technology evolves in an instant—and many parents are struggling to keep pace.

    David and Rachelle Young have set strict rules for their 7-year-old daughter Dyllan’s online use.

    “Kids have a lot of access to the internet, and they can be shown something that we wouldn’t normally approve of, and that’s really scary,” Rachelle Young said.

    David says his daughter’s world looks nothing like what he had at her age—making parental guidance more important than ever.

    Lawmakers Respond: A New Chatbot Crackdown

    Concerns about children talking to AI-powered chatbots have reached the state Capitol.

    Senator Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson co-authored SB 243, signed into law this fall, marking California’s first major attempt at regulating chatbot interactions.

    The new law requires companies to:

    • Report safety concerns—such as when a user expresses thoughts of self-harm
    • Clearly notify users that they are talking to a computer, not a person

    “They don’t want you to turn your phone off. They want you to think that you’re talking to a real friend, but they don’t have that same level of morality,” she said.

    Her concerns stem from real-world consequences: last year, a 14-year-old in Florida took his own life after forming what his family described as a “relationship” with a chatbot.

    Inside the Classroom: Understanding AI’s Influence

    At UC Davis, Associate Professor Jingwen Zhang is tackling these issues head-on.

    She created a course examining how social media, artificial intelligence and chatbots shape human behavior.

    “Children used to form social relationships by talking in person or texting. Now they’re having similar levels of conversations with chatbots,” she said.

    Zhang says SB 243 is a strong first step but believes more protections are needed—especially for minors.

    She recommends future regulations that:

    • Create stricter guardrails for what topics children can discuss with AI
    • Limit exposure to sensitive or harmful content
    • Add tighter controls for minor accounts

    A Rapidly Changing Landscape

    Parents, educators, and policymakers all agree: keeping up with AI will require constant learning.

    “We have to get to a place where companies are rolling out things that will not hurt the future generation,” Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson said.

    What’s Changing Next

    Parents told KCRA 3 they want schools to start teaching more about AI safety and digital literacy.

    Starting this month, the popular Character AI platform is rolling out several major changes:

    • Users under 18 will no longer be able to participate in open-ended chat
    • Younger users will face a two-hour daily limit

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Trump calls Democrats ‘traitors’ for urging military to ‘refuse illegal orders’

    President Trump on Thursday said he believed Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged active service members to “refuse illegal orders” amounted to seditious behavior, which he said should be punishable by death.

    “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump said in a social media post.

    Trump went on to amplify more than a dozen social media posts from other people, who in reaction to Trump’s post called for the Democrats to be arrested, charged and in one instance hanged. Trump then continued: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

    The president’s remarks were in reaction to a joint video released by six Democrat lawmakers in which they urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”

    The Democratic lawmakers who released the video — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Alyssa Slotkin, Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Deluzio, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow — served in the military or as intelligence officers.

    They did not specify which orders they were referring to. But they said the Trump administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professional against American citizens” and that threats to the Constitution were coming “from right here at home.”

    The video, which was posted on Tuesday, quickly drew criticism from Republicans, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who characterized it as “Stage 4 [Trump Derangement Syndrome].” But Trump, who first reacted to the video on Thursday, saw the video as more than partisan speech.

    “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” Trump said in another post.

    When asked Thursday if the president wanted to execute members of Congress, as suggested in one of his social media posts, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said “no.”

    But, Leavitt said, the president does want to see them be “held accountable.”

    “That is a very, very dangerous message and it is perhaps punishable by law,” Leavitt said. “I’ll leave that to the Department of justice and the Department of War to decide.”

    What the law says

    Under a federal law known as “seditious conspiracy,” it is a crime for two or more individuals to “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States” or to “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force.

    A seditious conspiracy charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

    Federal courts and legal scholars have long emphasized that seditious conspiracy charges apply only to coordinated efforts to use force against the government, rather than political dissent.

    The last time federal prosecutors pursued seditious conspiracy charges was in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges for plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.

    Among the convicted individuals was former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, whose 22-year sentence was the stiffest of any of the Jan. 6 rioters. Trump pardoned him earlier this year.

    Hours after the president’s posts, the six Democratic lawmakers issued a joint statement, calling on Americans to “unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.”

    “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” the lawmakers said in a statement posted to X. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”

    Democratic leaders in Washington and across the country denounced Trump’s post.

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement with other Democratic leaders that Trump’s comments were “disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress.” They added that they had been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the Democrat lawmakers and their families.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to the posts by saying Trump “is sick in the head” for calling for the death of Democratic lawmakers.

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • How This Startup Landed a $300 Million Valuation After Pivoting to ChatGPT

    Like many early adopters, Benjamin Alarie was working with artificial intelligence well before it hit the mainstream. A business law professor at the University of Toronto, he founded the legal tech startup Blue J in 2015 with hopes of applying predictive AI to tax law.

    But only a few years later, generative artificial intelligence—the segment of AI best exemplified by ChatGPT, Claude and other text-generating chatbots—was finally taking off. Users were buying in, private capital was flowing and what had once been a powerful but unflashy software segment was suddenly the center of a consumer-facing boom.

    By then, Alarie told VentureBeat in a recent profile, Blue J had hit a ceiling, with revenue leveling off at around $2 million a year. So he made a high-stakes gamble and went all-in on the emerging genAI trend.

    “Large language models seemed like a very promising direction,” Alarie says of his pivot. Blue J’s earlier tech, predictive machine learning, couldn’t answer every question users asked of it—“Which was really the holy grail,” the Blue J chief executive explains—leading customers to abandon the tool when it let them down.

    Says Alarie: “I had this conviction that if we continued down that path, we weren’t going to be able to address our number one limitation.”

    Yet the generative AI boom offered a way out. After giving his team six months to get him a new product, and then honing the resulting system’s outputs over the last few years, Alarie says that by now he’s cut Blue J’s response time down from a minute and a half to just seconds, and more than quadrupled its net promoter score from 20 to over 80.

    He also credits a partnership with software giant OpenAI, which gives Blue J early access to cutting-edge artificial intelligence models in exchange for real-world feedback.

    It’s all paid off for the company. VentureBeat reports that Blue J’s $122 million Series D, announced this summer, secured the legal tech startup a valuation over $300 million. More than 3,500 different organizations are reportedly on the firm’s client list, including several Fortune 500 companies.

    “What once took tax professionals 15 hours of manual research to do can now be completed in about 15 seconds,” Alarie told VentureBeat. “That value proposition—we can take hours of work and turn it into seconds of work—that is driving a lot of this.”

    Brian Contreras

    Source link

  • Commentary: Justice has no expiration date. That’s why 2020 election fraud still matters

    In the days and weeks after the 2020 election, partisans across the country used lies and deceit to try to defraud the American people and steal the White House.

    Although Joe Biden was the clear and unequivocal winner, racking up big margins in the popular vote and electoral college, 84 fake electors signed statements certifying that Donald Trump had carried their seven battleground states.

    He did not.

    The electoral votes at issue constituted nearly a third of the number needed to win the presidency and would have been more than enough to reverse Biden’s victory, granting Trump a second term against the wishes of most voters.

    To some, the attempted election theft is old (and eagerly buried) news.

    The events that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to block Biden from taking office occurred half a decade ago, the shovel wielders might say, making them as relevant as those faded social-distancing stickers you still see in some stores. Besides, Trump was given a second turn in the White House by a plurality of voters in 2024.

    But it’s only old news if you believe that justice and integrity carry an expiration date, wrongdoing is fine with the passage of enough time and the foundational values of our country and its democracy — starting with fair and honest elections — matter only to the extent they help your political side prevail.

    It bears repeating: “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”

    Which is why punishment and deterrence are so important.

    Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the criminal case against six Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. Those charged include Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid.

    The ruling focused on a procedural matter: whether the charges should have been brought in Douglas County, where the fake certificates were signed in the state capital — Carson City — or in Clark County, where they were submitted at a courthouse in Las Vegas. A lower court ruled the charges should have been brought in Douglas County and dismissed the case. The high court reversed the decision, allowing the prosecution on forgery charges to proceed.

    As well it should. Let a jury decide.

    Of course, the Nevada Six and other phony electors are but small fry. The ringleader and attempted-larcenist-in-chief — Donald “Find Me 11,780 Votes” Trump — escaped liability by winning the 2024 election.

    This month, he pardoned scores of fake electors and others involved in the attempted election heist — including his bumbling ex-attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani — for any potential federal crimes. The move was purely symbolic; Trump’s pardoning power does not extend to cases brought in state courts.

    But it was further evidence of his abundant contempt for the rule of law. (Just hours after taking office, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 defendants — including some who brutalized cops with pepper spray and wooden and metal poles — who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.)

    Efforts around the country to prosecute even those low-level schemers, cheaters and 2020 election miscreants have produced mixed results.

    In Michigan, a judge threw out the criminal case against 15 phony electors, ruling the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they intended to commit fraud.

    In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certification came with a caveat. It said the documentation was submitted in the event they were recognized as legitimate electors. The issue was moot once Trump lost his fight to overturn the election, though some in Trump’s orbit hoped the phony certifications would help pressure Pence.

    Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, looks askance at many of the cases that prosecutors have brought, suggesting the ballot box — rather than a courtroom — may be the better venue to litigate the matter.

    “There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “I don’t have easy answers about which kinds of things should or shouldn’t be prosecuted in a particular moment, except to say if it’s something novel” — like these 2020 cases — “having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”

    Other cases grind on.

    Three fake electors are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on forgery charges next month in Wisconsin. Fourteen defendants — including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general must decide this week whether to move forward with a case against 11 people after a judge tossed out an indictment because of how the case was presented to grand jurors.

    Justice in the case of the 2020 election has been far from sure and swift. But that’s no reason to relent.

    The penalty for hijacking a plane is a minimum of 20 years in federal prison. That seems excessive for the fake electors.

    But dozens of bad actors tried to hijack an election. They shouldn’t be let off scot-free.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Justice Department sues to block laws restricting masked, unidentified law enforcement officers in California

    The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

    The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

    Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

    “California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

    The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

    The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

    “Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

    Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

    “The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

    Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

    The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

    In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

    “Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

    Katie King

    Source link