The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) aims to help conservative judges in six states this fall with a seven-figure ad buy, according to a press release first obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The effort has become critical for Republicans in recent years due to efforts led by former President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder to use courts to reshape congressional districts, particularly in red states.

“We know that redistricting is no longer a ten-year battle; it is a yearly fight. That is why we must elect more constitutional conservatives in state Supreme Court races across the country this year to prevent liberals backed by millions in dark money from overturning conservative-led benches,” said Dee Duncan, president of RLSC’s Judicial Fairness Initiative (JFI). “JFI remains committed to electing conservative judges who will fight to keep justice blind and prevent Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s handpicked cronies from tipping the balance of power in these critical battleground judicial states in 2024.”

The RLSC is focusing on judicial races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.

State supreme courts have become a particular target for Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NRDC).

“State Supreme Courts have the power to review and, if necessary, overturn redistricting plans that are unfair or unconstitutional,” the NRDC’s website states. “Having a fair-minded court is vital to upholding democratic principles.”

NRDC views North Carolina’s supreme court as “ideological,” and lists the state as an electoral priority this fall along with Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Texas elections.

NRDC has also teamed up with Planned Parenthood Action Fund to elect judges favorable to abortion and the transgender agenda to state supreme courts, according to a joint press release in May.

“We are in the fight of our lives to protect and restore our fundamental freedoms — and our courts are the front lines,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in the May press release. “Opponents of abortion access, LGBTQ+ equality, and democracy itself are tilting the scales of justice by stacking courts that will carry out their destructive agendas. If this continues, we will surely see more devastating decisions upholding abortion bans, limiting care like IVF, and denying transgender people their dignity. We cannot afford to lose the fight for fair, unbiased courts.”

WATCH:

The RSLC also released a video Friday that will be part of its ad campaign, which says the judicial initiative is the “first line of defense” in a “fight to keep justice blind, not politically motivated.”

“America’s courts are under siege, radical liberals led by Barack Obama and Eric Holder are weaponizing the rule of law, redrawing maps, tipping the scales, and forcing through their agenda,” the narrator in the ad says.

“The battle for our courts is the battle for our future,” the ad concludes.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The Biden-appointed judge who wrote this absurd decision repeatedly used the propaganda term “sex assigned at birth,” as if sex were arbitrary and merely “assigned” to a newborn. On the contrary, biological science teaches that sex is determined long prior to birth, and does not change.

The transgender issue is boiling over in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, after earlier dodging this same transgender case and at least two others, sat on an emergency application by Idaho for an unusually long time of nearly two months before rendering a decision Monday that ducked the substance of a conservative Idaho law.

Two dozen states, including Idaho, have enacted laws protecting children against transgender operations and treatment, while the Supreme Court sidesteps the issue. Most of these laws have been challenged in federal courts by groups pushing the trans agenda, and the day after last Christmas a Clinton-appointed judge ordered a sweeping injunction blocking enforcement of Idaho HB 71.

But rather than affirm the authority of states to protect vulnerable children against irrevocable medical interventions, the Supreme Court instead rendered merely a procedural decision that cautioned against overly broad injunctions. In splintered opinions that Chief Justice Roberts refused to join, the high court reined in the Idaho federal district court without addressing the substance of the law.

There are billions of dollars at stake in profits from medical interventions for transgender purposes, and anyone in higher education who criticizes this lucrative field would risk losing career opportunities. By a wide margin, the most pro-transgender jurisdiction in our country is Washington, D.C., which might explain why the GOP-controlled House and Supreme Court have been so weak on this issue.

Three years ago Arkansas was the first state to ban transgender procedures on children, yet federal courts have still not allowed its good law to take effect. In an en banc sitting of 10 judges on the 8th Circuit last Thursday to review this law, nearly all of the Republican-appointed judges were unwilling to ask substantive questions of the ACLU attorney for the transgender plaintiff.

With Republican-appointed judges silent as though on the sidelines, the questioning was dominated by the court’s most liberal member, Obama-appointed Judge Jane Kelly, who apparently thinks the Arkansas law somehow discriminates on the basis of sex. Such a ruling by the court would trigger the difficult-to-satisfy standard of heightened scrutiny, by which legislation is typically invalidated.

Leftists who deny sex differences try to invalidate laws they don’t like by concocting arguments that they are discriminatory. Meanwhile the transgender culture holds a grip on D.C., and on most federal courts which depend on liberal law schools for their clerks.

On Friday, the Democrat governor of Kansas vetoed a bill protecting minors against transgender treatments and surgeries, even though a similar bill has passed in half of our country, overriding a governor’s veto in four states. Laws enacted in Kentucky and Tennessee were upheld by an appellate court, while a similar law in Alabama was reinstated by a different appellate court because the district court applied an incorrect standard to block it.

Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the Kansas state Senate, but the vote will be close in its state House. The outcome may depend on which legislators happen to be in attendance on the day that an override vote is held there.

Trump held a spectacular rally on Saturday evening in northeast Pennsylvania, considered by Biden to be his backyard where he grew up. There is even a President Biden Expressway in nearby Scranton, although a petition to restore the highway’s original name has attracted 17,000 signatures.

Trump attracted a vast overflow crowd on the chilly evening, withstanding a blustery wind that created challenges for Trump’s airplane to land there. Trump scored many points talking about energy, explaining how Biden’s war on coal and oil have caused runaway inflation and hurt many in Pennsylvania.

Trump courageously spoke out against the trans agenda and vowed to cut off funding of schools that impose transgender indoctrination on students. Trump included the trans agenda along with critical race theory as propaganda the federal government should not be funding.

Trump is the first major candidate to pledge to defund schools that mislead our children with transgender and other leftist ideologies. It is increasingly necessary to use the power of the purse to stop the transgender train.

From the start, it was understood by the Founders that the greatest potential for such a threat to manifest itself on the new Republic was posed by the judiciary. And almost immediately, their fears began being validated. Examples of such go all the way back to the early 1800s, with efforts by the Nation’s high courts to “reinterpret” (reinvent) the “Commerce Clause” as a means of totally negating the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That amendment flatly stipulates that powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are strictly prohibited to it, thus limiting its ability to wantonly seize total control over “We the People.” Of course this had to change.

Simply stated, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.” Rather quickly, courts began claiming the Commerce Clause as a “carte blanche” to totally dominate and control any legislation and/or individual who might be involved in any commercial activity that ever crossed state lines. Eventually, during the Supreme Court activism of the Roosevelt years, that was expanded to give the Government control of any action that even had a mere “potential” to cross state lines.

Other similar over-reaches by the Court have occurred, each with its own track record of devastation to America’s foundations and traditions, including the excruciating twisting and contorting of the First Amendment to ostensibly establish a “wall of separation between Church and State.” That has been invoked as the pretext for the prohibition of even so innocuous a rejoinder as “Merry Christmas!” in public schools, though kids are now pummeled with the Koran along with every perverse precept of the religion of the counterculture.

However, the evil “crown jewel” of judicial activism was inarguably the Supreme Court’s infamous and Constitutionally indefensible “Roe v. Wade” decision of 1973. With it, a handful of “justices” legalized the wanton slaughter of tens of millions of unborn human babies, claiming as their “Constitutional” pretext the “emanations of the umbra” of the Fourteenth Amendment. In simple terms, that translates to the “mists from the shadow.” And with that flimsy excuse, the Supreme Court sanctioned full scale genocide of the unborn!

Thankfully, Roe has since been overturned, allowing States to enact laws protecting the most defenseless and innocent among them. Yet the Pandora’s Box of Roe v. Wade remains wide open, and on too regular of a basis, the demons of judicial over-reach and abuse of official power escape from it. If not forcefully confronted and corrected, the threats we currently see being levied against President Trump will be only the beginning. Ultimately, they pose an existential threat to the freedom and liberty of every decent American who seeks to speak the truth and uphold the law.

The recent avalanche of court cases and contrived accusations against the President represent an ugly and dangerous case in point. None of them involve any interest by those attacking the President to uphold the law or make the streets of America safer for law-abiding citizens. Rather, they are a flagrant effort to prevent a very popular and (if elections were conducted with integrity) unbeatable presidential candidate from running for public office. As such the goal of this offensive is not so much to personally harm President Trump as it is to restrict and trample the ability of all Americans to seek and achieve proper representation of their choosing.

Make no mistake about the dire circumstance in which our Nation now finds itself. Every statute and precept of proper jurisprudence and equality under the law has been flagrantly repudiated. From the list of “judges and prosecutors” who clearly exhibit bias worthy of recusal (though none have), to the phony and manufactured nature of the charges being invented, real law and justice have been totally abandoned. Currently, no wiggle room remains whereby the agenda-driven leftists of the various “courts” can offer the slightest validation of their attempts to destroy President Trump.

Ultimately, it is they who are the real criminals posing a grave danger not only to the President, but to every one of us. Just as a cop who is issued a lethal firearm and authorized to use it for self-defense and to protect others, can in no way excuse wielding that weapon and inflicting harm out of personal animosity, the “legal” system cannot be allowed to deprive innocent citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Sadly, that milestone was passed a long time ago.

In a free society, the law provides a framework within which all honest and upstanding citizens are able to live, work, and pursue their dreams. Under despotism, the law rapidly degenerates into a weapon, wielded by the powerful to oppress and control the weak. Presently, America teeters dangerously close to that awful precipice.

Bio

Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for many years, seeking to restore and uphold the Judeo-Christian principles on which our Nation was founded. His book, “Rules for Defeating Radicals,” is the “Go To” guide for effectively confronting and overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.

The former president made his appeal to New York’s Appellate Division, in the midst of a civil trial in the case that was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. In August, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that the former president fraudulently inflated the value of his properties, including Mar-a-Lago, which the former president has vigorously denied in court this week.

The judge, who last year publicly described President Trump as “a bad guy,” also ordered the cancellation of certificates that let some of President Trump’s businesses, including the Trump Organization, operate in New York.

Ms. James, a Democrat, is seeking at least $250 million in damages. She also wants the former president banned from running businesses in New York, as well as a five-year commercial real estate ban for President Trump and the Trump Organization.

However, the former president, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and others filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, which is the second highest court in New York state.

“This appeal is taken from each and every part of the Order insofar as Appellants are aggrieved,” the filing states.

On Oct. 3, Judge Engoron told the courtroom that he believes it’s likely that President Trump and the other co-defendants “strongly disagree on” parts of his ruling “and will appeal on this ground.”

“This trial is not an opportunity to relitigate what I have already decided. … that is why we have appeals,” the judge said.

The former president has notably appeared in court this week, often speaking to reporters outside the courtroom. On the morning of Oct. 4, he disputed the judge’s claims about his net worth and said “my real net worth is much higher than that, much higher than the statement.”

“This is just a continuation of the witch hunt that started the day I came down the escalator in Trump Tower,” the former president said, adding that the trial is the “beginning of communism in our country.”

Gag Order

On Oct. 3, Judge Engoron issued a partial gag order on President Trump and admonished him about a post that the former president had made on Truth Social about the judge’s clerk, Alison Greenfield.

“Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable and inappropriate. Consider this statement a gag order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing, or speaking publicly about any of my staff,” the judge said.

It came after President Trump posted a photo of Ms. Greenfield and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), asserting that she has strong connections to the longtime New York senator. The former president reportedly made the post, which was deleted on Oct. 3, while he was in the courtroom.

In a separate comment, he indicated to members of the media that he would testify during the trial “at the appropriate time.”

Before the trial’s start, Ms. James issued a statement that reiterated her civil case’s claims and alleged that President Trump “falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system.”

“We won the foundation of our case last week and proved that his purported net worth has long been rooted in incredible fraud,” she said in the statement. “In this country, there are consequences for this type of persistent fraud, and we look forward to demonstrating the full extent of his fraud and illegality during trial.”

But some real estate professionals in a CNN article published on Oct. 4 questioned Judge Engoron’s ruling that the former president overvalued Mar-a-Lago. They said that he relied on information that real estate agents don’t often use.

“Appraisal values and market values are just not the same thing. It’s a well-known fact,” Eli Beracha, the chair of Florida International University’s Hollo School of Real Estate, told CNN.

“That’s especially true for properties that are unique. And it’s very easy to argue this is a unique property,” he said, referring to the Palm Beach, Florida, resort.

Other Details

The nonjury trial concerns six remaining claims in the lawsuit and how much President Trump might owe in penalties. The judge has already ruled that some of the former president’s companies should be dissolved as punishment.

The trial could last until December, Judge Engoron has said. President Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

The former president faces four criminal indictments in Florida, Washington, Georgia, and New York. He has pleaded not guilty in all of the cases.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Judge Aileen Cannon, presiding over the case in the Southern District of Florida, denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to keep sealed filings, striking two from the record. Additionally, Cannon requested further information from prosecutors regarding the use of an out-of-state grand jury to investigate the case.

In the brief, Cannon stated, “The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view ‘to comport with grand jury secrecy,’ but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement.” Consequently, the DOJ’s request was denied.

Cannon also emphasized that the response from prosecutors should address the legality of using an out-of-district grand jury to continue the investigation or seek post-indictment hearings on matters relevant to the indicted matter in the district.

This filing was made in response to the special counsel’s request for a hearing to review defense attorney Stanley Woodward’s potential conflicts of interest. Woodward, who represents Trump aide Waltine Nauta, a co-defendant in the case, also represents three individuals who may testify in the trial.

Cannon set a deadline of August 17 for Nauta’s counsel to file a response to the motion for a hearing and until August 22 for prosecutors to file a brief supporting the hearing.

The recent developments in the case occurred approximately nine months ahead of the scheduled trial, which is set to begin in May 2024 during the Republican presidential primaries.

Trump faces 37 counts, including charges of willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Nauta, charged with six counts, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, has also pleaded not guilty. Carlos De Oliveira, the third defendant, a property manager at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, is accused by the special counsel of colluding with Trump to conceal security footage.

Special Counsel Jack Smith expressed the Department of Justice’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, stating, “Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws, collecting facts, that’s what determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more, nothing less.”

Smith also commended the prosecutors in his office for their expertise and ethical standards in investigating the case, assuring that they will continue to uphold these standards throughout the proceedings.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

“This case involved the peaceful exercise of conscience by four individuals (the Red Rose Rescuers) who object to abortion on moral and religious grounds and who understand firsthand the harm caused by this horrific procedure to both the unborn babies and their mothers. At most, this was a misdemeanor trespass case. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion prosecutor transformed it into a felony. The rescuers are now seeking justice in the Michigan Court of Appeals,” explained AFLC senior counsel Robert Muise.

The brief explains:

On June 7, 2019, [the rescuers] peacefully entered the Women’s Health Center in Flint, Michigan—an abortion center. No violent act was committed by any [rescuer]. No violent act was threatened by any [rescuer]. No [rescuer] assaulted, battered, or wounded any police officer. No [rescuer] possessed any weapons. No [rescuer] fled or attempted to flee the scene upon the arrival of the police officers. [The rescuers] were peaceful throughout. Yet, [they] are now convicted felons for what amounts to a peaceful trespass.

[The rescuers] remained on the premises of the abortion center that day to witness for life and to remain in solidarity with those who would be harmed by abortion. The police officers arrested [the rescuers] for refusing to leave the abortion center (a simple trespass charge). Upon their arrests, [the rescuers] engaged in a time-honored act reminiscent of the civil rights movement that is often described as “passive resistance,” although that description is inaccurate here because [the rescuers] offered no resistance—they simply went limp. [The rescuers] explained to the officers that they could not morally assist with their own arrests. As a matter of conscience, [the rescuers] could not assist the officers with their arrests because doing so made them morally complicit in the killing of innocent lives. But [the rescuers] did nothing that prevented the officers from exercising their police authority and arresting them. [The rescuers] were in fact arrested and carried off the property.

The legal team continued, with an explanation that “There is a difference between actively resisting or actively obstructing an arrest and simply not assisting in your own arrest, particularly when the arrestee’s conscience prohibits such active participation, as in this case.”

The protesters simply were abiding by their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The legal team, in addition to seeking reversal of the felony convictions, is seeking reversal of a lower court’s decision that denied them jury instructions on the defense of others and necessity.

AFLC co-founder David Yerushalmi added, “We all watched with horror as Antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement engaged in damaging acts of violence throughout the country with impunity. On a daily basis, we witness Leftwing, Soros-funded prosecutors turning a blind eye to serious and violent crimes, allowing their cities to become ravaged by violent criminals. Yet, here, we have a prosecutor in Flint, Michigan—a crime-ridden city—pursuing felony charges in this case. There is undoubtedly a two-tiered system of justice in our country. Something has to change.”

It was the Daily Caller News Foundation that reported only days earlier that in nearby New York, Attorney General Letitia James sued members of the Red Rose Rescue group.

James’ lawsuit argues that RRR’s history of trespassing and interference at abortion clinics makes the group dangerous and that it was her responsibility to protect New Yorkers from “terrorists.” The attorney general made the announcement during a press conference alongside Planned Parenthood New York Action Fund/Planned Parenthood Greater New York Executive Director and Chief External Affairs Officer Dipal Shah and several other abortion advocates, the foundation report said.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

“Everything is on the table,” said a committee spokesman when asked by The Epoch Times if a subpoena and potentially an additional contempt charge against FBI Director Christopher Wray or other top [DOJ] officials could result if the documents demanded in Jordan’s June 9 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland aren’t produced. Jordan has been pressing Garland and Wray for related documents for months but has yet to get them.

The abnormalities of the Mar-a-Lago raid were described to congressional investigators during a June 7 transcribed interview with Steven D’Antuono, the FBI’s former assistant director in charge of the Washington Field Office and, according to the Jordan letter, “one of the most senior FBI officials in charge of effectuating the unprecedented raid.”

“During his testimony, Mr. D’Antuono expressed strong concerns with the department’s pursuit of the raid and noted several unusual features in the department’s handling of the case,” Jordan told Garland. “Mr. D’Antuono, who had over two decades of FBI experience, noted his frustration that the FBI was going to be ‘left holding the bag again’ with respect to the search of President Trump’s residence.

“During his transcribed interview, Mr. D’Antuono detailed how he disagreed with the Justice Department’s approach to the raid and described several abnormalities about the Department’s actions in pursuing its investigation of President Trump.”

Among the abnormalities described by D’Antuono was the fact the Mar-a-Lago action was carried out by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, not the Miami Field Office, which would normally be assigned because of the Mar-a-Lago location.

D’Anuono, according to Jordan, told the committee that “FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office (WFO) despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had ‘absolutely no idea’ why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter.”

D’Antuono pointed out to the committee that bureau officials told special counsel John Durham that field offices, not FBI headquarters, should run investigations.

Another abnormality was the fact no U.S. Attorney was assigned to the case even though that was standard FBI operating procedure.

“He explained that he ‘didn’t understand why there wasn’t a U.S. Attorney assigned’ and ‘raised this concern a lot with’ department officials because this was out of the ordinary,” Jordan told Garland. “Mr. D’Antuono indicated that he ‘never got a good answer’ and was told that the National Security Division would be handling this matter.”

D’Antuono said Jay Bratt, who leads the DOJ’s counterintelligence division, functioned as the lead prosecutor on the case. Jordan noted in his letter that “Mr. Bratt is the same department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump.” He was referring to an allegation by a former Trump lawyer that Bratt was pushing another Trump attorney to become a witness against the former president.

Multiple ‘Abnormalities’ in FBI Raid

A third abnormality alleged by D’Antuono was the fact FBI line agents opposed the use of a search warrant to force entry to Mar-a-Lago, and preferred that government officials obtain prior consent from Trump before entering the premises. Jordan told Garland that D’Antuono “indicated a belief that either you or Director Christopher Wray made the decision to seek a search warrant, despite opposition from the line agents working this case in the WFO.”

A fourth abnormality was related to the third, that the FBI agents at Mar-a-Lago did not wait for the presence of a Trump lawyer before entering the former president’s residence. “Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed,” Jordan told Garland.

As a result of D’Antuono’s testimony, Jordan told Garland he wants “all documents and communications referring or relating to meetings between FBI and Justice Department officials prior to the execution of the search warrant on President Trump’s private residence, all documents and communications referring or relating to the execution of a search warrant on President Trump’s private residence, including those sent or received by the following FBI and Justice Department Officials, and all documents and communications between or among Washington Field Office agents and employees and the U.S. Secret Service about a potential search of President Trump’s residence.”

Wray barely averted a possible congressional contempt citation earlier this week when he agreed to allow members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to view an unclassified FBI document describing an informant’s description of evidence that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter accepted bribes from a Ukrainian energy executive while Biden was vice-president.

The Epoch Times has requested comment from DOJ but none was received by publication time.

A black woman worked for the gym Equinox. The company fires her, says she was late 47 times in 10 months. She says she was fired for being black. A jury just awarded her $11.25 million.

A black woman worked for the gym Equinox.

The company fires her, says she was late 47 times in 10 months. She says she was fired for being black.

A jury just awarded her $11.25 million. https://t.co/uN6iCIcilo pic.twitter.com/XcGWh39PyD

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) May 26, 2023

According to the NY Times:

Ms. Europe’s tenure at the club was short-lived; Equinox terminated her employment in less than a year because, the company said, she was late 47 times in the course of 10 months. Ms. Europe held a different view of her firing, believing that her lateness was merely a pretext for discrimination, and soon after she filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, arguing that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and eventually let go because of her race and gender. Last week, a predominantly white jury of five women and three men agreed, delivering a verdict in little over an hour. The next day they awarded her $11.25 million in damages.

The swiftness of the jury’s decision and the size of the payout — $10 million in punitive damages and $1.25 million for the distress she suffered — follow a pattern similar to the verdict reached in the same courthouse just a few weeks before, in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit against Donald J. Trump. In both instances, the process and outcome suggest the ways in which recent transformative social movements around race and gender might reframe the way that juries think about the long shadow of emotional disruption that bigotry or sexual violence can produce.

If you own a business in New York City, sell it immediately. If you live there and you value common sense, leave there as quickly as possible. The city is lost.

Lake filed a notice of appeal with the same Arizona Superior Court judge on Tuesday to challenge the dismissal of her case. Lake will also seek a direct review by the Arizona Supreme Court, according to a court filing.

Arizona Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson first ruled against Lake’s election case on Dec. 24, confirming the election of Katie Hobbs as Arizona governor-elect. He ordered Hobbs’s side to file a statement of costs and motion for sanctions before Dec. 26.

On Dec. 27, Thompson found that there wasn’t enough evidence of misconduct by Maricopa County to overturn election results in the county. His ruling came days after Lake filed her lawsuit and after Thompson allowed two of 10 election claims to go to a short two-day trial.

According to election data, Lake lost to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes. Lake filed a lawsuit against Hobbs in her capacity as the current secretary of state, Maricopa County election officials, and other officials several weeks after the midterms.

“I am standing up for the people of this state, the people who were done wrong on Election Day, and the millions of people who live outside of Maricopa County, whose vote was watered down by this bogus election in Maricopa County,” Lake told Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast.

Judge Denies Request to Sanction Lake

On Dec. 27, Thompson denied a request from Hobbs and Maricopa County to sanction Lake and her legal team over her lawsuit challenging the results of the 2022 general election.

The judge ruled that while Lake didn’t meet the burden of providing evidence of her election-related claims, her lawsuit didn’t meet the standard for imposing sanctions. However, he ruled that Lake must reimburse Hobbs $33,040 for some expenses because she didn’t win her case.

Maricopa County officials filed the motion against Lake and her legal team on Dec. 26. Hobbs joined the motion in her capacity as secretary of state.

“Enough really is enough. It is past time to end unfounded attacks on elections and unwarranted accusations against elections officials,” Maricopa County Deputy Attorney Thomas P. Liddy wrote on Dec. 26 in a 15-page memo asking Thompson for the sanctions and attorneys fees. “This matter was brought without any legitimate justification, let alone a substantial one.”

Courts “should not be used to harass political opponents and sow completely unfounded doubts about the integrity of elections,” the memo also stated.

Lawsuit

After Hobbs was declared the winner, Lake filed two lawsuits. One sought information and records from Maricopa County, and the other aimed to declare overturn the results or redo the election in Maricopa.

Among other claims, Lake cited a news conference held by top Maricopa County officials in which they confirmed printer problems across polling locations on Election Day that her team said disenfranchised voters.

Thompson allowed two out of ten of Lake’s claims to go to trial, including a claim about intentional interference with ballot printers and chain-of-custody problems.

A witness at the trial who inspected ballots on behalf of Lake’s attorneys said that 14 of 15 duplicate ballots he inspected had 19-inch images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness testified that such a change would’ve required a change to printer configurations, although election officials disputed those assertions.

The judge credited Lake’s key witnesses, Mark Sonnenklar and Heather Honey, but rejected the claims that intentional misconduct happened during the midterm election.

Following the two-day trial, Lake insisted that malicious intent was proven by her witnesses.

“We provided expert testimony. We provided experts. The other side brought in activists to try to save face. They admitted that they’ve known about these ballot problems,” Lake said.

Hobbs’ lawyer, Abha Khanna, told the courtroom in Maricopa County that Lake’s attorneys haven’t established whether printer problems on Election Day were intentional acts that would have changed the race’s outcome had they not occurred. At the trial’s closing arguments on Dec. 22, Khanna said Lake’s claims were based on hearsay, speculation, and theatrics.

“What we got instead was just loose threads and gaping plot holes. We know now that her story was a work of fiction,” Khanna said.

Jack Phillips and Allen Zhong contributed to this report. Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times. Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

The good people of this Nation wonder how things could have gone so horribly wrong. Certainly we did not want this to happen. But we are not innocent. We have been negligent in our awareness and dealings with the leftist onslaught, which ultimately makes us complicit. Our biggest crime is to ever naively expect leftists to live by the rules they dictated to us. Yet that misbegotten hope is the core of our flailing current efforts against them.

Real America keeps demanding “justice” from a thoroughly polluted governing system that in many states, and unquestionably at the federal level, no longer has any interest in upholding the law for the good of the common citizen. In one jurisdiction after another, that system is being turned against us, with such abuses increasingly occurring in broad daylight. And yet we wait. For what? For the system which, by its very nature is an enemy of decency and integrity, to suddenly decide to fix itself? The sooner we recognize the forces that are actually at play, and that an introspective effort at house cleaning by them is an absolute impossibility, the sooner we will understand how we need to address this malignancy on our Nation, our communities, our families, and our future.

What must first be fully understood is the degree to which “justice” no longer exists in America. Instead, in a manner reminiscent of the worst of third world tinhorn dictatorships, the notion of justice as blind and even-handed has been supplanted by state and federal thugs, who are empowered by their official positions to selectively attack and intimidate “We the People” until we relinquish our rights to oppose, or even to disagree with them. And this dangerous situation is daily becoming more dire.

America is now under the fist of a weaponized DOJ and FBI. Even a cursory look at the abominable abuses of power by these organizations against Conservatives and Patriots, in contrast to their equally abominable refusal to hold truly guilty parties to account, proves that they are no longer in the business of upholding the law. Rather, they have become the enforcement arm of the leftist political cabal that illegally wormed its way into power, and now has an ever tightening stranglehold on America.

After an inexcusably long wait, Special Counsel John Durham finally brought Michael Sussmann into an actual courtroom, on account of Sussmann’s denial, under oath, of his obvious collaboration with the Hillary Clinton campaign. Yet the jury “deliberated” for only six hours before acquitting Sussmann. Contrast that with the January 6 protestors who were selectively taken into custody, based not on their actions but on their party affiliation, and have been treated as badly as third world political prisoners. In their midst were many FBI instigators and leftist plants, who have lied about their actions, and yet walk free.

Outside of the D.C. Swamp/Sewer, things are often no better. A movement eventually came to light, by which anti-American leftists such as George Soros have been financing the campaigns of hard left county and state prosecutors. Once in office, these insurgents pick and choose who to “charge” (persecute), and who to ignore on account of being leftist activists. In essence they totally bypass the courts and become “judge, jury, and executioner.” By that thoroughly corrupt and agenda-driven process, the concept of the law as a guardian of freedom and equity in our Nation is totally shattered.

This past June 11, police in northern Idaho arrested thirty one members of the group “Patriot Front,” because they were “planning” to interfere with a “gay pride” parade in the area. No assaults had occurred, no arson committed, no looting or murder. Yet their mere “intent” to interfere with the parade was sufficient for the FBI, in conjunction with local authorities, to step in, shut down their gathering, and arrest them. Leftist media had a field day grandstanding over the “hate and bigotry” of this group.

Some disturbing things become grimly apparent from this episode. The FBI has plenty of forewarning when groups of which it disapproves make plans to gather with non-peaceful intentions. So all those antifa and BLM rampages throughout the Nation are likewise no surprise to officials charged with upholding the “law.” Their unwillingness to actually disperse such violent onslaughts prove that the government is officially involved in attacking innocent citizens through their antifa/BLM proxies. That makes those officials fully complicit, giving the “green light” for leftists to wage open war on America!

On the rare occasion that some member of those malicious leftist organizations are brought up on charges, support groups with massive financial backing are ready to “represent” them. And in far too many jurisdictions, even that is a mere formality, since the local prosecutor has absolutely no intention of seeing the criminals held accountable.

Prosecutors of Kyle Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys were clearly not about “justice,” but aiding and abetting the leftist agenda. Likewise, if conservative activist James O’Keefe, David Daledin, who exposed Planned Parenthood dissections of live unborn babies to sell their body parts, Roger Stone, and others like them, can have their persons and property violated by flagrant, unnecessary attacks from state “law” enforcement and the FBI, facing physical abuse, and horrendous legal fees, they can thus be severely penalized by the “system” with no judge or jury ever involved.

As long as our side persists in responding to all of this with cowardice and timidity, we will continue to retreat and second guess ourselves over every little detail of which the corrupt leftist owned “system” accuses us. On that basis we will further lose our moral certitude over what is really the right response to them, and we will strive ever harder to “color inside the lines” which they dictate, while they violently rampage.

If we fail to wake up to this real danger facing us, they’ll merely move those boundaries ever tighter, until we have no place to go, and no ability left by which to defend ourselves and restore justice. Expecting any form of honor or equitable treatment from the “system” at this point is its own form of surrender.

Bio

Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for many years, seeking to restore and uphold the Judeo-Christian principles on which our Nation was founded. His book, “Rules for Defeating Radicals,” is the “Go To” guide for effectively confronting and overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.