#Judicial Review Claim

[lexlawuk]

Judicial Review: Pre-Action Protocol

Embarking on the journey of challenging a decision made by the Home Office can be a complex and daunting endeavour. Whether it’s about obtaining entry clearance, leave to remain, or settlement rights, individuals often find themselves entangled in legal intricacies. Understanding the Pre-Action Protocol is crucial in navigating this process smoothly. This protocol, enshrined within the Civil…

[bom-bombon]

So like on twitter, this artist have a great idea to draw ourselves very elegant for today

SO HERE I AM

ANYWAY IM SO EXCITEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

VAMONOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS GANAMOS HOY GENTE

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

In 2017 I interviewed Bernadette Wren, then head of psychology at the Tavistock Gids clinic, and asked what effect puberty blocking drugs have on the adolescent brain. Looking highly uncomfortable, she replied that the evidence so far was only anecdotal but that the clinic would study its patients “well into their adult lives so that we can see”.

Even back then, before whistleblowers had exposed the rush to medically transition children, it was alarming to hear that heavy-duty GnRH agonists such as triptorelin — used to treat advanced prostate cancer and “chemically castrate” sex offenders — were being prescribed to arrest puberty in hundreds of children as young as 11.

Moreover, they were being used “off-label” before any clinical trials. And the long-term study Wren promised never materialised: Gids (the Gender Identity Development Service) routinely lost touch with patients, and the 44 it did follow reported little long-term mental health improvement.

This shocking chapter in medical history, where the ideological objectives of trans rights campaigners trumped the welfare of disturbed children, is coming to an end worldwide. The decision by NHS England effectively to ban the prescription of puberty blockers comes after the Cass review noted these drugs could “permanently disrupt” brain development, reduce bone density and lock children into a regime of cross-sex hormones requiring life-long patienthood.

NHS England unites with other national health services including those in Finland, France, Sweden and, most notably, the Netherlands — where the “Dutch protocol”, a regime of early blockers then hormones, was devised in 1998 — in pulling back from prescribing them.

Even in the United States, where a toxic combination of extreme activism and medical capitalism has pushed child gender medicine to grotesque extremes, with double mastectomies performed on 14-year-old girls, there is some retrenchment.

Leaks from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the body which formulates guidance on “trans healthcare”, reveal doctors perplexed at how they should explain to an 11-year-old child that drugs will render them infertile. Crucially, liberal media such as The New York Times are now reporting grave medical misgivings about child transition, once dismissed as a culture-war issue for the Republican right.

Yet the question remains: how was this ever allowed to happen? For years, puberty blockers were cheerily billed as a mere “pause button”. In 2014, Dr Polly Carmichael, the last head of Gids before the Cass review ordered its closure, went on CBBC in a show called I Am Leo, saying of blockers: “The good thing is, if you stop the injections, it’s like pressing ‘start’ and the body carries on developing as it would if you hadn’t started.”

The BBC permitted her to make this unevidenced claim to an impressionable audience of six to 12-year-olds. Imagine hearing this as a developing girl, freaked out by your new breasts and periods. No wonder Gids referrals subsequently rocketed.

Carmichael failed to mention that she did not know if pressing “restart” on puberty is always medically possible — it is not — and in fact, almost every child Gids put on blockers went on to irreversible cross-sex hormones.

After years in a Peter Pan state while their peers developed, they understandably felt there was no way back and forged on with treatment. Yet if allowed to experience natural puberty, almost 85 per cent of gender dysphoria cases resolve themselves.

Nor did Carmichael tell CBBC kids that the blockers-hormones combination, if taken early enough, not only results in sterility but kills the libido so that a young person will never experience an orgasm.

At the 2020 judicial review brought by a former Tavistock clinician and Keira Bell, the brave young detransitioner rushed onto hormones by Gids, judges expressed astonishment at Gids’s lack of an evidence base.

Reporting on this issue for seven years, I too have been struck by a complete clinical incuriosity. Not only was data not collected, but those who queried treatments or pressed for evidence faced angry condemnation. Perhaps activists knew what research might find because one long-term Finnish study, recently reported in the BMJ, destroyed the myth used to justify blockers: that a child will commit suicide if denied them.

The Finns found that “gender-affirming care” does not make a dysphoric child less suicidal. Rather, such children had the same suicide risk as others with severe psychiatric issues. In other words, changing bodies does not fix troubled minds.

Yet even after NHS England’s announcement, activists refuse to heed the now-overwhelming evidence. In its response, Stonewall persists with the myth that puberty blockers “give a young person extra time to evaluate their next steps”.

Many questions remain unanswered: will private clinics still be permitted to prescribe puberty blockers; and is Scotland’s Sandyford child gender clinic still determined to close its ears to all evidence? Plus, we have few details on how the NHS’s new “holistic” treatment for gender-questioning children will operate when it opens next month.

This repellent experiment — in which girls who like trucks or little boys who dress as princesses, and who invariably grow up to be gay, are corralled inexorably down a road towards life-changing treatments — belongs in the book of medical disgraces. As do the cheerleaders who raised money for Mermaids and those who persecuted whistleblowers or damned journalists asking questions as transphobic.

In 50 years, chemically freezing the puberty of healthy children with troubled minds will be regarded with the same horrified fascination as lobotomies — which, never forget, won the Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz the 1949 Nobel prize.

--------------------

{Article source (behind paywall)}

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

As of December 2023, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has received 59 allegations that Donald Trump or his committees violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 29 of those cases, nonpartisan staff in the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) recommended the FEC investigate Trump. Yet not once has a Republican FEC commissioner voted to approve any such investigation or enforcement of the law against Trump.

Democratic Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub pointed this out in her December 5, 2023 statement of reasons after the FEC once again failed to garner the votes to enforce the law against Trump after he allegedly violated the law by illegally soliciting or directing money to a pro-Trump super PAC that spent millions on ads opposing Joe Biden in 2020.

Because at least four of the six FEC Commissioners need to approve any FEC investigation, and because only three of those seats can be filled by Democrats, Republicans hold a veto over the agency’s enforcement and have repeatedly used it to shoot down any recommended enforcement of campaign finance law against Trump—and thus successfully shielded him from accountability over and over. Instead of fostering bipartisanship, the split FEC has often become gridlocked and, in cases involving Trump, its ability to pursue action is constrained by the members of one party.

The FEC’s enabling statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, specifically subjects the Commission’s non-enforcement to review to prevent it from blocking meritorious enforcement. In June 2018, however, two Republican-appointed judges of the D.C. Circuit—including now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—largely gutted that rule, giving commissioners the authority to block enforcement of the law without judicial review if the commissioners claimed that they did so as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or under Heckler v. Chaney.

So, in 21 of the 29 cases where the FEC received recommendations to enforce the law against Trump, Republican commissioners justified non-enforcement by invoking prudential or discretionary factors in attempts to circumvent review.

When dismissing the recommendations to investigate Trump—and to kill further inquiries into his actions—the Republican commissioners have at times claimed that the FEC should not take any action because “proceeding further would not be an appropriate use of Commission resources” or that the resources would be “best spent elsewhere.” Trump has even falsely declared that the FEC “dropped” one of its investigations into him “because they found no evidence of problems.” As Commissioner Weintraub wrote in a statement of reasons in November 2023, “the data is clear: At the FEC, Mr. Trump is in a category by himself.”

Unless courts restore their check on partisan vetoes on enforcement, the commissioners will continue to fail to enforce federal campaign finance law against the powerful figures they are trying to protect.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: SEGM

Published: Aug 13, 2023

Near-zero regret” findings among adults suffer from a critical risk of bias and have low applicability to youth

Recent research published in JAMA Surgery evaluated satisfaction and regret among individuals who had undergone chest masculinizing mastectomy at the University of Michigan hospital. The average patient age at the time of mastectomy was 27 years; no patients who were under age 18 were allowed to participate in the study.

The participants reported high levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret at an average of 3.6 years following mastectomy. The study authors lauded the “overwhelmingly low levels of regret following gender-affirming surgery,” and framed their findings as in conflict with the “increasing legislative interest in regulating gender-affirming surgery,” referring to current legislative attempts to restrict or ban “gender-affirming” procedures for minors. Another group of authors provided an invited commentary on the paper, reinforcing the view held by the study authors, and asserting the presence of a “double standard:” “gender-affirming” mastectomies have come under undue scrutiny by states’ legislators, while other surgical procedures with higher regret rates do not appear to concern legislative bodies.

The study suffers from serious methodological limitations, which render the findings of high levels of long-term satisfaction with mastectomy among adults at a "critical risk of bias"—the lowest rating according to the Risk of Bias (ROBINS-I) analysis. ROBINS-I is used to assess non-randomized studies for methodological bias. The "critical risk of bias" rating signals that the results reported by the study may substantially deviate from the truth. The results also suffer from low applicability to the central issue the study and the invited commentary sought to address, which was whether legislative attempts to regulate “gender-affirming” surgeries are warranted in minors. Unfortunately, these highly questionable findings are misrepresented as certain and highly positive by both the study authors and the invited commentators, several of whom have significant conflicts of interest.

Below, we provide a detailed explanation of the key methodological issues in the study which render its claims untrustworthy and not applicable to the patient population at the center of the debate: youth undergoing gender reassignment. We also comment on the alarming trend: several prestigious scientific journals appear to have deviated from their previously high standards for scholarly work and instead have become vehicles for promoting poor-quality research, seemingly to influence judicial policy decisions rather than advance scientific understanding. We conclude with recommendations about how journal editors can restore the integrity of scientific debate and raise the bar on the quality of published studies in the field of gender medicine.

[ For in-depth analysis, see: https://segm.org/long-term-regret-satisfaction-mastectomy-critical-appraisal ]

SEGM Take-Aways

Although this study reports extremely high rates of satisfaction and low regret, the timeframe in which these outcomes were assessed is insufficient—just 3.6 years post-mastectomy on average. The sample is also highly skewed: 50% of the participants had mastectomies in the last 3.6 of the 30 years. This skewing of the length of time since surgery is expected, given the sharp rise in the number of people (especially adolescents and young adults) identifying as transgender and undergoing chest masculinization mastectomy. It is also a short time in which to assess regret, particularly since one quarter of study participants were younger than age 23 at time of surgery and the median age of first birth in the US is 30 years.

The conclusion of high satisfaction/low regret suffers from a critical risk of bias due to the high non-participation rate, important differences between participants and non-participants, and lack of control group. Problematically, the authors misuse the (critically-biased) results from adults to argue against regulations for irreversible body alternations for minors and do so with a decidedly politicized spin.

The only intellectually honest commentary is that we do not have good knowledge of the likely rates of detransition and regret following chest masculinization mastectomy, nor do we know how many people experience regret but remain transitioned. There is an urgent need for quality research in this area. Previously, detransition and regret rates were considered to be low: they may have indeed been low due to the much more rigorous screenings, or the results may have been biased by the notoriously high dropout rates that plague “regret” research. Regardless, there is now growing evidence of much higher rates of medical detransition.

A recent study from a comprehensive U.S. dataset with no loss to follow-up revealed a 36% medical detransition rate among females within just 4 years of starting hormonal transition. At least two recent studies suggest that average time to regret among recently-transitioned females is about 3-5 years, but there is a wide range. Much less is known about detransition among those who undergo surgery. A growing number of detransitioners now express regret associated with the loss of breastfeeding ability, with one case study detailing breastfeeding grief experienced some 15 years post-mastectomy.

The study and invited commentary exemplify three problematic trends that plague studies emerging from the gender clinics: problematic conflicts of interest of the authors; leveraging scientific journals to disguise politically-motivated pieces as quality research; and a conflicted stance by the gender medicine establishment on surgery for minors. We expand on each briefly below.

Conflicts of interest of study authors and commentators 

The significant conflicts of interest of the gender clinicians who study and report on the outcomes of “gender-affirming” interventions cannot be overlooked. These clinicians are conflicted financially, since their practices specialize in “gender-affirming” interventions, as well as intellectually. While conflicts of interest among experts are common, such experts should still attempt to be balanced in their discussions and should acknowledge and reflect on their conflicts of interest.

The interpretations of the data in the study is neither rigorous nor balanced, and both the study and the invited commentary have a decidedly political spin. Further, the invited politicized commentary does not disclose that at least one of the authors is a key expert witness opposing states’ efforts to regulate “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors. This role alone precludes the ability to provide a balanced commentary.

There is a fundamental problem with research emerging from gender clinic settings. The same clinicians provide gender-transitioning treatments to individual patients in their practice; serve as primary investigators and custodians of data used in research informing population health policies; and increasingly, provide paid expert witness testimony in courts defending the unrestricted availability of hormonal and surgical interventions for minors.

As a result, such clinicians cannot express nuanced perspectives. Since any balanced statements may be used against them in a court of law when they serve as expert witnesses, they must resort to the lowest common denominator of the "winner-takes-all" adversarial approach. Such an approach does not tolerate nuance. Unfortunately, this approach contributes to the erosion of the quality of the published work in the arena of gender medicine and accelerates loss of trust about the integrity of the scientific process.

Misuse of scientific publications to promote politically-motivated articles disguised as scientific research

That prestigious medical journals now serve as platforms for promoting misleading, politically motivated research that aims to apply a veneer of misplaced confidence in  highly invasive, irreversible treatment should worry everyone committed to evidence-based medicine and the integrity of science. Moreover, it impairs our ability to accurately assess and improve the long-term health outcomes of the rapidly growing numbers of gender-diverse and gender-distressed youths.

This is not the first time that a JAMA has been used as a platform for positioning advocacy for “gender-affirming” care as scientific research. In 2022, JAMA Pediatrics published a study that assessed bodily happiness in a group of subjects aged 14-24 three months after chest masculinization mastectomy. Despite the very short follow up and dropout rate of 13%, the authors argued that their findings supported the premise that there was no evidence to suggest that young age should delay surgery. They also asserted that their research would help dispel the misconception that such surgeries are experimental. The editorial commissioned to bolster the authors claims was descriptively titled, “Top surgery in adolescents and young adults-effective and medically necessary.”

Another troubling trend is the misuse of statistical tools to reframe research findings that contradict the author's own position. For example, a well-known study that claimed that access to puberty blockers reduce the risk of suicide disregarded the fact that individuals reporting use of puberty blockers use had twice as many recent serious suicide attempts as their peers who did not use puberty blockers. Like the finding cited above, the doubling of suicide attempts was not statistically significant due to a small underpowered sample—but the magnitude of the effect was striking and should have tempered the authors’ enthusiastic conclusion that puberty blockers prevent suicides. Another recent gender clinic study, widely and positively covered by major media outlets, claimed that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones led to plummeting rate of depression—even though the rate of depression among youth taking those medications remained demonstrably unchanged. More information about problems with research originating from gender clinics is detailed in this recent analysis.

Gender medicine’s stance on pediatric surgery

More generally, the gender medicine establishment is in a curious state of internal conflict about its stance on “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors.  On the one hand, it has become common for advocates of “gender-affirmation” of minors to insist that surgeries for minors are not performed and anyone who suggests otherwise is spreading “scientific misinformation” and “science denialism.”  On the other hand, gender clinicians publish mastectomy outcomes for minors in major medical journals, and laud surgeries for minors as “effective and medically necessary.” It is not uncommon for these opposing claims to be made by the same group of researchers and clinicians, as they test various arguments, searching for the "angle" that is most likely to convince judges and juries--and public at large--that scrutiny of the practice of pediatric transitions, which is increasingly occurring in European countries, is not warranted in the United States.

Notably, none of the European countries that are enacting severe restrictions on the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for minors have ever allowed surgeries for youth under 18. That the U.S. gender affirmation professionals continue to fight regulation of these problematic procedures speaks volumes about how far the U.S. healthcare has drifted when it comes to "gender affirmation" of minors.

Final thoughts

While it is challenging to determine how best to reduce the temperature of the highly politicized nature of the debate in gender medicine, the editors of scientific journals can begin to restore balance by recognizing how far the field has drifted from the standards of quality scientific research, and begin to expand their circle of peer-reviewers to those with diverse views. Inviting those concerned with the state of gender medicine (and not just the practices’ advocates) into the peer-review and commentary process is the first essential step to improve the quality of research published in the field of gender medicine.

--

--

==

The activists are predictably - and consistent with the superficiality of their own ideology - upset that anyone should look below the surface. It seems to be more troubling that anyone would notice the shoddiness of the research, than that the research is shoddy.

If this is supposed to be "healthcare," you would think that they would want the best healthcare, and be more alarmed at the misrepresentations of the study, than by people finding those misrepresentations.

Could it be that this is ideological rather than medical? 🤔

The conflicts of interest and funding sources alone are remarkable.

[rebel-girl-queen-of-my-world]

@ccrjustice Today, Palestinians bring their case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that courts must be able to decide whether U.S. officials are complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The court has a constitutional obligation to hear these claims.

The Biden Administration claims foreign policy decisions are within their discretion and are not subject to judicial review. But the executive has no discretion to violate the law - it is up to courts to say what the law is, and whether the executive is violating it.

U.S. support is not only crucial but essential for Israel to continue its crime of genocide in Gaza. Billions of dollars in U.S. arms make this genocide possible. We must demand an end to our government’s complicity in the ongoing siege on Gaza.

The plaintiffs are two Palestinian human rights organizations - Defense for Children International - Palestine (@dcipalestine) and Al Haq (@al_haq_organization), three Palestinians in Gaza and five Palestinian-Americans with families in Gaza.

We are proud to stand alongside Defense for Children International - Palestine and Al Haq, our individual Palestinian clients Ahmed Abu Artema, founder of the 2018 Great March of Return, Dr. Omar Al-Najjar, a 24-year-old intern physician at Nasser Medical Complex, and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh, field researcher as well as Palestinian American clients with families in Gaza Mohammad Monadel Herzallah, Laila Elhaddad, Waeil Elbhassi, Bassim Elkarra, and Ayman Nijim in seeking an end to U.S. complicity in this genocide, which is now in it’s ninth month.

[schraubd]

Losing Your Chevrons

Somewhere, an environmentalist wished upon a star: "I hate big oil. It's a blight on the universe. If only Chevron would disappear forever!" and a monkey's paw curled once. I was steeling myself to write about Loper Bright and my official welcome on behalf of the Con Law professoriate to the Admin Law professors joining the "burn all your lecture notes and start from scratch club", and then Trump v. United States came down. Even though the latter is a more immediate big deal and is closer to my expertise wheelhouse (I've fielded far more inquiries from former students asking "what is going on!" with respect to the Trump decision than any ruling in my entire career, Dobbs included), I really don't have all that much to say at this moment. That may change -- in fact, it almost certainly will, as I try to work this blog post into an essay -- but for now I'm going to lay off and just write what I planned to write about the demise of Chevron. My short version take is this: in many, many cases, we'll see little difference between before and after. This prediction, however, should not be confused with sanguinity. Rather, it is a recognition that judges are human, with the normal assortment of human interests, talents, and vices.  In most deep-weeds administrative law cases, where judges neither know nor care about the difference between, say, nitrogen oxide and nitrous oxide, they aren't going to actually do a deep dive review of the law from scratch. These issues are hard enough for a team of subject-matter experts with Ph.Ds in the hard sciences grinding away for months. For a judge with a J.D. from Hofstra who last took a statistics class in 11th grade? Forget about it. In practice, no matter what the doctrine purports to demand or what they claim to be doing on the opinion pages, judges will end up deferring to reasonable agency interpretations of the law unless they're howlingly off-base -- which, of course, is why we ended up with Chevron in the first place. Any objective observer of courts sees this sort of thing from judges all the time -- there are all sorts of cases where nominal "de novo" review is the furthest thing from, because judges simply find the topic boring, repetitive, or impenetrable (you can usually spot these cases by their use of the phrase "after careful review ...."). This will be what happens for many if not most cases on obscure rules in unremarkable issue areas. What will change is in those administrative rules on hot button issues of high-salience. Here, Loper Bright doesn't make judges any smarter, but does give them a green light to start substituting their judgment for expert agencies who at least have some measure of accountability to the political process. In other words, Loper Bright won't universally result in the substitution of inexpert judicial policymaking for the judgments of administrative agencies; rather, it will result in that substitution on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis whenever the judge who happens to be draw the case has an idiosyncratic or ideological hobbyhorse to ride. The administrative state will be able to carry on, with a cutaway for partisan judges to meddle more openly whenever partisan proclivities instigate an urge. So there's your consolation about the end of Chevron. Feeling better? I thought so. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/ow8Pq4G

[satellitebroadcast]

[Context post]

Hamas: Telegram

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful The Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas condemns in the strongest terms the crime committed by the zionist occupation army in targeting the American solidarity activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi with a direct bullet to the head, which led to her martyrdom, while she was participating in the weekly peaceful march against settlements on Jabal Sbeih in the town of Beita, south of Nablus. We consider this heinous crime an extension of the occupation's deliberate crimes against foreign solidarity activists with our Palestinian people, which have claimed the lives of dozens of them, perhaps the most prominent of whom is the solidarity activist Rachel Corrie, who was crushed under the tracks of the occupation's tanks in 2003. These crimes continue in the West Bank with systematic and continuous attacks on solidarity activists by the occupation army and its settler gangs, as happens in all peaceful solidarity events and marches in the villages and towns of the West Bank threatened by settlement and Judaization projects. The zionist extremist government and its terrorist army seek, through these crimes, to terrorize and suppress every voice calling for the freedom of our Palestinian people, or standing in solidarity with them in light of criminal settlement and Judaization projects, and an ongoing comprehensive genocide war waged against them, without the official world moving a finger to stop it. We call on the international community, the United Nations, and all its political, humanitarian, human rights, and judicial institutions, to act immediately to rein in the occupation government, and hold it accountable for its fascist behavior that denies all international laws. We also call on the US administration to review its biased policy and support for the crimes and massacres of the occupation against our Palestinian people, which today led to the killing of an American citizen by the bullets of its criminal army. Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas Friday: 03 Rabi` al-Awwal 1446 AH Corresponding to: 06 September 2024 AD

[thewomenofwindsor]

Prince Harry was forced to apologise after breaking confidentiality rules in his own High Court case by sharing private information with Johnny Mercer.

Court documents reveal that the Duke of Sussex emailed the veterans minister confidential information concerning his security claim against the Home Office.

The Duke has long shared a close bond with Mr Mercer, with both having served in Afghanistan.

Mr Mercer is a vocal supporter of the Invictus Games and is spearheading the Government’s attempt to host the 2027 event in Birmingham. The pair were photographed drinking pints of beer together at last year’s event in Dusseldorf, Germany.

Mr Justice Lane revealed the Duke’s indiscretion in a costs ruling handed down on Monday concerning his failed application for a judicial review.

He said: “In November 2023, the claimant breached the terms of the confidentiality ring order by emailing certain information to a partner of Schillings, who was not within the confidentiality ring, and to the Rt Hon Johnny Mercer MP.”

The breach was almost immediately detected by the Duke’s own barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, who promptly informed his solicitor, Jenny Afia, who works for Schillings.

“She in turn informed the defendant (via the Government Legal Department) as well as taking action to minimise the effects of the breach,” the judge said.

The Home Office argued that such breaches, for which the judge said the Duke had apologised, caused it to incur unnecessary costs.

The judge said he did not wish to minimise the “seriousness” of the breach but concluded that it did not have any bearing on the overall determination of costs.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ryan J. Reilly at NBC News:

WASHINGTON — The 34 felony guilty verdicts returned against former President Donald Trump on Thursday spurred a wave of violent rhetoric aimed at the prosecutors who secured his conviction, the judge who oversaw the case and the ordinary jurors who unanimously agreed there was no reasonable doubt that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee falsified business records related to hush money payments to a porn star to benefit his 2016 campaign. Advance Democracy, a nonprofit that conducts public interest research, said there has been a high volume of social media posts containing violent rhetoric targeting New York Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, including a post with Bragg’s purported home address. The group also found posts of the purported addresses of jurors on a fringe internet message board known for pro-Trump content and harassing and violent posts, although it is unclear if any actual jurors had been correctly identified.

The posts, which have been reviewed by NBC News, appear on many of the same websites used by Trump supporters to organize for violence ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. These forums were hotbeds of threats inspired by Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, which he lost, and that the voting system was “rigged” against him. They now feature new threats echoing Trump’s rhetoric and false claims about the hush money trial, including that the judicial system is now “rigged” against him. “Dox the Jurors. Dox them now,” one user wrote after Trump’s conviction on a website formerly known as “The Donald,” which was popular among participants in the Capitol attack. (That post appears to have been quickly removed by moderators.)

“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote another user on the same forum. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user. “This s--- is out of control.” “I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!” “War,” read a Telegram post from one chapter of the Proud Boys, the far-right group whose former chair and three other members were convicted of seditious conspiracy because of their actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6, just a few months after Trump infamously told the group to “stand back and stand by” during a 2020 debate. “Now you understand. To save your nation, you must fight. The time to respond is now. Franco Friday has begun,” another Proud Boys chapter wrote, apparently referring to fascist dictator Francisco Franco of Spain.

The violent MAGA terrorist cult are urging the doxxing of the Trump business record falsification jurors, prosecutors, and the judge presiding over the case on far-right extremist sites such as Telegram and Patriots.win.

[lexlawuk]

Home Office Yields in Latest Challenge to 'No Recourse to Public Funds' Rule

The Home Office has recently yielded to another in a series of ongoing challenges to the no recourse to public funds policy. This particular challenge involved the removal of the no recourse condition for an individual with section 3C leave as a student dependent. The case in question is PA & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 2476…

[girlactionfigure]

🟠 SOLDIERS HAVE FALLEN  - AFTER SHABBAT NEWS 

ISRAEL REALTIME - Connecting to Israel in Realtime

✡️ Shavua Tov, may we have a good and blessed week, safety and peace, success for our soldiers, and the safe and healthy return of our hostages.  And a really bad week for our enemies.

▪️4 HERO SOLDIERS HAVE FALLEN.. in battle in Gaza:

Evyatar Atuar, 24, from Rosh HaAyin.  

Daniel Pacheniuk, 26, from Bat Yam

Nitai Mitodi, 23, from Ashkelon

Yang Yitchok Oren, 35, from Ein Gedi

May their families be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem, and may G-d avenge their blood!

SHABBAT NEWS SUMMARY

🔷 LEBANON - IDF performed multiple targeted eliminations of several Hezbollah commanders in Lebanon and Syria, attacked Iranian backed militias in Syria on Shabbat day, and bombed Lebanon extensively.

Over 100 ROCKETS fired by HEZBOLLAH at northern Israel towns.  This seems to be the new Hezbollah pattern, less targets but MORE rockets - a barrage every time (mean 10-40 rockets per launch).  Several hits and homes burned in Kiryat Shmona.

🔶 DEAL SUMMARY -> Hamas is not negotiating but IS sending a team to the negotiations.  (No, I can’t figure that out either.)  They insist on no changes from the past US submitted terms of May or July, that they didn’t agree to and neither did Israel.  Israel has supposedly offered to reduce presence on the Egypt border and on the Gaza splitting corridor (Philadelphi and Netzar), but the PMO has denied. 

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mardaoui:   "The arrival of the Hamas delegation in Cairo does not mean that we have entered into a round of talks. The delegation will receive updates from the Egyptians."  (Meaning the Egyptian “mediators” are now negotiating FOR Hamas, not as a coordinating proxy but as the negotiators.)

And Israeli hostage families continue to blame the Prime Minister for not accepting survival threatening terms.  (In other words, a normal week.)

🔷 GAZA -> IDF continues heavy battles and destruction of sites used for military attacks, and those too close to the border or split corridor.  Every time Hamas fires a rocket, the IDF is now evacuating the area of civilians and then clearing it and destroying the launch site, which Hamas claims has reduced humanitarian areas from 230 square kilometers to 35.  

Another kilometer long tunnel blow up in Rafah.

🔷 JUDEA-SAMARIA -> again accusations of local Israeli civilians rioting, this time said to be stone throwing - which usually comes about when the Arabs have been stone throwing at the road and the local Jews get sick of it when there is insufficient official response.  The IDF says they ran them off quickly.

Defense Minister Galant issued administrative arrest warrants against 4 Israelis living in Judea-Samaria.  That’s detention without trial, without presenting evidence, without judicial review - due to risk of terrorism.

🔷 FRANCE -> Synagogue attacked, bomb at the Beth Yaacov synagogue in La Grande Motte.  Police guarding the synagogue injured, fire started, 2 cars burned - one likely being the source of the explosion.  The potential suspect seen in CCTV footage was brandishing a Palestinian flag and armed.

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a decision that revived a long-running lawsuit by the Navajo Nation, which claims that the U.S. Interior Department has a duty to develop plans to provide the reservation with an adequate water supply. The high court granted two petitions for certiorari – one by the federal government, one by Arizona and other states -- challenging last year’s decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit said “an irreversible and dramatically important trust duty” was implied by 175 years’ worth of treaties and court decisions. The challengers, however, say implied rights are unenforceable. “The federal treaties with the Navajo Nation…do not address water at all,” and the doctrine of implied water rights “cannot justify imposing such a fiduciary duty,” lead counsel Rita Pearson Maguire argued in the states’ cert petition. The Interior Department, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, added that the 9th Circuit’s approach would replace national policy decisions with “a regime of general judicial oversight of the United States’ relationship with Indian tribes.” The Navajo Nation, represented by Shay Dvoretzky of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, defended the 9th Circuit’s decision and urged the high court to deny certiorari. The Interior Department declined to comment on Friday. Maguire and Dvoretzky did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Navajo Nation filed suit in 2003. It wants the Interior Department to determine whether the Little Colorado River, which runs through the reservation, is sufficient “to fulfill the Reservation’s purpose of establishing a permanent homeland for the Nation” – a standard known as Winters rights, from a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision. If not, the Nation says the government must develop a plan to supply water from other sources. A federal judge in Prescott, Arizona,

ICWA is not the only case affecting Native American and Alaska Native rights. Keep an eye on this case.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Barely a day after former President Donald Trump was indicted for the third time, some Senate Republicans are already trying to undermine the credibility of the federal judge who was randomly assigned to preside over his trial.

Here’s a detail they’re hoping you won’t notice: They unanimously voted to confirm her.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), speaking on his podcast on Wednesday, accused U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of being “relentlessly hostile” to Trump and claimed that she has “a reputation for being far-left, even by D.C. District Court standards.”

But Cruz voted to put Chutkan into her seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2014. So did every other Senate Republican when she was unanimously confirmed, 95-0.

That includes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who nonsensically claimed Wednesday that “any conviction in D.C. against Donald Trump is not legitimate.”

“The judge in this case hates Trump,” Graham said in a Fox News interview. “You can convict Trump of kidnapping Lindbergh’s baby in D.C. You need to have a change of venue. We need a new judge. And we need to win in 2024 to stop this crazy crap.”

Aides to Cruz and Graham did not respond to requests for comment on how the senators square their votes to confirm Chutkan with their criticisms of her ability to be a fair judge.

Tuesday’s federal indictment of Trump accuses him of serious crimes related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Chutkan, a Jamaica-born former assistant public defender and an appointee of former President Barack Obama, has already been overseeing cases related to the Jan. 6 attack. She’s handed out some of the most aggressive sentences yet to rioters who took part in the violence that day. Of the 11 cases that have come before her, she imposed tougher sentences than those sought by the Justice Department seven times and matched what the Justice Department was seeking four times, according to an Associated Press review.

In all 11 cases, Chutkan sentenced the defendants to prison time.

This is what is likely driving the GOP attacks on Chutkan: They know she’s not likely to go easy on Trump now.

Beyond trying to discredit the judge, some Republicans, like Graham, are parroting Trump’s absurd demand for a change of venue. The former president has called for moving his case to the “more diverse” and “politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia!” (Virginia and Maryland are much closer to D.C., for what it’s worth.)

Not a single Republican raised concerns about Chutkan during her nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2014. In fact, only one GOP member of the committee even showed up to the hearing: Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), who was only there to rave about a separate Texas judicial nominee on the schedule. He left before Chutkan was up.

Cruz and Graham were both members of the committee at the time.

Neither attended Chutkan’s hearing.

[mcx7demonbros]

How He Gives A Speech (The Brothers)

Headcanon

Ft. The Demon Brothers

C/W: mention of lack of confidence, self-doubt, murder. A bit politics, but no political position mentioned.

No proofread

Preface. We all know the Seven Demon Brothers (with Diavolo) form the government of the whole Devildom. They act as the supreme legislative, executive, & judicial organization of Devildom. We also know politicians must give a speech from time to time. So here’s a headcanon of how each of the Brothers give a speech.

LUCIFER

After coming up to the lectern, before giving a speech, Lucifer will take his glasses out and put them on in front of all the demons. This makes him look sophisticated. (Show off 😒)

The Avatar of Pride does memorize his speech. But he writes it all down in case of he forgets what goes next. And Lucifer brings the paper to the lectern. Again, it makes him look classy.

Lucifer calculates his speech very carefully. Using the calculated words, he steers the public opinion in the direction he wants. Because Lucifer’s speech is considered carefully, it’s very hard to challenge his opinion. Challenge him and you may find yourself embarrassed publicly.

During the speech, Lucifer makes sure to look at the main targeted audience in the eyes, making them feel he is sincere about their well-being. Whether it is true or not is up to debate.

If you are among the audience, Lucifer’s gaze makes sure to linger on you longer than the others. In that moment, his gaze became soft, truly and sincerely full of love.

While human prime ministers struggling to stay in office for 10 years, the Prime Minister of Devildom has been unchanged for more than 1000 years. Really, none could claim to be a better politician than Lucifer.

MAMMON

Mammon may mess up a lot. But as long as he prepares carefully, his speech will be fine.

Lucifer usually tasks Mammon with speech on helping the needy, like orphan. Because Mammon gets emotional during the speech, which in turn gains a lot of sympathy and support from the audience.

Mammon’s opponents may denounce those emotional moments as fake and “trying to gain political support”. But those who know Mammon truly won’t be deceived by those nasty political comments.

When strangers falsely criticize him, please be his moral support, MC!

LEVIATHAN

Levi messes up a lot during a speech, because the third born can feel all the pressure on him from all those eyes.

That is why Lucifer assigns Levi to deliver military speech only.

When delivering a speech to his sailors, Levi enters his Grand Admiral mode.

Levi’s speech is short and concise, but arouses strong emotions in his subordinates. It always ends up with an united battle roar from all the sailors. The roar is so strong that normal demons could feel earth shaking.

Beside from military speech, Levi can also deliver an otaku speech. To outsiders, it’s boring. But to fellow otakus, the speech ignites the flame of otaku’s spirit.

Make sure to support him and lift him up from his unredeemable self-doubt, MC!

SATAN

Satan’s speech, to his own displeasure, bears many similarities to Lucifer. Shhh…he knows but don’t tell him that. The last time a demon points it all, they were torn apart into 800 pieces.

But one notable difference is that Satan doesn’t try to show off like Lucifer. Sure, he has the papers for practical purpose, but he doesn’t put on his glasses in front of so many demons.

Satan has many influential acquaintances, he’s usually invited to give a short speech at meetings of some clubs or organizations.

Cat-related associations have Satan as their regular speaker.

ASMODEUS

The beautiful demon uses his charm a lot during a speech, bending the public opinion to his will. So much that Diavolo and Lucifer has to limit his influence.

Well, that was the case before when Asmo wasn’t too confident in his speech (the limitations are still in practice tho). Nowadays, Asmo has become more confident and uses his speech mainly on reviewing beauty products and the importance of self-care.

BEELZEBUB

Lucifer has to make sure Beel’s partially full before the speech, because his stomach will rumble a lot, interrupting the speech, and the rumble will become the main topic of public discussion rather than the speech.

Well, there’s a second method. You have to give him an intimate moment (a kiss perhaps) before the speech. Beel’s hunger will be satisfied temporarily. But beware, the downsize of this method is that Beel may rush the speech to return by your side.

Beel’s voice gives a warm feeling. And he usually talk about the importance food and meals, nutrient, and sport - a balance and healthy life. It’s a very popular topics among demon mothers.

If Beel’s opponents try to defame him, they will receive backlashes from Beel’s loyal audience, who happen to be their wives, mothers, partners, etc.

BELPHEGOR

Speech? What speech? What are you talking about, MC? The seventh born completely forgot he was supposed to give a speech. And good Lord, Lucifer is furious every time this incident happens again. The eldest orders Belphie to bear the consequences and fix the problem.

Belphie proceeds to…sleep.

But worry not. The Avatar of Sloth conjures a dream where he gathers the audience and gives the most powerful speech ever, since he gives himself [Persuasion] and [Convincing] at max in the dream he created.

The audience wakes up after a long night, subconsciously influenced by Belphie’s speech.

Get the inspiration like…yesterday or last week seeing politicians playing politics XD

P.S. if you love this, please reblog because it helps my blog. Thanks :3

[rebel-girl-queen-of-my-world]

@ccrjustice Today, Palestinians bring their case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that courts must be able to decide whether U.S. officials are complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The court has a constitutional obligation to hear these claims.

The Biden Administration claims foreign policy decisions are within their discretion and are not subject to judicial review. But the executive has no discretion to violate the law - it is up to courts to say what the law is, and whether the executive is violating it.

U.S. support is not only crucial but essential for Israel to continue its crime of genocide in Gaza. Billions of dollars in U.S. arms make this genocide possible. We must demand an end to our government’s complicity in the ongoing siege on Gaza.

The plaintiffs are two Palestinian human rights organizations - Defense for Children International - Palestine (@dcipalestine) and Al Haq (@al_haq_organization), three Palestinians in Gaza and five Palestinian-Americans with families in Gaza.

We are proud to stand alongside Defense for Children International - Palestine and Al Haq, our individual Palestinian clients Ahmed Abu Artema, founder of the 2018 Great March of Return, Dr. Omar Al-Najjar, a 24-year-old intern physician at Nasser Medical Complex, and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh, field researcher as well as Palestinian American clients with families in Gaza Mohammad Monadel Herzallah, Laila Elhaddad, Waeil Elbhassi, Bassim Elkarra, and Ayman Nijim in seeking an end to U.S. complicity in this genocide, which is now in it’s ninth month.