On May 26, 2023, pro-life advocates Mark Crosby, then 73 years old, and Dick Schaefer, then 84 years old, were praying, holding pro-life signs, and offering pro-life materials to people entering a Baltimore Planned Parenthood, Catholic Review said.

Outside the abortion facility, a male by the name of Patrick Brice reportedly was arguing with Schaefer about abortion.

'I was shocked.'

Brice — a decades-younger male whom Crosby estimates stands well over 6 feet tall and weighed 250 pounds — then is seen on surveillance video actually charging at Schaefer and tackling the 84-year-old backward into a large flower pot.

Image source: Baltimore Police

According to WBAL-TV, a witness said Schaefer was out cold "for several minutes."

As you might expect, Crosby — dressed in a blue and white "pro-life" T-shirt — comes over to help his friend.

Image source: Baltimore Police

But Brice is in Crosby's path.

Image source: Baltimore Police

And Brice easily knocks the 73-year-old down to the sidewalk.

Image source: Baltimore Police

One might be inclined to assume Brice by this point would make his exit — but alas, no. Instead he proceeds to pulverize his next victim.

First he punches Crosby in the head.

Image source: Baltimore Police

Then Brice rears back his right foot and kicks Crosby in the face before finally walking away.

Image source: Baltimore Police

It should be noted that YouTube age-restricted the Baltimore Police video of the attack on Schaefer and Crosby, so you can only view it there.

Here's a local video report, though.

Local pro-life advocate John Roswell told LifeSiteNews at the time of the attack that Crosby’s “plate bone in his upper right cheek is completely fractured” and that he “is bleeding from some unidentified area behind his eye, and the bone eye orbit is completely shattered and will have to be replaced with metal" as a result of the brutal beatdown.

Crosby told Blaze News that he was blind in his right eye "for nine days" after the attack, that he spent three days at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center, that he was "spitting blood," and that a piece of his iris is missing.

Image source: John Roswell/American Center for Law and Justice (left); Mark Crosby (right), both used by permission

He also told Blaze News he still experiences foreign body sensation, which is a "feeling that something's in your eye and you can't get it out. But I can live with that. Babies are being murdered. I give it up for them."

A few weeks after the attack, police released surveillance images of the culprit. However, for the next year, nothing but crickets.

Brice arrested

Police finally arrested Brice on July 1, 2024, and he was indicted on charges of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and assault on an elderly person 65 and over, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. He was released on his own recognizance, Catholic Review said.

The criminal trial for Brice took place in early February 2025 in Baltimore Circuit Court. The Baltimore Banner reported that Brice, 28, exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and did not testify.

But Brice's attorney — Assistant Public Defender Matthew Connell — argued that his client didn't intend to cause serious physical injury, which is needed to support a conviction for first-degree assault, the Banner said.

Connell also called Schaefer and Crosby “old white men” who say “the most vile things” to women and see themselves as “religious martyrs," Catholic Review reported.

“Somebody snapped on them,” Connell argued, according to the Banner.

The attacker's attorney added that his client “didn’t mean to hurt them that bad" and “made a mistake," the Banner reported.

Crosby told Blaze News that video of Brice's beatdown of him and Schaefer was shown in court and that one juror was "crying," while "others were looking away" from the violence onscreen.

Assistant State’s Attorney Ashley Sudberry in her opening remarks called Brice's attack “brazen, callous, barbaric behavior," Catholic Review said. She concluded that "Mr. Brice is a grown man. He’s not a child. He knew what he was doing," the Banner said.

Patrick Brice. Image source: Mark Crosby, used by permission

Hung jury on most serious charge for attack on Crosby

The jury deliberated for about two hours and convicted Brice on two counts of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment for his attacks on Schaefer and Crosby, the Banner said.

However, jurors acquitted Brice on one count of first-degree assault against Schaefer, the paper said.

As for the first-degree assault charge against Brice for attacking Crosby — knocking him to the ground, punching him in his head, and kicking him in his face while he was on his back on the sidewalk — the Banner said the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Crosby was then left waiting for justice.

Attorney Terrell Roberts — retained by the Thomas More Society to assist Crosby amid deliberations — told Blaze News that Brice's misdemeanor convictions for second-degree assault and reckless endangerment don't include jail time in sentencing guidelines. The Banner also reported that Brice had no previous criminal record.

Roberts told Blaze News that while Brice's attack on Crosby was a "pretty egregious act," there's a "good chance" a judge might not sentence Brice to any jail time.

But soon there was some good news for Crosby. The Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office in March said it would retry Brice on the first-degree assault charge, the Baltimore Banner reported.

Roberts told Blaze News that part of getting a first-degree assault conviction on Brice — which could result in a jail sentence of 25 years — would be showing how badly impaired Crosby's vision became after his attack. Roberts said the damage to Crosby's right eye — specifically the iris — is "permanent" and Crosby suffers from "extreme photosensitivity," meaning that he essentially has the use of only one eye, which is a "serious disability."

He also told Blaze News that the prosecution would be able to present other documentation, such as the CT scan of Crosby's head, which showed that the "floor of the orbital bone was fractured so badly" that fat actually was seeping through it.

"We have to win this," Crosby told Blaze News in the aftermath of the new trial announcement, adding that he believes Brice has "got to go to jail, or the pro-aborts will think they can get away with this."

New trial, old story

Circuit Judge Yvette M. Bryant — who presided over February's jury trial for Brice — also presided over Wednesday's retrial of Brice's first-degree assault charge, the Baltimore Banner reported.

At the conclusion of the bench trial — there was no jury this time — Bryant acquitted Brice of first-degree assault, the Banner said.

Her reason? The paper said the judge concluded that it was all about Crosby's intent. Does video of the attack show him rushing over to help his friend? Or does it show 73-year-old Crosby running over to fight Brice — a bigger, taller 20-something who just knocked Schaefer out cold?

The Banner said Bryant agreed that Brice's attack against Crosby was unjustified — but disagreed with the prosecution's contention that it was unprovoked.

Gavel down. Case closed. Brice is scheduled for an Aug. 7 sentencing, the paper said, adding that he’s free on his own recognizance. Roberts noted to Blaze News that Brice's acquittal means he can't be tried again on the same charge.

'This decision is one for the ages'

A flabbergasted Roberts in the aftermath of Bryant's decision told Blaze News that "this decision is one for the ages," adding that it was a "miscarriage of justice."

"I was shocked," he noted to Blaze News.

"The judge misapplied Maryland law," Roberts added to Blaze News. "She regarded Crosby's conduct as a provocation which lessened Brice's culpability. But it's clear from the evidence that Crosby's conduct was not a legal provocation. Crosby had a right to come and aid his friend, who had just been knocked unconscious. That cannot in any way legally be a provocation."

He added to Blaze News that it was the "most ridiculous decision I've seen in a long while."

"How can you claim a 73-year-old man provoked a man who just knocked out an 84-year-old man? It's legally absurd," Roberts remarked to Blaze News, adding that "any judge would have to find him guilty based on the video."

The Banner also reported that the judge read portions of Crosby's medical records in court, saying that he ignored directives from nurses and other hospital staff. In the end, Bryant deemed Crosby's testimony unreliable, the paper added.

Roberts told Blaze News he found it odd that Bryant focused so much of her attention on Crosby's interactions with nurses and hospital staff, as recorded in his medical records, instead of "what really mattered" in those records — namely, the severity of his injuries due to Brice's actions.

What's more, Crosby told Blaze News that Bryant stated in court that he could have "gone around Brice to help Dick Schaefer" rather than taking a path directly to his friend to give him aid. "So she's blaming me. ... I'm the bad guy."

A frustrated Crosby added to Blaze News that "now the pro-abort movement will know this, and violence will continue against us."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Indiana Sheriff Argues He Can’t Be Prosecuted For Failing To Cooperate With ICE

The Democrat-run police department 'has repeatedly released criminal aliens into the community' for at least a year, says the AG's office.

Judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE says she didn't think 'avoid ICE' meant anything illegal

Massachusetts District Judge Shelley Joseph denied wanting to help an illegal alien evade federal detention by helping him exit a courtroom through a back door.

In 2018, Joseph was presiding over a drug possession hearing for Jose Medina-Perez, a man from the Dominican Republic who had already been deported from the U.S. in 2003 and 2007.

During the hearing, the judge asked for the official recording of the proceeding to be turned off while she had a discussion with the defense attorney, allegedly to talk about how to help the illegal immigrant evade ICE agents. This week, the defense attorney testified as to what was said during the unrecorded period.

'It sends a dangerous message that political activism is more important than the rule of law.'

Attorney David Jellinek testified on Monday that during a 52-second off-the-record sidebar conversation, he told Judge Joseph he wanted to get his client, the illegal alien, out of the courthouse without interacting with ICE, the Boston Herald reported.

The attorney said he was aware of a back door used by court officers for criminal defendants and told the judge he would use it with her permission. Jellinek said, according to the Boston Herald, that he knew he was "on the edge" of ethical and legal standards, but said he did not break the law.

In a report from CBS Boston, the transcript of the hearing revealed that Jellinek had another reason for wanting to help his client evade ICE.

Jellinek reportedly stated that he thought ICE was looking for the wrong man and wanted time to investigate and prove that fact.

When Judge Joseph was asked if she thought her discussion with Jellinek meant he wanted to "go out the back door," Joseph replied, "Oh, God no."

Joseph was also asked in the CBS Boston report whether she knew the words "avoid ICE" meant to avoid federal authorities in "any improper way," to which she replied no.

Joseph also said she would "absolutely not" have been a party to anything illegal like that, either.

According to the Boston Herald, Joseph could face devastating punishments.

Special counsel Judith Fabricant from the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct has recommended Judge Joseph be indefinitely suspended and stripped of her $207,855 salary for an alleged failure to uphold the standards of a judge.

The commission cannot remove a judge, but Fabricant suggested that a referral to lawmakers for Joseph's removal should be made.

Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph (C) cries after leaving federal court in Boston on April 25, 2019. Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told Blaze News that Judge Joseph's actions represent a troubling breakdown of public trust in the judicial system.

"When a sitting judge allegedly aids a twice-deported criminal in evading federal law enforcement, then attempts to cover it up by disabling a courtroom recorder, it sends a dangerous message that political activism is more important than the rule of law," Craney said.

Craney added that accountability on the bench "must be restored" and that the hearing was "long overdue."

The case will likely not be settled until at least early August, however, as a hearing officer said the parties involved have until July 3 to file briefs and then until July 10 to respond to them.

A written report and recommendation for the CJC comes 30 days after that, which would be around August 10.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Clinton judge blocked workforce cuts — yet Rubio just proved with USAID that where there's a will, there's a way

A Clinton judge barred the Trump administration last month from executing any large-scale reductions in force in order to "preserve the status quo."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered on Tuesday the termination of the U.S. Agency for International Development's remaining overseas staff, demonstrating that some obstacles created by meddlesome federal judges can easily be surmounted.

How it started

A gang of labor unions, leftist NGOs, and local governments sued the Trump administration in late April, hoping to block the government's reduction-in-force plans.

Their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, suggested that the "president does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action" and argued that President Donald Trump's Feb. 11 executive order aimed at "eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity" was unlawful.

'Every day that the preliminary injunction remains in effect, a government-wide program to implement agency RIFs is being halted and delayed.'

The plaintiffs demanded the court: declare that Trump had violated the Constitution; declare that the White House's Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Government Efficiency "exceeded statutory authority and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner"; vacate Trump's executive order and relevant agency memoranda; and restrain the Trump administration from enforcing Trump's workforce executive order.

They found a sympathetic U.S. district court judge in Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee who came recommended by former Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

Illston granted the gang of change-averse plaintiffs a temporary restraining order on May 9, then hit the administration with an injunction on May 22, blocking Trump's executive order and barring 20 executive-branch entities and "any other individuals acting under their authority or the authority of the president" from executing any reductions in force.

Illston stated that "the president likely must request congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks."

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to overturn the Clinton judge's order, the Trump administration asked for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted in the government's request for a stay that "every day that the preliminary injunction remains in effect, a government-wide program to implement agency RIFs is being halted and delayed, maintaining a bloated and inefficient workforce while wasting countless taxpayer dollars."

"The inevitable consequence is to compel federal agencies to keep large numbers of employees on the payroll without necessity, at unrecoverable taxpayer expense, thereby frustrating the government’s efforts to impose budgetary discipline and build a more efficient workforce," wrote Sauer.

The solicitor general also suggested that the "district court's novel imposition of limits on the president’s ability to control executive agencies in exercising their power over personnel is the same type of important question of federal law that warrants this Court’s review."

The gang responded on Monday, asking the high court to keep Illston's order in place.

How it's going

On Tuesday, Rubio told American embassies around the world to get cracking on abolishing all USAID positions, noting in a cable obtained by the Guardian that the State Department "is streamlining procedures under National Security Decision Directive 38 to abolish all USAID overseas positions."

The national security directive cited by Rubio gives the highest-ranking diplomat assigned to a given country control of the size, composition, and mandate of overseas staffing for U.S. government agencies.

'It shouldn't surprise anyone.'

All USAID positions will reportedly be erased by Sept. 30. This will impact hundreds of staff, including contractors, locally employed workers, and foreign service officers.

The secretary noted further that the State Department would take over the agency's foreign assistance programs by next week.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters Tuesday "that was not a surprise. It shouldn't surprise anyone."

"It’s nothing new, and it is exactly what we previewed in February and March of this year," said Bruce, adding that the aim of the change is to make sure that America's aid efforts around the world correspond with the "America First agenda."

Rubio made the order days after Bill Gates reportedly made a secret visit to the White House and begged him to reverse course on changes to the foreign aid regime.

It appears that Gates' last-ditch charm offensive, first reported by Tara Palmeri of the Red Letter, was no more effective than his USAID-themed smear campaign, where he characterized Elon Musk as a hard-hearted killer of millions.

The plaintiffs for whom Judge Illston blocked Trump's executive order claimed that Rubio's recent action appears to violate the federal court's injunction, reported the Associated Press.

However, Daniel Holler, Rubio's deputy chief of staff, clarified in a Monday court filing that the actions taken with regard to USAID staffers predate the blocked Trump order.

Holler noted that:

Rubio got the ball rolling on developing "a plan to reorganize the Department to be more streamlined and to advance the administration's core America First diplomatic priorities" in late January;
Rubio informed Congress of his intention to explore "a potential reorganization of USAID and/or its potential absorption by the Department of State" in a Feb. 3 letter;
subsequent reorganization efforts were "undertaken solely at the direction and discretion of Secretary Rubio" and predate Trump's February order;
the reorganization is intended to address foreign policy needs, an assertion that appears to hint at the limits of Illston's jurisdiction.

When asked about the significance of these firings and the broader cleanup at USAID, a State Department spokesperson told Blaze News, "Under President Trump's leadership, Secretary Rubio is taking a historic step in realigning how the United States delivers foreign aid and implements its America First Foreign Policy to ensure foreign assistance advances U.S. national interests."

"In connection with the Department assuming responsibility for limited former USAID programming, the Secretary approved the hiring of certain positions for both American (U.S. direct hire) and locally employed staff," added the spokesperson.

In terms of next steps, the spokesperson indicated that the U.S. will continue to provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance but noted "the United States cannot feed the world alone. We ask capable nations to increase their share of the burden for life-saving foreign aid."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wisconsin judge facing 6 years over illegal alien debacle turns to SCOTUS' Trump ruling to avoid consequence

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law. Dugan — who could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on Thursday.

Dugan's attorneys appear to think that the U.S. Supreme Court has provided her with the means to dodge accountability.

They noted in a Wednesday motion to dismiss the indictment obtained by Axios that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."

Here, attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

This is the ruling that prompted apoplexy among Democrats, demands for conservative justices to be impeached, and accusations that the high court was "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution," adding that "judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally."

'Unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.'

The apparent suggestion is that the following actions, which the indictment accuses her of taking, were official acts:

Confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
Directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
Addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
"Directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
Advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.

In Trump v. United States, the high court wrote:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.

Dugan's attorneys further argued on the basis of this specific assertion by the high court that the Wisconsin judge's "subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity."

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

"The government's prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional," wrote the attorneys. "Judge Dugan reserves her right to seek other relief, including by other motions before and at trial. But the immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her."

When asked about the use of the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Blaze News, "I don't think the analogy is appropriate in this case," adding, "the dispute is going to be whether she acted in her capacity as a judge."

"The government's response is going to be, 'What you did has nothing to do with judicial decision-making, the management of your court room. You went out; you interfered with federal law enforcement; you came back in, and ushered people out of the courtroom in a way to obstruct justice that had nothing to do with your so-called management in the courtroom,'" continued Fitton. "'This was a crime that was being committed in a courtroom, not by a judge, but by ... a person acting as a citizen, not as a judge.'"

Fitton suggested further that the Trump DOJ would likely appeal a ruling in Dugan's favor, in part due to the administration's "seriousness about protecting their agents and the public from these illegal alien criminals" and the possible emboldening impact such a ruling might have on other activist judges.

"It doesn't matter what line of work you are in. If you break the law, we will follow the facts, and we will prosecute you," Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the case last month.

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, is next expected in court on July 9. Her trial is reportedly set for July 21.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan's case. That's likely good news for Dugan, as the Democratic lawmaker turned Clinton appointee has made no secret of his animus toward President Donald Trump and Republicans.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Despite Democrat hysteria, Wisconsin judge accused of thwarting ICE faces 6 years in prison after grand jury indictment

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' Democratic administration issued guidance on April 18 directing state employees not to immediately cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal agents. That same day, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan allegedly helped a previously deported illegal alien facing three misdemeanor counts of battery get away from ICE.

In what proved to be a shock to some Americans now accustomed to seeing judicial activism go unchecked, the FBI arrested Dugan on April 25. The arrest sent Democratic lawmakers, former judges, and liberal activists into a frenzy.

The indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple 'affirmative acts' to assist Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade arrest.

Following weeks of Democratic accusations of judicial intimidation and claims about an improper arrest, a federal grand jury determined Tuesday that there was, after all, sufficient evidence to indict Dugan on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.

The indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple "affirmative acts" to assist Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade arrest following his pre-trial April 18 appearance in her courtroom, including:

confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
"directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.

Despite Dugan's alleged efforts, law enforcement was ultimately able to capture Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico who was previously deported in 2013, after a brief foot chase. Flores-Ruiz's battery charges reportedly include modifiers for domestic violence and reflect that he allegedly punched one individual 30 times, then brutalized the woman who attempted to intervene.

Attorney General Pam Bondi noted in an interview last month that both of Flores-Ruiz's alleged victims had to be hospitalized.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Dugan indicated through a lawyer that she will fight the charges, reported the New York Times.

"Judge Hannah C. Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge," said Dugan's lawyers. "Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court."

If convicted, Dugan could reportedly land up to six years in prison.

The judge turned defendant is expected to enter a plea at her Thursday hearing.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan's case. That bodes well for the meddlesome judge.

After all, Adelman, a Clinton appointee who long served in the Wisconsin state Senate as a Democrat, has a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat." The Heritage Foundation noted that Lynn has also compared Republicans to "the 'fireaters,' [sic] those fervent defenders of slavery who pushed the South into the Civil War."

The Department of Homeland Security told Blaze News, "Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected ICE agents away from this criminal illegal alien to obstruct the arrest and try to help him evade arrest. Thankfully, our FBI partners chased down this illegal alien, arrested him and removed him from American communities."

Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for public affairs, stated, "Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people’s mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland — but this judge’s actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful."

"We are thankful for our partners at the FBI for helping remove this accused criminal from America’s streets," continued McLaughlin. "If you are here illegally and break the law, we will hunt you down, arrest you and lock you up. That's a promise."

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Fox News' Jesse Watters Tuesday, "I'm grateful that the judicial system recognized that Judge Duggan let down the court, the country, and the authority that her position held and that she will be held accountable. That [the indictment] was a great decision to recognize that nobody can facilitate breaking the law. We should not be able to allow that in this country. We need to make sure that even judges are held accountable for their actions."

Shortly after Dugan's arrest last month, FBI Director Kash Patel posted to social media: "We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest."

In response to a request for comment about Dugan's grand jury indictment, the FBI told Blaze News: "We don’t have anything to add to Director Patel’s public statements posted on social media."

The White House did not respond by deadline.

Dugan's indictment comes two weeks after the Supreme Court of Wisconsin relieved her of her official duties "in order to uphold the public's confidence in the courts of this state." As a result, Dugan — who appears to have flouted the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly its requirement that "a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities" — is now prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the state until further order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

In the wake of her arrest, Democratic lawmakers and their allies in the media ran with the narrative that the FBI's enforcement of the law amounted to the Trump administration "making an example of the Milwaukee judge to intimidate critics and opponents."

For instance, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) stated, "We have a system of checks and balances and separations of power for damn good reasons. The President's administration arresting a sitting judge is a gravely serious and drastic move, and it threatens to breach those very separations of power."

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.) told Axios, "It is remarkable that the Administration would dare to start arresting state court judges."

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said, "They arrested a judge?! They can no longer claim to be a party of law and order."

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) stated on the day of the arrest, "We have seen in recent months the president and the Trump Administration repeatedly use dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine our judiciary at every level."

While some Democratic lawmakers issued their condemnations, others celebrated Dugan's alleged obstruction and concealment of a person from arrest.

Wisconsin state Rep. Ryan Clancy (D) stated, "I commend Judge Hannah Dugan's defense of due process by preventing ICE from shamefully using her courtroom as an ad hoc holding area for deportations."

Hundreds of former state and federal judges also leaned into the narrative, stating in a recent letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi — who had noted on X, "No one is above the law" — that "the circumstances of Judge Dugan's arrest make it clear that it was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration, instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States."

This is a developing story.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump DOJ tells courts to pound sand, not their place to order MS-13 member back to US

An Obama judge ordered the Trump administration on April 4 to bring a deported MS-13 member — found by more than one immigration court to be a "danger to the community" — back to the United States. Days later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling in part, noting that the administration must "facilitate" Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return.

The Trump administration, ever defiant, effectively told the federal courts to pound sand, which is for the best because Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said Monday that he does not intend to release Abrego Garcia.

Attorneys for the government indicated in a Sunday filing that while the high court had instructed the Trump administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return, "reading 'facilitate' as requiring something more than domestic measures would not only flout the Supreme Court's order, but also violate the separation of powers."

The Supreme Court previously recognized that some of the language in U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' order was "unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority," adding that the lesser court "should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

'They've done nothing.'

The attorneys for the government suggested in their Sunday filing that this deference on foreign policy matters should be more or less total, noting, "The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner."

"That is the 'exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,'" continued the government lawyers. "Such power is 'conclusive and preclusive,' and beyond the reach of the federal courts' equitable authority."

The plaintiffs in the case want the Trump administration to issue demands to the Salvadoran government and send American personnel to a foreign nation and an aircraft into a foreign nation's airspace to recover a citizen of that nation.

"All of those requested orders involve interactions with a foreign sovereign — and potential violations of that sovereignty," said the government lawyers. "A federal court cannot compel the Executive Branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation."

The Hill reported that Xinis was enraged Friday upon learning of the administration's continued refusal to comply with her order.

"Have they done anything?" the vexed Obama judge asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign.

"Your honor, I don't have personal knowledge," said Ensign.

"OK, so they've done nothing," said Xinis.

Michael Kozak, senior bureau official in the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, confirmed in a sworn statement Saturday that Abrego Garcia "is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador."

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, stole into the U.S. illegally and without inspection in 2011.

He was summoned in March 2019 to appear in removal hearings. During a bond hearing, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that a confidential informant flagged Abrego Garcia as an active member of the terrorist organization Mara Salvatrucha. The illegal alien's bond was denied, with the court finding he "was a danger to the community."

The following month, Abrego Garcia appealed the ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals but was once again recognized as a gang member as well as a flight risk.

The judge stated, "The fact that a 'past, proven, and reliable source of information' verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion."

Abrego Garcia's lawyers maintain that the gang label is false.

Although found removable, Abrego Garcia managed to secure a form of relief called withholding of removal in October 2019.

As a result, he avoided removal until March 12, when ICE agents in Baltimore notified Abrego Garcia that his "status has changed," then arrested him.

Government attorneys indicated that after his initial detention, the illegal alien was questioned about his gang affiliations, transferred to a detention center in Texas, then removed to El Salvador.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Karmelo Anthony granted house arrest as judge reduces his bond from $1 million to $250,000

Karmelo Anthony — the 17-year-old charged with murdering Texas high school star athlete Austin Metcalf, also 17, in connection with an April 2 stabbing at a Frisco track meet — was granted house arrest as a judge on Monday reduced his bond from $1 million to $250,000.

The bond reduction hearing began at 9 a.m. with Anthony entering the courtroom handcuffed and chained while wearing a gold jumpsuit, KDFW-TV reported.

'For reasons unknown, the defendant brought a knife to a track meet. For what probably could have been a fist fight at worst.'

Anthony's attorneys asked the judge to reduce his bond to $150,000, the station said, adding that defense attorney Mike Howard said, "Given that Karmelo has no prior criminal history …given that this young man has not been in any sort of trouble before, 1 million dollars is not necessary."

Howard added that "this family needs to be able to survive. There’s been a tremendous amount of pressure. I think at this point, living in a gated community, given everything, the safety of their younger children is very warranted. Security details and criminal defense are not cheap," KFDW said.

Howard also suggested putting Karmelo on an ankle monitor and imposing house arrest to "give this young man a chance to get out of jail and be with his family," the station noted. Anthony has been in Collin County Jail since the fatal stabbing.

Prosecutors said Anthony was in an "altercation" in school on Feb. 4, which didn't involve law enforcement, KDFW reported, adding that the GiveSendGo fundraising page that topped $250,000 early last week also was brought up. As of Monday afternoon, the funding eclipsed $415,000.

Bill Wirsky, Collin County First Assistant, argued that "for reasons unknown, the defendant brought a knife to a track meet. For what probably could have been a fist fight at worst. [The family] could make this million-dollar bond as soon as they get access to it. I don’t know why we are here."

Anthony's mother and father both testified at the bond hearing, the station reported, and said a lot of the money needs to go to their son's legal defense.

Anthony's father added that the family doesn't have access to the money raised, WFAA-TV reported, adding that the father also said he's the sole provider for his family and the notoriety of the case is forcing his family to move to a new home. The moving costs and the cost of providing for his wife and four children prevents the family from being able to pay the $1 million bond, the father also said, according to WFAA.

The judge reduced Anthony's bond to $250,000, KDFW reported, adding that he will be placed on house arrest, will have to speak to the bailiff every Friday morning, and isn't allowed on social media.

Judge Angela Tucker of the 199th Judicial District Court said she learned of the case assignment last Monday and that cases are assigned at random, KDFW said, adding that Tucker will preside only over the bond reduction hearing. Another judge will be randomly selected to preside over the trial, KDFW noted.

Tucker said they've never had the security issues they've faced with this case, KDFW said, and that a bond is meant to ensure a defendant returns to court and to ensure the community's safety.

"I don't take that lightly at all," Tucker also said during the bond hearing, according to KDFW. "I take those things very seriously."

She added that "there is no replacement for the loss of life or the loss of a child. I don’t want the family to think a bond amount is connected to the dignity of loss. You cannot make the person come back," KDFW noted.

The family on Saturday announced they had hired Howard as a new attorney to represent their son, KDFW reported. According to KXAS-TV, the family on April 4 hired defense attorney Deric Walpole; then ABC News reported on April 8 that Anthony's family retained Dallas-Fort Worth-area defense attorneys Billy Clark of the Clark Law Firm and Kim Cole of K Cole Law in the case.

Metcalf's memorial service was held Saturday at Hope Fellowship Frisco East, KDFW reported, adding that the family held a private burial after the service.

KDFW said in lieu of flowers, the family encourages donations to a scholarship in honor of Metcalf at https://hopefellowship.churchcenter.com/giving. KDFW said outside the church some memorial service attendees wore football jerseys; Metcalf was a member of the Frisco Memorial High School football team and was voted MVP this past season. He also was a member of the track and field team, the station added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Utah judge, fire chief defendant — both accused of child sex crimes — allegedly discussed pedo fantasies, had sex

A Utah judge and fire chief, who have both been charged with heinous child sex crimes, allegedly exchanged pedophiliac fantasies and even engaged in a sexual relationship. Nevertheless, the judge still presided over a hearing with the fire chief as a defendant.

The apparent scandal began back in November, when the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children received a tip that someone was uploading child sexual abuse material to the messaging app Kik. An investigation into the tip led to the arrest of 54-year-old Ned Brady Hansen, fire chief of Tremonton, Utah, in January.

'Defendant had an extensive number of chats with this user that were graphically sexual and involved discussion of sexually abusing children.'

According to court documents, Hansen admitted that he owned the Kik account in question and that he had stored abusive videos on his phone. "The Defendant stated he had a pornography addiction and that over the previous several years he had developed tastes for (girls)," court documents said.

Hansen was subsequently charged with eight first-degree felony counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. He then appeared in the court of First District Judge Kevin Christensen, 64, in Box Elder County.

Because of the apparent threat Hansen posed to the community, prosecutors requested that he remain in custody without bail. Judge Christensen, however, denied that request, and Hansen was released.

Upon further investigation, an FBI agent determined that Fire Chief Hansen and Judge Christensen were already intimately connected. According to an affidavit, the two men began chatting on Kik about their child-sex fantasies and even described in detail how they might abuse minors, including family members.

"The Defendant [Hansen] had engaged in other chats with a certain other internet user [Christensen]. Defendant had an extensive number of chats with this user that were graphically sexual and involved discussion of sexually abusing children," the affidavit said, according to ABC4.com.

What's more, Hansen and Christensen even allegedly met up in person for a sexual encounter, though it is unclear when that encounter allegedly took place and whether the alleged relationship continued for any length of time.

"Christensen did not disclose that he had engaged in sexually charged chats regarding children with defendant Hansen, and law enforcement believes that this fact materially affected the decision making of Christensen at the time he released Hansen," court documents said.

Last week, Judge Christensen found himself on the wrong side of the law after he was charged with multiple felonies related to child sexual abuse, including enticing a minor, dealing in materials harmful to a minor, and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor.

Back in November, Christensen allegedly engaged in "graphic sexual chats" with an individual he believed to be a 13-year-old girl. He also allegedly sent the individual an explicit video.

Christensen has since been placed on administrative leave. "The Chief Justice has placed Judge Christensen on administrative leave without pay while the investigation and court process continues," said a statement from the Utah State Courts.

As of Thursday morning, Brady Hansen is still listed on the city website as the fire chief of Tremonton, Utah. In an effort to reach Hansen and perhaps learn more about his current status with the fire department, Blaze News emailed and left several messages at the numbers listed on the website. None of those messages were returned.

The fire station landline and the non-emergency county phone number do not currently seem to be in service.

Screenshot of Tremonton city website

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Justice for elderly pro-lifer beaten to a pulp outside Planned Parenthood takes brutal turn

Brice arrested

Hung jury on most serious charge for attack on Crosby

New trial, old story

'This decision is one for the ages'

Indiana Sheriff Argues He Can’t Be Prosecuted For Failing To Cooperate With ICE

Judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE says she didn't think 'avoid ICE' meant anything illegal

Clinton judge blocked workforce cuts — yet Rubio just proved with USAID that where there's a will, there's a way

How it started

How it's going

Wisconsin judge facing 6 years over illegal alien debacle turns to SCOTUS' Trump ruling to avoid consequence

Despite Democrat hysteria, Wisconsin judge accused of thwarting ICE faces 6 years in prison after grand jury indictment

Trump DOJ tells courts to pound sand, not their place to order MS-13 member back to US

Karmelo Anthony granted house arrest as judge reduces his bond from $1 million to $250,000

Utah judge, fire chief defendant — both accused of child sex crimes — allegedly discussed pedo fantasies, had sex

Jen Psaki Flops in MSNBC Primetime Role, Loses Nearly Hundreds of Thousands of Viewers Since Taking Over Rachel Maddow's Time Slot

MTG asks DOJ to drop charges against 'hero' doctor accused of destroying COVID vaccines, giving out fake vax records

KBJ Keeps Showing America Why She Doesn’t Belong On SCOTUS

Establishment Dems say Mamdani and his allies are in for a ‘painful lesson’

Brice arrested

Hung jury on most serious charge for attack on Crosby

New trial, old story

'This decision is one for the ages'

How it started

How it's going

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.