Legal Random, Random

[ponchi101]

Movie script:
Ghislaine (Played by Emma Stone): "Ok, your boss wants some cover. I want full immunity, I want a pardon and I want a one way ticket to Zurich, so I can be reunited with my beloved Swiss accounts".
Pam Bondi (played by Nicole Kidman). "This is not a negotiation".
Ghislaine: "I can sink that fat guy with only the first page of the list. So, it is a negotiation. I just made it one".

[ti-amie]

Movie script:
Ghislaine (Played by Emma Stone): "Ok, your boss wants some cover. I want full immunity, I want a pardon and I want a one way ticket to Zurich, so I can be reunited with my beloved Swiss accounts".
Pam Bondi (played by Nicole Kidman). "This is not a negotiation".
Ghislaine: "I can sink that fat guy with only the first page of the list. So, it is a negotiation. I just made it one".

Ponchi's new career path: script writer

[ti-amie]

The Bulwark

‪@thebulwark.com‬

Follow
Epstein victims lawyer Spencer Kuvin: "We now know from the words of the President himself that Virginia was right all along, and that she was trafficked out of Mar-a-Lago.”

https://bsky.app/profile/thebulwark.com ... bbi2pqbc22 (Video)

Digital footprints‬
‪@theyregreen.bsky.social‬
· 41m
The way Trump said, "... he stole people from me ..." should have EVERY American, especially his fans/cult members. He thinks he owns you. If that doesn't resonate, let me help you:

Owning persons = slavery.

pprchny.bsky.social‬
‪@pprchny.bsky.social‬
· 53m
What was she doing at sixteen years old giving massages to old white men in the spa at Mar A lago. Why did Trump talk about her like she was his property.

[ti-amie]

Federal court filing system hit in sweeping hack
The identities of confidential court informants are feared compromised in a series of breaches across multiple U.S. states.

By John Sakellariadis and Josh Gerstein
08/06/2025 09:32 PM EDT

The electronic case filing system used by the federal judiciary has been breached in a sweeping cyber intrusion that is believed to have exposed sensitive court data across multiple U.S. states, according to two people with knowledge of the incident.

The hack, which has not been previously reported, is feared to have compromised the identities of confidential informants involved in criminal cases at multiple federal district courts, said the two people, both of whom were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the hack.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — which manages the federal court filing system — first determined how serious the issue was around July 4, said the first person. But the office, along with the Justice Department and individual district courts around the country, is still trying to determine the full extent of the incident.

It is not immediately clear who is behind the hack, though nation-state-affiliated actors are widely suspected, the people said. Criminal organizations may also have been involved, they added.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment. Asked whether it is investigating the incident, the FBI referred POLITICO to the Justice Department. The Justice Department did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

It is not immediately clear how the hackers got in, but the incident is known to affect the judiciary’s federal core case management system, which includes two overlapping components: Case Management/Electronic Case Files, or CM/ECF, which legal professionals use to upload and manage case documents; and PACER, a system that gives the public limited access to the same data.

In addition to records on witnesses and defendants cooperating with law enforcement, the filing system includes other sensitive information potentially of interest to foreign hackers or criminals, such as sealed indictments detailing non-public information about alleged crimes, and arrests and search warrants that criminal suspects could use to evade capture.

Chief judges of the federal courts in the 8th Circuit — which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota — were briefed on the hack at a judicial conference last week in Kansas City, said the two people. It is unclear who delivered the brief, though the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., was in attendance, per the first person. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was also in attendance but didn’t address the breach in his remarks.

Staff for Conrad, a district judge in the Western District of North Carolina, declined to comment.

The hack is the latest sign that the federal court filing system is struggling to keep pace with a rising wave of cybersecurity threats.

Michael Scudder, who chairs the Committee on Information Technology for the federal courts’ national policymaking body, told the House Judiciary Committee in June that CM/ECF and Pacer are “outdated, unsustainable due to cyber risks, and require replacement.”

He also said that because the federal Judiciary holds such sensitive information, it faces “unrelenting security threats of extraordinary gravity.”

As of July 2022, the Justice Department was investigating another hack of the federal court system that then-House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) described as “startling.” The incident involved three foreign hacking groups and dated back to early 2020, Nadler also said. It is not clear who the foreign hackers were or whether these incidents are connected.

Watch: The Conversation
Play Video53:13
Rep. Sarah McBride won’t be baited by GOP ‘provocateurs’ | The Conversation
“It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a hack at this level,” said the first of the two people, who has spent more than two decades on the federal judiciary.

The second person said that roughly a dozen court dockets were tampered with in one court district as a result of the hack. The first person was not aware of any tampering but said it was theoretically possible.

The incident does not appear to have exposed the most highly protected federal court witnesses, since the real identities of those thought to face exceptional risk for cooperating are held on separate systems maintained by the Justice Department, according to the first person.

During his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Scudder said that replacing CM/ECF and PACER was a “top priority” for the federal judiciary, but that developing a more modernized system would have to “be developed and rolled out on an incremental basis.”

He also called CM/ECF and Pacer the “backbone system federal courts depend on for mission-critical, day-to-day operation.”


https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 ... k-00496916

[ti-amie]

[Owendonovan]

Maybe they should be re-named The Epstein and Friends Pedophile Files, so as to not forget what they're all about.

[ponchi101]

Agree, but the whole gist is that it was not only pedophiles. There were other activities too.
Who would be surprised if financial shenanigans were also involved?

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

DC's police chief remains in charge after federal ‘hostile takeover' attempt, AG says
D.C. was victorious, the city's attorney general said, after D.C.'s lawsuit sought to block U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s order naming the head of the DEA as D.C.’s “emergency police commissioner."

By Ted Oberg, News4 investigative reporter and NBC Washington Staff • Published August 15, 2025 • Updated 49 seconds ago



D.C.’s “chief of police remains the chief of police,” the District's attorney general said after a court hearing on what he called a "hostile takeover" attempt by the federal government. He called the judge’s decision “a very important win for Home Rule.”

Less than 12 hours after the Trump administration seemingly replaced Washington, D.C.’s, police chief with a federal officer, the District was in federal court on Friday to try to block the move.

Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming President Donald Trump far exceeded the authority granted him in D.C.’s Home Rule Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution.

The federal judge overseeing the lawsuit said the law doesn’t allow the federal government to name a new police chief, but the city can’t completely keep them out either. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes asked the two sides to hammer out a compromise but promised to issue a court order temporarily blocking the administration from naming a new chief if they couldn’t agree.

“I am encouraged by the judge’s remarks and the federal government making the changes that were suggested, and the judge’s willingness to rule if that’s not satisfactory,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said after the hearing.

How D.C. enforces federal immigration laws and responds to homeless people are key issues. D.C. and federal officials are expected to keep talking over the weekend about general orders that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole rescinded.

Schwalb sought a temporary restraining order and to block U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Thursday night order naming Cole as D.C.’s “emergency police commissioner" with all the powers of the police chief.

People protested in D.C.’s defense outside the courthouse. Many were emotional.

“I’m pissed,” demonstrator Kenneth Davis said before getting choked up. “I love D.C. They’re lying on D.C. They’re just trying to take over D.C. It is wrong. It is morally wrong.”

Schwalb's lawsuit also aimed to ensure that Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith remains in control of D.C.’s police department. The lawsuit comes less than a week after the historic federalization of D.C.'s police department.

“Congress did not grant the President authority to displace the Chief of Police, assert operational control over MPD or rescind MPD policies – as the Administration seeks to do," Schwalb's office said in a release announcing the suit.

Smith said in a court filing that Bondi's directive for Cole to assume the powers and duties of her position as chief would threaten law and order by upending the command structure, leading to delays and confusion among personnel.

“In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,” Smith said.

"Imposing a new command structure “effective immediately” will wreak operational havoc within MPD and create tremendous risk for the public," Smith said in the filing. "The new command structure will create confusion for MPD personnel, who are required under District law to respect and obey the Chief of Police as the head and chief of the police force... There is no greater risk to public safety in a paramilitary organization than to not know who is in command."

In an interview with News4 on Friday, Schwalb also said the order was "dangerous to public safety," adding that the confusion it created is what pushed his office to take legal action.

"Things have escalated to a point," Schwalb said. "We saw the President at the beginning of the week begin this hostile takeover. Attorney General Bondi's order last night makes clear that that's what they are attempting to do, to actually supplant the command and control of the chief of police, and that's why we're in court this morning asking the federal court to enjoin that."

A U.S. District Court judge scheduled a 2 p.m. hearing over the motion for a temporary restraining order.

According to Bondi's directive, the Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders.

Bondi’s order also rescinded several of the D.C. police department’s standing orders, including one issued by Smith Thursday allowing D.C. officers to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Bondi claimed Smith’s order did not go far enough. The other rescinded orders include the D.C. police code of conduct for officers and another governing arrest warrants.

Schwalb said it was the greatest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and officials are fighting to stop it.

"By declaring a hostile takeover of MPD, the Administration is abusing its limited, temporary authority under the Home Rule Act, infringing on the District’s right to self-governance and putting the safety of DC residents and visitors at risk. The Administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," he said.

Schwalb said in a letter to Smith late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful” and argued it could not be followed by the city’s police force.

“Therefore, members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” Schwalb wrote in a memo to Smith, setting up a potential legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.

Bowser wrote on social media “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Trump, Bondi and Cole are named as defendants in the lawsuit, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service and its director. Bowser is not named in the suit. News4 has asked her office for comment. The Justice Department declined to comment.

Earlier this week, when asked about challenging the federalization of D.C. police, Bowser seemed dismissive of pursuing the legal option.

“What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,” Bowser said at a Monday news conference. “We could contest that, but the [president’s] authority is pretty broad.”

Announcing the federal takeover on Monday, Trump relied on Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act. In Trump’s Executive Order, he writes, “Effective immediately, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.”

While the order and the Home Rule Act can force the District to “provide the services” of D.C.’s police department, Schwalb argues in his letter to Smith, the Home Rule Act “does not authorize the President, or his delegee, to remove or replace the Chief of Police; to alter the chain of command within MPD; to demand services directly from you, MPD, or anyone other than the Mayor; to rescind or suspend MPD orders or directives; or to set the general enforcement priorities of MPD or otherwise determine how the District pursues purely local law enforcement.”

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... l/3975586/

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Two Big Law Firms Said to Be Doing Free Work for Trump Administration
After making deals with the president to avoid punitive executive orders, Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis are helping the Commerce Department.
Listen to this article · 3:58 min Learn more

By Michael S. SchmidtMatthew Goldstein and Maggie Haberman
Aug. 20, 2025
Updated 5:45 p.m. ET

At least two large law firms that struck deals with President Trump to avoid punitive executive orders have committed to doing free legal work for the Commerce Department, according to two people briefed on the matter.

The firms — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Kirkland & Ellis — are working on a range of matters for the Commerce Department, according to one of the people briefed on the matter.

The firms either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. The New York Times reported last week that Kirkland & Ellis and another firm that had settled with Mr. Trump, Skadden Arps, had been connected with the Commerce Department about working on trade deals for the government, but that it was unclear whether they were being paid or working for free as part of the arrangements they had struck with the president.

For Paul Weiss, the arrangement is a dramatic turn from where it stood during Mr. Trump’s first administration, when it prided itself on fighting him in court. The firm has also had a long history of fund-raising for Democratic candidates.

Despite having stood up in the past to the government on issues like civil rights, Paul Weiss became the first firm to strike a deal with the administration to head off a potentially crippling executive order issued by Mr. Trump in March. That deal became something of a template for other firms to follow.

In the past, some law firms have done work for the federal government at a reduced rate. But coming just months after they struck deals with the president, the free work is likely to raise new questions about whether the firms felt compelled to do so to stay in Mr. Trump’s good graces.

Kirkland and Skadden Arps were connected to the Commerce Department through Boris Epshteyn, a personal lawyer for the president who took the lead for Mr. Trump in cutting the deals with the law firms, according people familiar with the events.

In the first several months of the administration, nine firms reached deals with the president to head off executive orders signed by Mr. Trump that would make it nearly impossible for them to represent their clients.

As part of the deals, the firms committed to performing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work for causes Mr. Trump has championed, like helping veterans and combating antisemitism. It was not initially clear exactly what the firms would do.

Editors’ Picks

This Sauce Is Good on Everything

Do Food Expiration Dates Really Matter?

Why a Kiwi May Be the Perfect Snack
But as the deals were being reached, Mr. Trump told reporters that he thought the pro bono work could be used toward his administration’s trade deals and even representing him in a personal capacity.

The deals were widely criticized in the legal community as unconstitutional, unethical and undemocratic. The four firms that chose to fight the administration’s executive orders in court have all won sweeping legal victories.

Pro bono legal work traditionally has involved work for the indigent or groups seeking to defend a threatened constitutional right. After Mr. Trump’s crackdown on the legal profession, some big firms — even some that did not settle with the administration — have chosen to avoid high-profile pro bono cases out of fear of angering the president.

The Commerce Department is not only taking an active role in trade and tariff negotiations but also discussing taking equity stakes in some U.S. companies like the chip maker Intel.

In a statement, the department said it and its secretary, Howard Lutnick, “are working with some of America’s top law firms and legal minds to cement the truly historic trade deals that President Trump negotiated for the American people.”

The department added, “This partnership is helping unlock unprecedented foreign market access for American exports, and our workers, farmers and industries will be the biggest beneficiaries in the years to come.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/20/us/p ... ation.html

What was it Ponchi said about giving in to bullies?

[ti-amie]

Kyle Cheney
‪@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬
JUST IN: Judge Berman agrees that effort by DOJ to unseal Epstein grand jury files is a “diversion” when DOJ could just release a trove of far more comprehensive documents without court involvement. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

‪Matthew Stiegler‬
‪@matthewstiegler.bsky.social‬
· 2h
Luttig is communicating vastly more clearly and honestly about Roberts and Scotus than most Democratic officials are. It’s absolutely flabbergasting.

[ti-amie]

Kilmar Abrego García set free after illegal deportation, smuggling charges
The man whose case has become a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s deportation campaign has been released while awaiting trial. ICE could try to quickly deport him.

Updated
August 22, 2025 at 3:25 p.m. EDT31 minutes ago


Kilmar Abrego Garcia, center, leaves the Putnam County Jail. (AP)

By Maria Sacchetti and Jeremy Roebuck
Kilmar Abrego García, the Maryland man illegally deported to his native El Salvador, has been released while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges, his attorney said Friday, a blow to the Trump administration, which had promised that he would “never go free” in the United States again.

Federal officials obeyed a pair of court orders to release Abrego from jail in Tennessee, where he is accused of smuggling migrants based on a 2022 traffic stop in that state, and allow him to return to Maryland with orders to wear a GPS tracking device. He has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case.

“Today, Kilmar Abrego García is free,” Sean Hecker, his criminal defense lawyer, said in a statement. “He is presently en route to his family in Maryland, after being unlawfully arrested and deported, and then imprisoned, all because of the government’s vindictive attack on a man who had the courage to fight back against the Administration’s continuing assault on the rule of law.”

Abrego’s release marks a major victory for the undocumented immigrant who has lived in Maryland for more than a decade with his wife and three children, all U.S. citizens. It is unclear how long his freedom will last, however. Another court has said immigration officers may seek to deport him to another country, with as little as three days’ notice.

At a June hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes imposed several conditions on his release, including that he attend anger management classes and live at an address provided to the court. The judge also told him to avoid contact with members of the MS-13 gang, “if you know any.” Abrego’s lawyers and family have denied that he is a gang member.

The release is the latest development in an odyssey that began more than five months ago when U.S. immigration officers, under pressure to accelerate deportations, sent him and nearly 300 other immigrants to a notorious prison for gang members in El Salvador. Multiple judges found that Abrego’s removal violated a 2019 court order forbidding his deportation to that country because gangs there had threatened to harm him.

The Trump administration has been in a lengthy tug-of-war with the federal courts ever since. Government lawyers described Abrego’s deportation as an “isolated error” but resisted rulings ordering his return. Even after the Supreme Court directed officials to facilitate his return, Attorney General Pamela Bondi said he was “not coming back to our country” and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said he “will never return.”

Despite those pledges, officials returned Abrego, 30, to the U.S. in June after securing an indictment against him in Tennessee over migrant smuggling. His attorneys have called the case a “vindictive” prosecution and asked a judge to dismiss the charges.

Holmes said that month that Abrego was eligible for release on bail, finding that the government had failed to prove that he was a flight risk or a danger to the community. She noted that the smuggling charges are the first criminal allegations ever filed against Abrego.

But Abrego’s attorneys asked for a stay on his release after immigration officers repeatedly stated they would immediately detain him and try to deport him to another country such as Mexico or South Sudan, a nation on the brink of war. The order delaying his release expired Friday. Holmes’s release order had not yet been filed on the public docket Friday afternoon.

While U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could still try to remove him, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland has forbidden the agency from immediately detaining him. She said officers must give him at least 72 hours’ notice that they intend to deport him to a country other than his native El Salvador. That would give him a brief window to contest his removal in court. Xinis was the first federal judge to order the U.S. government to facilitate Abrego’s return to the United States.

A criminal trial on the migrant smuggling charges had been scheduled for January. If ICE follows through on its threats to deport Abrego, those charges would probably be dropped.

Since he is married to a U.S. citizen, Abrego could be a candidate for legal residency, though having that approved is likely to be a challenge under the Trump administration.

Administration officials have repeatedly characterized Abrego as an MS-13 gang member and a prolific human smuggler. His attorneys and family deny those accusations. The government has repeatedly noted that his wife twice filed for court protection from him in Maryland, accusing him of abuse, though in both cases she did not pursue the request past the initial filings.

His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, said in an interview that Abrego was traumatized when immigration officers detained him for months in 2019, after a Prince George’s County police detective alleged Abrego was in the gang. The detective was later fired for misconduct in an unrelated case. No charges were filed against Abrego at the time.

Vasquez said the couple addressed their differences through counseling. In March, immigration officials detained Abrego again in Maryland after he picked up their youngest son, who is autistic and nonverbal, after work. Abrego was also helping Vasquez raise her two other children and working as a sheet-metal apprentice.

His wife has described the trauma of the family’s separation on TikTok, posting videos of their children’s birthday parties without their father and their last family outing, to a trampoline park.

She celebrated the release last month of Venezuelans transported to the Salvadoran prison along with Abrego in March.

But she said that her daughter asked for her father to come home for her birthday party last month and that it broke her heart to tell her he could not. She posted photos of the girl in a party dress and a toy “emotional support bear” named Kilmar.

Abrego’s family sued in Maryland to bring him back to the U.S., and his attorneys argue the Trump administration has put him in danger by making him the face of its mass deportation campaign. The lawyers said in a court filing that he and the other migrants sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center were severely beaten and forced to kneel for nine straight hours upon their arrival.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat ... -maryland/