SATURDAY - PART ONE
- donbrooks777
- 4 days ago
- 29 min read
New BLOG – Great ARTICLES
SATURDAY 5-[02]-26
SPIRITUAL:
VERSE for TODAY: SATURDAY
New International Version
This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him
Read all of 1 John 5 ►
Forward this email to your friends, or invite them to subscribe to receive the Verse of the Day here
Take God's Word With You
CANADIAN:
LEVY: The Bullies who run small-town Councils
Sue-Ann Levy writes, "There is absolutely no scrutiny on these overpaid mayors and councillors and they can use their powers not to be accountable but to silence others."
Facebook (City of London)
City of London councillor Susan Stevenson has faced eight integrity complaints, one formal reprimand and one 30-day pay sanction during her four years in office — simply for asking hard questions of the city’s bureaucrats.
”I ran thinking the city seemed to be going in the wrong direction,” she said recently.
She thought she’d be a “minority voice” but had no idea her questions upset the “carefully coordinated plan not to talk about difficult things.”
From the very outset, her questions about homelessness and harm reduction have led to numerous attacks by the agencies and activists invested in the homeless and drug industry.
They’ve called me “dangerous,” she said.
She also claims city manager Sandra Datars-Bere —who came on board in 2024 and made an outrageous $305,012 last year (for a city with a population of 630.000) – charged her with “bullying and harassment” for asking her questions that should be the right and duty of a councilor.
Susan Stevenson
The agency serving as Integrity Commissioner for London — Principles Integrity — said while Stevenson has a right to ask questions, persistent questions about homelessness could be construed as “harassment.”
Apparently, in the city of London, one is not allowed to ask questions about — in this case, homeless programs — because essentially the bureaucrats have been “delegated authority” to do what they wish and not have to report their successes or failures, she says. They think they can spend with impunity because it is federal tax dollars.
Stevenson said when she tried to ask for details about the budgets and contracts for various homeless programs, the “silencing tactics began.
”Asking for information is perceived as an attack,” she said, noting she had to file FOIs to get contracts the council had approved.
She paid money, waited for months and when the information came back, all the budgets were redacted.
She adds that the rest of the councilors don’t ask for details, claiming they “trust” staff.
Woke mayor Josh Morgan, who made $226.893 last year, goes along with it.
Morgan’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Stevenson came under fire — virtually being mobbed on social media — for tweeting a story by CNN’s Michael Smerconish in July of 2023 on how to deal with the homeless. In it, he suggests that if all the efforts to house and rehabilitate them fail and they return to the streets, perhaps arresting them is the only answer.
The leftists went nuts, repeatedly claiming that the councillors advocated jailing the homeless— all in an attempt to silence her.
“It was a complete witch hunt,” she says.
In smaller Ontario towns — away from the media scrutiny — the city’s councillors, mayor and highly paid bureaucrats have discovered a perfect way to silence those with hard questions and the Gravy Train they enjoy.
It’s the code of conduct complaint process — one they control using their handpicked and no doubt generously paid agency Principles, Integrity. The co-founder of that agency, Jeffrey Abrams, once worked as a solicitor at the city of Toronto.
In a 33-page Dec. 8, 2023 report, Principles, Integrity reprimanded Stevenson for taking photos of the homeless in a public park, calling it “unnecessary and insensitive.”
I guess Abrams would have reprimanded me continuously, seeing as I regularly wrote about and took pictures of the homeless occupying Toronto’s public parks.
If Abrams and his partner Janice Atwood are getting paid per eye-glazing word, they are doing very well. He proclaims in one of the reports written about Stevenson that he and his partner are “privileged” to act as Integrity Commissioner for several Ontario municipalities.
In the small town of Pickering, it appears mayor Kevin Ashe has Principles Integrity on speed dial, essentially to silence the thorn in his side, councillor Lisa Robinson.
Lisa Robinson
Robinson, also a first-term councillor, has not been paid for 21 months over a series of integrity complaints and pay sanctions, launched primarily by Ashe and the CAO Marisa Carpino, who made $278,553 last year.
By contrast, Robinson made a grand total of $13,000 out of a total salary of $65,000 in 2025.
One of his complaints was that Robinson was given donations from crowdfunding on Give Send Go– a total of $15,000 to help her pay her mortgage and support her son (she’s a single mom).
Ashe freely admits in his response to me that she’s been sanctioned for “twice accepting prohibited gifts or benefits through online fundraising campaigns” which is a violation of the council’s gifts policies.
He seems to gleefully declare that their “third-party” Integrity Commish has investigated Robinson a total of eight times and found “repeated breaches” of the Code of Conduct–and that the Divisional court has upheld the Integrity Commish’s findings.
He maintains that the court also rejected allegations of “unfairness or bias.”
Ashe contends that the Integrity Commissioner’s “independent rulings” and the sanctions speak for themselves.
Stevenson argues otherwise. She has found that Principles Integrity has issued biased rulings about her, and from reading some of them, they appear to tell councillors what they want to hear.
Ashe did not respond to my question as to whether such a pay sanction was abusive, considering that according to records, he made $319,890.65 in total during 2025
Reports say Ashe is the highest-paid mayor in Durham, a town with just six members of council and a population of 117,000.
He is also apparently a good friend to Premier Doug Ford, who comparatively made $270,000 in 2025 and who attended his gala last November.
Robinson says Ashe has also harassed her on social media in response to videos she posts online about the council’s “disgusting” secrecy, lack of transparency and the mayor’s high salary.
Ashe and council have also moved meetings online, she contends, because they didn’t like that “people were showing up” to criticize them and journalists are no longer allowed to record meetings unless two-thirds of council votes in favour.
I thought the antics of the Toronto city council were bad and that Olivia Chow was a train wreck.
But at least we see what she is doing in living colour, even if it makes us sick.
But the greedy bullies who run small towns like London and Pickering – propped up by an integrity firm that may not be as objective or morally driven as they claim to be – are mob bosses unto themselves.
Trouble is, there is absolutely no scrutiny on these overpaid mayors and councillors and they can use their powers not to be accountable but to silence those who try to do their jobs properly.
JUNO News
Patrick Bestall
TRUMP:
Trump taps Radiologist Nicole Saphier for Surgeon General after pulling Casey Means Nomination
By
President Donald Trump on Thursday nominated Dr. Nicole B. Saphier, a breast-imaging specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, to serve as surgeon general, moving swiftly to replace Dr. Casey Means after her nomination stalled in the Senate.
The switch came less than half an hour after Trump announced on Truth Social that Means would be withdrawn, marking his third attempt to fill the post in his second term.
The rapid pivot underscores a White House determined to keep its Make America Healthy Again agenda on track, even as Senate resistance forced a high-profile retreat. It also lands a fresh blow to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose preferred candidate could not survive the confirmation gauntlet.
The Daily Caller reported that Trump praised Saphier as a "star physician" who has spent her career guiding women through breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. In his Truth Social post, the president highlighted her work on early cancer detection and prevention.
"She is also an incredible communicator who makes complicated health issues more easily understood by all Americans."
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the nomination.
Why Casey Means fell short
Means was nominated last May as a replacement for Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, Trump's original surgeon general pick. From the start, her path was rocky. Her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was postponed in late 2025, and when it finally took place earlier this year, she failed to gather enough votes to advance.
Senators raised pointed questions about her medical experience, her views on vaccines, and the fact that she does not hold an active medical license, a combination that eroded support on both sides of the aisle. The Washington Times reported that those concerns had effectively doomed her candidacy well before Thursday's announcement.
As we previously reported, Trump had signaled for weeks that he might pull the Means nomination amid growing GOP resistance. Thursday's move made it official.
Trump laid blame squarely on Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who chairs the HELP committee. In his Truth Social post withdrawing Means, the president accused Cassidy of "intransigence and political games" and called him a "very disloyal person" who had used Trump's endorsement to win election before voting to impeach him.
Still, Trump struck a conciliatory note toward Means herself, saying she would continue to champion the MAHA cause outside the surgeon general's office:
"Casey will continue to fight for MAHA on the many important health issues facing our country, such as the rising childhood disease epidemic, increased autism rates, poor nutrition, over-medicalization, and researching the root causes of infertility, and many other difficult medical problems."
Who is Nicole Saphier?
Saphier serves as director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Monmouth and hosts a program called "Wellness Unmasked." She is also a Fox News medical contributor, a detail that gives her a public profile most radiologists lack and may smooth her confirmation path by making her a familiar face to Republican senators.
Breitbart noted that Saphier is broadly aligned with the MAHA movement, though she has at times publicly differed with Trump on health messaging. That independent streak may actually serve as an asset in confirmation hearings, signaling to skeptical senators that the nominee exercises her own medical judgment.
Her record on vaccine policy offers a window into her approach. In 2022, Saphier warned that the CDC would mandate coronavirus vaccines for schoolchildren. Then in 2025, she publicly asked the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics to allow parents to delay the MMR vaccine for their children.
In her own words, she urged the agencies to let parents "have that conversation and let them wait until their child's a little bit older." That position places her firmly within the parental-choice lane of the MAHA movement without veering into outright vaccine opposition, a distinction that may matter when she sits before the HELP committee.
The contentious confirmation fight over the surgeon general post has already produced sharp exchanges on Capitol Hill. Whether Saphier's medical credentials and communication skills can defuse that tension remains to be seen.
A pattern of personnel resets
Saphier is now Trump's third nominee for surgeon general in this term alone, following Nesheiwat and Means. The revolving door reflects a broader challenge: the administration's health agenda is ambitious, but the Senate confirmation process keeps extracting a toll.
Newsmax described Means's withdrawal as a setback for Kennedy and the MAHA movement that had strongly supported her. Kennedy had preferred Means for the role and had planned to work alongside her to tackle chronic diseases.
The surgeon general shuffle is not the only personnel question facing the administration. Trump has also weighed changes at the intelligence directorate, suggesting a willingness to move quickly when nominees or appointees hit resistance.
The post of surgeon general carries symbolic weight beyond its formal authority. The officeholder serves as "America's doctor," shaping public-health messaging on everything from childhood nutrition to disease prevention. Under the Biden administration, the office drew scrutiny for its role in coordinating efforts to suppress COVID-era dissent, a controversy that makes the next occupant's approach to free inquiry and medical transparency all the more consequential.
What comes next
Trump described Saphier as having "impeccable 'MAHA' credentials" in a post shared by the White House rapid-response account on X. The framing is deliberate: the administration wants to signal continuity on its health-reform agenda even as it swaps out the messenger.
Saphier's professional résumé is harder to attack than Means's was. She holds an active medical practice, directs a specialized imaging division at one of the nation's premier cancer centers, and has years of public-facing commentary that senators can review. None of that guarantees smooth sailing, Cassidy still chairs the committee, and the politics of vaccine policy remain combustible, but it narrows the lines of attack considerably.
The open questions are straightforward. Can Saphier secure the votes Means could not? Will Cassidy and the HELP committee schedule a hearing promptly, or will the same procedural delays that sank Means resurface? And will Kennedy's wing of the health-policy world embrace a nominee who was not their first, or second, choice?
The administration has burned through two surgeon general nominees in under a year. At some point, the Senate has to confirm one, or explain to voters why America's top public-health post sits empty while chronic disease rates keep climbing.
GLOBAL:
Supreme Court Blocks Race-Based Gerrymandering
Big news out of the courts this week—U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major 6-3 decision that could reshape how congressional districts are drawn across the country.
This is a great decision for democracy. It affirms that the U.S. Constitution requires the government to be colorblind in its decision making. The decision effectively ends the egregious racial segregation of voters. We are prepared to enforce this decision and end any racial gerrymandering that treats voters as cogs in a racial spoils system.
Most Americans would agree with the court’s conclusion that “allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”
In January 2025, Judicial Watch and AEF filed an initial amici brief (friends of the court) in this case, asking the court to affirm a lower court ruling that Louisiana violated the constitution when it crowded minority voters into congressional districts. Judicial Watch and AEF filed a supplemental amici curiae brief in September 2025.
We argued:
This Court has compared race-based districting to segregation of “public parks, … buses, … and schools,” and warned that we “should not be carving electorates into racial blocs.” … That is because “[c]lassifications of citizens solely on the basis of race ‘are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.’” … Racial gerrymandering, like all “[r]acial classifications of any sort” cause “lasting harm to our society” because “[t]hey reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin.” …
There should be no question that race-based division of citizens for purposes of compliance with § 2 and Gingles is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the “central purpose” of which “is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race.”… The same may be said of the Voting Rights Act.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas agreed, denouncing the practice where:
“Blacks [were] drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [were] drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” . . . That interpretation is “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” . . . Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.
AEF is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.
We are a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.
We pointed out earlier this year that Maryland’s Democrat-proposed 2026 congressional redistricting plan is in key respects identical to the unconstitutional gerrymander struck down in a prior Judicial Watch lawsuit—but is even more partisan and less compact than the invalidated 2021 map.
Our lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.
In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. We brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.
In January 2026, in a historic case we filed, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.
Court Victory: D.C. Blocked from Hiding January 6 Bodycam Footage
In a major victory for Judicial Watch and the rule of law, a Washington, D.C. court ruled that Washington D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) cannot broadly blur and censor body-worn camera (BWC) footage from January 6, 2021.
The MPD had previously claimed that such redactions were necessary to protect personal privacy and asserted that complying with the request would cost more than $1.5 million due to the volume of footage, which reportedly exceeds one thousand hours.
The ruling follows a January 8, 2026, hearing before Judge Veronica Sanchez in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for all bodycam footage recorded by Metropolitan Police officers who responded to the U.S. Capitol on January 6 (Judicial Watch v. District of Columbia (No. 2024-CAB-003453)).
In its order, the court rejected the District’s argument that it could justify redacting, under D.C. FOIA exemptions, the faces and voices of all non-law enforcement individuals captured in the footage.
The court found that while individuals appearing in the footage may have a limited privacy interest, that interest is minimal and does not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The court emphasized that the events of January 6 occurred largely in public settings, were widely recorded, and remain a matter of significant national concern.
Concerning the individuals’ privacy interests, the court explained that the individuals present could not reasonably expect that their appearances would remain private:
The circumstances leading up to the events at the U.S. Capitol Complex included a large, public, televised event on the National Mall. Individuals were gathered in a public arena. The crowd then marched to the U.S. Capitol Complex where members of congress were partaking in the certification of the Presidential election results live on television.
***
The individuals on the [body-worn cameras] could not “reasonably expect that their appearances on the [BWC] would remain private.” … A person’s privacy interest is greater in the release of images and video footage that were taken without their “knowing consent.” … Even though the individuals recorded on the subject BWCs may not have consented to their images being recorded, they certainly had reason to believe that the many law enforcement officers, as well as the surveillance cameras at the government owned property, were recording them.
Additionally, during the events of January 6, simultaneous media images from both inside the U.S. Capitol and around the U.S. Capitol Complex were being broadcast, streamed, and uploaded. While the individuals may have not all “knowingly consented” to the images being recorded, they had reason to know they were.
Concerning the public interest, the court stated:
The events of January 6, 2021, have been the topic of much debate, discussion, and scrutiny in the public consciousness by not just the residents of the District of Columbia but also the nation. BWC footage of the events at the Capitol on January 6 could “contribute significantly” to the public’s understanding of the events on that day and the MPD’s actions.
The court concluded, “In balancing the privacy interests which are little more than de minimis with the public interest, the public interest outweighs the privacy interests. … [T]he faces and voices of individuals captured by MPD’s BWCs on January 6, 2021, are not exempt from disclosure.”
This a major victory for transparency and the rule of law. As the court found, the American people have a right to see this secret D.C. police January 6 footage. We will now push for the immediate release of the videos.
We have extensively investigated the events of January 6.
In April 2026, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain records related to possible improper targeting of January 6, 2021, Capitol protesters, their supporters, and related nonprofits
In August 2025, we announced that the U.S. Air Force would finally provide full military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Babbitt was the only official January 6 homicide victim. The Biden administration had previously denied Babbitt and her family these honors in retaliation for being at the U.S. Capitol that day.
This decision came on the heels of a massive, nearly $5 million Trump administration settlement to her family for wrongful death and other claims against the U.S. Government.
In July 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated January 6 prosecutions after Donald Trump was elected president in November 2024. The Biden administration, anticipating President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to issue pardons for January 6, 2021, defendants, is believed to have accelerated prosecutions in the final months of Biden’s term.
In March 2024, we received Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records from the Department of Justice in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deployed personnel to Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.
In October 2023, we received the declaration of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021 that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.
Oregon Settlement Targets 800,000 Ineligible Voter Registrations
Election victory in Oregon! We have a settlement in our federal lawsuit against Oregon election officials, which confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists. The settlement requires state officials to produce detailed data and enforce federal voter roll clean-up procedures under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
We filed the lawsuit in October 2024, alleging Oregon failed to remove ineligible voters and seeking to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA after identifying widespread voter roll maintenance failures across dozens of counties (Judicial Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al. (No. 6:24-cv-01783)).
In our complaint, we argued that Oregon’s voter rolls contain large numbers of old, inactive registrations; and that 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. We asserted that Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%; and that Oregon had the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. In combination, all of these facts showed that Oregon was failing to remove inactive registrations as required by federal law.
In August 2025, a federal court in Oregon denied a motion to dismiss by Oregon and ruled the lawsuit could proceed.
In response to the lawsuit, Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read announced earlier this year that Oregon has about 800,000 inactive registrations, which are kept separately from the active voter rolls and do not receive ballots. Of those, roughly 160,000 already meet federal and state criteria for removal—having received confirmation notices, failed to respond, and not voted in two federal elections—and are slated for cancellation. The remaining approximately 640,000 inactive records do not yet qualify for removal and will be processed through future list maintenance efforts.
In its press release, Oregon acknowledged that routine removal of outdated records effectively stalled in 2017, leaving a large pool of long-dormant registrations on the rolls without being fully processed for removal. The scale of the backlog underscores a gap in routine list maintenance that is only now being addressed. “These directives are about cleaning up old data that’s no longer in use so Oregonians can be confident that our voter records are up to date,” said Read.
This is another historic election integrity success. Our lawsuit caused Oregon to finally cleanup 800,000 outdated voter names, adding to the more than six million ineligible voters removed by Judicial Watch lawsuits and legal action nationwide. Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon’s Secretary of State, Tobias Read, is to be commended for responding to our lawsuit with a massive voter roll clean-up and commitment to continued voter list maintenance, which will only increase voter confidence.”
Our lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.
Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states must take reasonable steps to remove ineligible voters—such as those who have died, moved, or become otherwise inactive.
The settlement with Oregon remains in effect for more than five years, with a federal court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. While the settlement resolves the litigation, it explicitly allows future legal action if Oregon fails to comply with voter list clean-up requirements going forward.
The settlement requires Oregon to open its voter roll maintenance processes to unprecedented scrutiny. State officials must now regularly provide detailed, county-level data on voter registrations, removals, confirmation notices, and inactive voters—including those eligible for removal under federal law. This includes data reported to the Election Assistance Commission, as well as additional datasets that will allow ongoing monitoring of compliance. The agreement ensures that this information will not be hidden behind bureaucratic barriers, requiring timely disclosure and identification of data sources.
Oregon will also provide annual reports on inactive voters and those eligible for removal under federal law, as well as provide free access to the state’s voter registration list upon request to Judicial Watch.
Oregon committed to implementing Read’s new list maintenance directives, which were issued in response to our lawsuit.
The agreement also gives us the authority to request detailed records and monitor Oregon’s compliance, including documentation related to county performance and voter list maintenance procedures.
We are a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.
Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.
We are assisted by Stephen Joncus of Joncus Law PC in Happy Valley, Oregon.
Colorado recently removed 372,000 ineligible voter names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement addressing the state’s compliance with federal voter list maintenance requirements.
In Kentucky, state election board officials reported that “roughly 735,000 ineligible voter registrations” have been removed from voter rolls, as part of a 2018 consent decree settling a Judicial Watch lawsuit.
As part of its 2022 settlement, New York City alone has removed 918,139 ineligible names from its rolls: data show 477,056 removals between March 2023 and February 2025, which is in addition to the 441,083 previously reported removals.
In Los Angeles, county officials confirmed the removal of more than 1.2 million names from voter rolls as part of a settlement. Judicial Watch legal pressure also resulted in election roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.
A federal court in Illinois has ruled that our lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state. We have sent a notice-of-violation letter to election officials in California, and legal action over the state’s voter rolls is imminent.
In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. We brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.
In January 2026, in a historic case we filed, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.
Nevada Attorney General Coordinated with Leftists on Election Issues
Judicial Watch received 238 pages of records from the State of Nevada Office of Attorney General in a Nevada Public Records Act lawsuit that show the state’s close coordination with the nonprofit States United Democracy Center, which has pushed indictments of President Donald Trump’s supporters, lawyers, activists, and Republican Party officials who challenged the results of the 2020 election.
We sued the state of Nevada attorney general’s office after it failed to respond to a February 2025 records request for documents and communications involving the States United Democracy Center (SUDC) and the Voter Protection Project (VPP) (Judicial Watch Inc. v. State of Nevada ex. rel. Office of the Attorney General (No. A-26-941044)).
The States United Democracy Center was accused of helping to develop legal theories and materials related to the prosecution of alternate slates of Republican electors in the 2020 election. The Voter Protection Project is a left-wing political action committee that donates to far-left candidates who support eliminating many U.S. election security laws.
The records include a January 2021 internal email from States United Democracy Center’s Fiona Dwyer-McNulty referencing a one-hour “AG Briefing” featuring outside participants, including Mary McCord; representatives from 21CP Solutions; Jared Holt of DFR Labs; Shannon Hiller of the Bridging Divides Initiative; and Norman Eisen.
In an April 15, 2021, email chain labeled “Bipartisan Sign-on Letter re Corporate Leadership,” Joanna Lydgate, president and CEO of Voter Protection Program/States United Democracy Center, writes to Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford:
As you know, I’m the CEO of the Voter Protection Program … As of Monday, VPP will become a project of our new umbrella 501(c)(3) organization, the States United Democracy Center, but our mission will remain the same. We are looking forward to continuing our work with you under our new name.
One of the first projects of the States United Democracy Center is organizing an open letter to the business community from a bipartisan coalition of current and former state officials — governors, lieutenant governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state — urging businesses to continue to speak out in support of voting rights and applauding those who have done so already. [Emphasis in original] I have attached a PDF of the letter, which is co-sponsored by current Governors Roy Cooper (NC) and Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and former Governors Arne Carlson (MN), Bill Weld (MA), and Christine Todd Whitman (NJ).
I’m writing to ask you to join these governors in expressing your support for the freedom to vote and your concern about the voting restrictions being proposed across the country.
Lydgate welcomes Nevada General Counsel Leslie M. Nino Piro to the email chain and Piro responds: “It's great to meet you, Joanna! I look forward to working with you as well.” Later, Attorney General Aaron Ford writes that Piro will “be attending with and/or for me going forward.”
Renee D. Carreau, executive assistant to the solicitor general, writes to Lydgate and others: “Nevada would like to sign on to this letter. Please see our signature block attached. Please let me know if you need anything further & send us the final letter after it has been sent.” She later writes:
Ms. Lydgate & Dwyer-McNulty, I would like to request to add our Solicitor General, Heidi Parry Stern, cc'd above, and me to any of these types of communications. We handle all multistate litigation and sign-ons to Amici briefs and letters. Either Ms. Stern or I will be responding to the below request, before COB tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any questions.
The letter, addressed to “Dear Business Leaders,” opposes a “a wave of voter restrictions sweeping the country.”
In a February 2025 email to Dwyer-McNulty, Nevada Chief Deputy Attorney General Greg D. Ott asks to have Deputy Attorney General Devin Oliver added to States United Democracy Center’s monthly conference calls as “He’s coordinating much of the multistate litigation here and I think it would be beneficial for him to hear the litigation summaries that your team provides.” Dwyer-McNulty responds that Oliver was added to the list.
These records further expose a coordinated leftist lawfare machine—leftist state attorneys general working hand-in-glove with allied activist groups to target political opponents and undermine our election system.
In November 2025, we received 5,789 pages of records from the Michigan Department of Attorney General in a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request that shows the state’s coordination with States United Democracy Center.
We continue to work to obtain records from Arizona, and Wisconsin, which appear to have been part of the same coordinated efforts led by States United Democracy Center.
In July 2025, we filed a Georgia Public Records lawsuit against Fani Willis in her capacity as district attorney for the Atlanta Circuit for communications and agreements with the States United Democracy Center and/or the Voter Protection Project regarding the investigation and prosecution of Republican state electors for the 2020 presidential election and/or anti-racketeering for conspiring to nullify the election.
Judicial Watch Sues for Records on Trump Golf Club Security Breach
President Trump has survived multiple assassination attempts, including the Butler, Pennsylvania Rally – July 13, 2024; West Palm Beach, Florida – September 15, 2024; and most recently at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Washington, D.C. – April 25, 2026.
We are suing for records on a serious security breach at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, VA.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for U.S. Secret Service (USSS) records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:26-cv-01447)).
According to reports, a club member was able to bring a loaded semi-automatic handgun onto the premises while Trump was present, after passing through Secret Service screening checkpoints. A Secret Service spokesperson said that handheld magnetometers were used instead of walkthrough devices when screening guests at the president’s golf resort, located about 25 miles northwest of the White House.
It’s very disturbing that a security lapse of this magnitude could occur, particularly given recent threats against the president. The public has a right to know how this happened and what is being done to prevent it from happening again.
The agent in charge of searching the guest’s bag at the golf facility was placed on administrative leave amid an ongoing review by the Secret Service.
We filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Secret Service failed to respond to a November 18, 2025, FOIA request for:
All records related to the internal investigation of the August 31, 2025, incident at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in which a club member was able to get a semi-automatic hand gun into the club premises while the President was present without initial detection, including but not limited to investigative reports, agents’ notes, witness interview, audio-video recordings and other records.
All emails and text messages sent between members of the Presidential protective detail regarding the August 31, 2025, incident at the golf club.
In April 2026, our FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at the Butler, PA, rally site before the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt.
In February 2026, our lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt.
In December 2025, we sued the U.S. Secret Service for communications records related to Code Pink protesters who disrupted a dinner held by President Trump at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2025 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-04408)).
In September 2025, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for messages among top leaders of the FBI referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).
In March 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).
In August 2024, we uncovered documents from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.
In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, we obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.
In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).
Until next week,
The JUDICIAL Watch
Patrick Bestall’s INPUT:
#1. [This is HUGE]
Surprise!
Your little ones can read!
I think this was the most important email I've sent out this year if not this decade, if not this century.
.PB
The books are paid for by Dolly Parton. Local contacts in London Ont. and anywhere in the world!
London
Dolly Parton's Imagination Library of London
574 Victoria St
LONDON, ON
N5Y 4B8
Contact: Betsy Reilly
Phone: 2262248446
And what a wonderful way to prepare your infant to read children's bible story books from your local Christian bookstore. This program proves toddlers love books and books love toddlers, unlike the damage that comes from giving them a screen to play with:
“Wow… I was not anticipating seeing anything like that.” We’re physically changing children’s brains before they even start school — and the damage is visible on scans.
==================================================
Local Champion:
Dolly Parton's Imagination Library of London
Total children covered by this affiliate:
814
Total enrolled children in ON :
11,415
Building a foundation for learning is the most important gift we can provide our children and offers the greatest impact on children, families, and communities. That's why we have created an endowment fund for the Imagination Library in London.
Help us Give the Gift of Reading by making a Forever Promise to London children.
To Donate, go to Imagination Library London. https://imaginationlibrarylondon.ca/donate/
To Register Your Child, go to: Imagination Library London/Register Your Child.
For more information for the London affiliate, Email Betsy Reilly: imaginationlibrarylondon@gmail.com
ways to register:
Register by mail
==> CLICK to REGISTER <==
Mailing Address:
Dolly Parton's Imagination Library of London574 Victoria St LONDON, ON N5Y 4B8
RELATED
Idea! Churches and Christian radio stations should have Essay contests for students. It's in their interests to motivate young people to read the bible and write about how to apply it.
.PB
RUMOUR:
RUMOURS Circulating out there...:
Disclaimer: All articles, videos, and images posted on Operation Disclosure were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes. All statements, claims, views, and opinions that appear on this site are always presented as unverified and should be discerned by the reader. We do not endorse any opinions expressed on this website, and we do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content posted on this website.
I may not agree with everything from the content-producers that I share.
Apply critical thinking and use discernment to
Come to your own conclusions regarding the content!
You need to MAKE UP Your own MIND!
What we think that we now know...
REPORT Today
The world keeps spinning, and now you’re caught up.
======================
And We Know — 5.1.26: Now Comes the Pain, Three Terms as POTUS, Obama and Biden Terms Erased? Patriots Succeed
The current American political landscape is as volatile and complex as ever, characterized by a relentless stream of debates, shifting alliances, and profound ideological divides. A recent video from And We Know Official offers a comprehensive, albeit highly charged, look at the narratives currently surrounding President Donald Trump. From his bold assertions regarding his political tenure to the administration’s aggressive push for systemic reform, the discourse captured in the report reflects the intense fervor defining the modern era.
At the heart of the discussion is the provocative claim regarding a “third term,” a topic that continues to spark heated debates among pundits and the public alike. The video situates this narrative within a broader fight for the soul of the nation, pointing to the Trump administration’s strategic efforts to reshape federal institutions. Notable among these is the move to strip away diversity and inclusion policies within the military in favor of a strict meritocracy—a transformation epitomized by the controversial appointment of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who remains a lightning rod for political criticism.
The video also delves deeply into the contentious battle over election integrity. Beyond the usual discourse on voting rights, the narrative ventures into serious allegations regarding foreign interference and systemic fraud. Proponents of this view look to the administration’s expected use of sweeping executive orders as a defensive measure to secure the electoral process. These topics are framed not merely as partisan disputes, but as a critical intersection of national security and constitutional preservation, where the stakes—according to the video—could not be higher.
Perhaps most striking is the shifting coalition of voters, with the video highlighting an evolving political landscape among African-American voters who are increasingly re-evaluating their traditional political loyalties. Woven throughout these varied topics is a strong, recurring thread of patriotism and religious faith. The commentary frequently invokes the need for prayer and divine intervention, positioning the current political struggle as a moral crusade against what it describes as corruption and “evil forces” within the corridors of power.
Ultimately, the video serves as a reflection of a deeply polarized country striving to find truth amidst a sea of competing narratives. It concludes with an urgent call to action, encouraging viewers to maintain vigilance and unity in the face of perceived government overreach. For those looking to dive deeper into these claims and explore the broader arguments being presented, the full video is available via And We Know Official... Here: https://operationdisclosureofficial.com/2026/05/02/and-we-know-5-1-26-now-comes-the-pain-three-terms-as-potus-obama-and-biden-terms-erased-patriots-succeed/
======================
Liar Liar
By Thinker2, Contributing WriterSubmitted on May 1, 2026
Liar LiarOr, How to win in Court!
Warning: “Winning in Court” does not mean the Court or it’s Minions will leave you alone.
Every false arrest or detention results in a VICTIM.
When the accused is innocent, the accuser is guilty.
Give the accuser the sentence the innocent would or did receive.
The Government has no authority to destroy people’s lives with incompetence.
Failure to restore the VICTIM immediately is evidence of Corruption.
Institutional corruption is TREASON.
Immunity is a direct assault on “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”.
Immunity violates the 1776 Declaration of Independence, 1789 Constitution, and 1791 Bill of Rights.
VICTIM + INTENT + FRAUD = CRIME
CRIME + TWO OR MORE = CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY + GOVERNMENT = TREASON
When cops, Judges, or Attorneys lie they create a VICTIM.
When lying out of ignorance there is no intent, but the victim is entitled to damages (lost time / wages / property / etc).
Ignorance is not an entitlement to Immunity.
Ignorance of Natural Law is not a defense. Substituting Man’s Law for Natural Law is FRAUD + INTENT + VICTIM.
Man’s Law; Codes, Acts, Statutes, Policy, Doctrine, Case Law, Rules, Legal, Fiction, etc…
Magisterial Privilege (Immunity) was Abolished in America with the 1776 Declaration of Independence, 1789 Constitution, and 1791 Bill of Rights.
When the SCOTUS grants License to Lie or Immunity to Government Agents, SCOTUS has demonstrated INTENT.
When cops, Judges, and Attorneys lie, they have committed FRAUD.
FRAUD eviscerates everything that came before (accusations, charges, grand jury, indictments, convictions, penalties).
VICTIM + INTENT + FRAUD = CRIME
CRIME + TWO OR MORE = CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY + GOVERNMENT = TREASON
The penalty for TREASON is DEATH.
Government is never Lawful, because Government is not Natural, not of the Creator (God).
Government is a Protection Scheme. People made Government for their protection. Men made a Legal Scheme for protection.
When Government seeks to protect Government, it’s no longer a Scheme, it has become a Protection Racket (RICO).
No man or Government can protect both “We the People” (PUBLIC) and “Banking Scheme” (PRIVATE).
Corrupt Government and Corrupt Banking are the things people seek protection from.
What FRAUD [TREASON] ?
The God Bankers Trusthttps://operationdisclosureofficial.com/2025/02/26/the-god-bankers-trust/
Policing is Slave Catchinghttps://operationdisclosureofficial.com/2024/05/29/policing-is-slave-catching/
Peace, love, and blessings,Thinker2 – https://operationdisclosureofficial.com/tag/Thinker2/
======================
See SATURDAY - PART TWO
Comments