CREATORS: Harking Back to History

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
July 15, 2025

             More than eighty-five years ago, Winston Churchill was a lonely figure on the British home front, sounding the alarm about a growing menace in Europe -- the Nazis. In October 1938 he gave a speech simulcast in England and the United States. The Defense of Freedom and Peace, also known as The Lights are Going Out speech, was an oratorical gem and made the case for standing up to Nazism.

            One passage condemns the German authorities for promoting a culture “where children denounce their parents to the police, where a business man or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinions -- such a state of society cannot long endure.”

            Adolph Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews for Germany’s failure after World War I. President Donald Trump has focused his extremism on immigrants. In 2023, Trump argued at least four times that immigrants were “poisoning the blood” of the United States. According to the Harvard Political Review, Hitler, in his book, Mein Kampf, claimed that “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.”

            During Trump’s first term, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions had to take time to distinguish the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border from the ignominious conduct of the Nazis.

            When asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham about comparisons between the immigrant detention facilities and Nazi concentration camps all Sessions could muster was, “Well, it’s a real exaggeration, of course. In Nazi Germany, they were keeping the Jews from leaving the country.” That is not historically accurate -- the Nazis murdered Jews in concentration camps in German and throughout various countries of Europe.

            Now, Trump has his own concentration camp. According to NPR, Trump recently toured a tent and trailer facility in the Everglades with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The facility is being used to detain undocumented immigrants.

            A proud Florida Republican Party launched merchandise and gave the camp the nickname, “Alligator Alcatraz,” the state made the adopted name official.

            According to the American Friends Service Committee website, the Trump administration is attacking immigration on various levels.

            The Trump administration wiped the dust off The Alien Enemies Act. The Act was previously used during World War II to force people of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry into internment camps.

            Trump is trying to use the Act to immediately deport people without due process and in violation of their human and constitutional rights. Although the use of this law continues to face legal challenges, the administration has already sent hundreds of people to El Salvador and other places outside the U.S., where they are now incarcerated in deplorable conditions.   

            The Trump administration has canceled temporary legal status for over a million immigrants in the U.S., placing them at risk for deportation. The administration has revoked the visas of international students in dozens of states. Many students with visas -- and even green cards -- have been arrested, detained, and either deported or threatened with deportation because of their political speech.

            As part of a new nationwide registry, immigrants as young as 14 are now being forced to turn over personal data and fingerprints to the federal government or risk being jailed indefinitely. People who aren’t citizens are now required to carry proof of their registration at all times.

            And yes, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has an online tip form and phone number for anonymously reporting suspected immigration violations and criminal activity. A tip line that provides a platform for a competitor to use the authority of the United States of America to eliminate a rival. Are the lights going out in America?

(Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

The future of prison surveillance--Transdermal microchips

What are transdermal microchips?

Transdermal microchips are small devices that can be implanted under the skin. They are designed to track movement, monitor health and send automatic alerts in real time, reported Correction1. They use RFID and biometric sensors to provide constant feedback without relying on manual monitoring. Even though this technology is still new to correctional settings, similar technologies are already being used in high-security environments, military operations and medical monitoring. If implemented in prisons, transdermal microchips could change the way facilities track inmates due to their ability to provide instant location updates, detect medical emergencies before they escalate, and reduce the risk of escapes by eliminating blind spots in supervision.

The debate over transdermal microchips as a correctional tool has sparked strong opinions from legal scholars, policymakers, correctional leaders and civil rights advocates, with compelling arguments both in support of and objecting to their use.

Supporters: Why we need microchips

Legal researcher James Boezi argues that transdermal microchips represent the only truly tamper-proof method of inmate tracking. Unlike RFID bracelets or GPS devices, microchips cannot be removed or disabled by the wearer and enable real-time location monitoring without risk of manipulation.

David P. Mulholland, Director of Correctional Technology at the National Institute of Justice, emphasizes that the technology goes beyond security. “Microchips offer an unparalleled ability to monitor movement, detect medical distress and even track contraband circulation,” he states. “This is not just about security. It’s about modernizing how we manage corrections.”

Former warden and security consultant Michael Johnson reinforces this point, noting that correctional systems spend millions of dollars on escape manhunts. “Imagine if, instead, we had immediate, pinpoint location data,” he says. “The cost savings and public safety benefits are undeniable.”

Critics: Ethical, legal and operational concerns

Even with the advantages of transdermal microchips, issues of privacy and civil rights remain. According to, legal expert on privacy rights Emma Kerrison, “The fundamental problem with implanting microchips in inmates is consent. Even convicted offenders maintain bodily autonomy under the Eighth Amendment. This could set a dangerous precedent for forced state surveillance.” In the Duke Law & Technology Review, John Pishko says, “E-carceration is the next frontier of mass surveillance. Microchip tracking raises serious concerns about mission creep, what starts as a security measure in prisons could become widespread government tracking beyond correctional facilities.”

Sentencing Law and Policy Expert Alex Berman says, “There are too many unknowns. Will the data be secure? Will it be used only for location tracking, or will it expand to monitoring inmates’ thoughts, emotions, and medical conditions without consent?”

Is this the most effective technology for corrections?

Despite the use of RFID tags, GPS tracking and biometric systems, escapes still happen, response times are slow and security gaps exist. The question isn’t just whether we need better tracking technology, it’s whether transdermal microchips are the best option for correctional facilities today.

Right now, some prisons use RFID bands, GPS ankle monitors and biometric scanners, but all have flaws:

RFID tracking only works in designated areas and can be blocked by walls and interference.

GPS ankle monitors need constant power, and if batteries die or signals drop, tracking stops.

Biometric scanners require inmates to pass through checkpoints, so they don’t track movement in real time.

Transdermal microchips can fix these issues. Unlike external devices, they can’t be removed, lost, or blocked, and they provide live tracking, instantly alerting officers if an inmate moves into an unauthorized area. But just because it’s the most advanced option doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for every facility. Introducing microchip tracking would require a major investment in software, training and cybersecurity. But so do escapes, delayed medical responses and preventable in-custody deaths, and those add up fast.

Every time an inmate escapes, agencies are forced to put millions into search operations, emergency response teams and legal expenses. A single escape, like the 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility breakout, cost New York taxpayers $23 million in just 23 days. And with over 2,200 reported escapes from U.S. prisons in a single year, it’s clear these incidents aren’t just rare, one-off occurrences.

Beyond escapes, delayed medical responses also contribute significantly to correctional system costs. In emergencies such as heart attacks, overdoses, or suicide attempts, every second is critical. In California, the use of telepsychiatry saved the Department of Corrections approximately $850 per inmate in transportation costs, totaling $4 million in savings. If that level of efficiency can be achieved through virtual care alone, the potential impact of real-time biometric alerts is even greater.

Transdermal microchips could not only accelerate medical response times, but also help prevent costly emergency hospitalizations, reduce liability exposure, and ultimately save lives. With appropriate policies and oversight, this technology could also deliver instant security alerts and eliminate manual errors in inmate tracking and medical documentation.

Among the most significant advantages of transdermal microchips are:

1. Instant alerts when inmates enter unauthorized areas

Even though correctional officers conduct headcounts and monitor surveillance feeds, the human eye has limitations — especially during high-stress periods. Microchip technology can enhance institutional safety by providing real-time alerts when inmates move into unauthorized areas, enabling immediate staff response and preventing potential escapes.

This capability is already in use in select facilities. For example, Minnesota’s Lino Lakes facility implemented an RFID tracking system to monitor inmate movement and alert staff when a designated boundary was breached. This system helped reduce escape attempts and improved overall response times. Broader studies on electronic monitoring show that automated alerts significantly reduce escape rates by notifying staff in real time rather than relying on delayed manual checks.

2. Real-time health monitoring for medical emergencies

Life-threatening conditions in custody often emerge without warning. Whether it’s cardiac arrest, overdose, or self-harm, the timing of the response can determine the outcome. Real-time biometric monitoring through transdermal microchips can continuously track vital signs and notify medical staff the moment anomalies occur.

A 2025 study found that wearable biometric devices enabled earlier intervention, resulting in fewer in-custody deaths due to preventable medical issues. The U.S. Department of Justice has also promoted real-time health tracking in correctional settings as a critical tool for reducing avoidable fatalities.

3. Eliminating human error in inmate record-keeping

One of the most persistent challenges in corrections is the potential for human error in logging inmate activity, including counts, medical checks and security rounds. Many facilities still rely on paper logs, which are susceptible to mistakes, falsification, or omission.

Transdermal microchips could automate these functions, logging inmate movements in real time, linking alerts to actual behavior, and generating verifiable records of compliance. Some facilities have already begun this shift. Guard1’s Mobile RFID Inmate Tracking System, for example, replaces manual logs with digital tracking and has improved staff accountability while reducing workload.

4. Cybersecurity and privacy safeguards

The effectiveness of any monitoring technology hinges not just on its capability but on how securely the data is handled. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that without strong privacy safeguards, biometric tracking could lead to surveillance overreach and abuse.

To mitigate these risks, correctional agencies must adopt strict cybersecurity protocols. These include encrypting all location and biometric data, restricting access to authorized personnel only, and ensuring post-release data is not retained or used beyond incarceration.

5. Alternative options for inmates who refuse microchips

Some inmates may object to microchip implantation on religious, medical, or personal grounds. To avoid legal and ethical violations, facilities must offer viable alternatives, such as wearable RFID devices or smart uniforms.

A documented opt-out process should be in place to protect the rights of objecting individuals, and refusal to comply should not affect parole or sentencing outcomes. By maintaining flexibility, agencies can ensure compliance while respecting individual rights.

How to get there and what can be done

Even with the clear operational and safety benefits of transdermal microchips, transitioning to this technology will require time, oversight, and strategic planning. Correctional institutions must move deliberately, addressing legal, ethical and infrastructure challenges through phased implementation.

1. Conduct a pilot program in a high-risk facility

Before adopting the technology systemwide, agencies should test microchip tracking in a controlled environment to assess real-world effectiveness, staff training needs, and system reliability. One such example is a U.S. Navy study in a military brig that successfully used biometric tracking — including fingerprint and iris scans — though it required careful protocol development and staff training.

2. Establish clear regulations for data collection and inmate consent

As biometric systems expand, so do concerns over data use and consent. Regulatory frameworks must address how personal information is gathered, stored, and used. A lack of safeguards, as seen in South Africa’s correctional fingerprint scanning program, can spark controversy and legal challenges.

3. Implement strong cybersecurity and data protection

Tracking sensitive biometric and location data creates inherent cybersecurity risks. Agencies must adopt systems with encryption, multi-layered access controls, and strict protocols modeled after systems like the FBI’s Next Generation Identification platform, which protects vast amounts of sensitive information.

4. Collaborate with legal experts and civil rights organizations

A major misstep in technology implementation is excluding key stakeholders. In the U.S., GPS parolee tracking programs faced legal backlash because they were deployed without civil rights consultation, resulting in lawsuits over privacy violations.

5. Invest in secure infrastructure and backup systems

Reliability is essential. A case from Hong Kong’s Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution demonstrated that power disruptions can compromise biometric systems, emphasizing the need for backup power and redundant safeguards.

6. Establish an independent ethics committee for oversight

Oversight is critical to maintaining public trust. The United Kingdom’s Biometric and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) offers a strong model for independent review bodies that monitor compliance and guide responsible use.

Would authorities accept it?

The path to implementation will face internal and external resistance. Some correctional officers worry that automation may displace staff or devalue their roles. Civil rights advocates argue that forced implantation violates the Eighth Amendment.

Emma Kerrison, a privacy law expert, warns: “The biggest problem with microchip implants is consent. Even convicted offenders still have bodily autonomy under the Eighth Amendment. This could set a dangerous precedent for government tracking.”

Still, others see it as a logical evolution in public safety. As James Boezi notes, “Microchips are the only truly tamper-proof tracking system. Unlike ankle monitors or RFID bracelets, they cannot be removed or disabled. They allow real-time location tracking without risk of manipulation.”

Ultimately, the success of any implementation will depend on how the technology is introduced, managed, and regulated.

Conclusion

Current prison tracking methods are failing. Manual headcounts remain vulnerable to human error, and even today’s electronic systems have critical limitations that allow escapes to occur. The debate over transdermal microchips reflects broader tensions in the field — between advocates for modernization and those concerned about privacy and civil liberties. Yet the reality is clear: traditional security measures are no longer sufficient. Correctional facilities must explore new, technology-driven solutions to enhance safety, prevent escapes, and protect the public.

Transdermal microchips offer one such solution. By enabling real-time tracking, automating alerts, and monitoring inmate health, they have the potential to close long-standing gaps in institutional security. But implementing this technology will require more than just infrastructure — it will demand a coordinated strategy involving correctional leaders, legislators, privacy experts, and cybersecurity professionals. Regulations, ethical guardrails, and robust oversight must be in place from the outset.

The 2035 scenario illustrates what’s possible. A breach that once led to a multi-agency manhunt now ends in minutes because officers are alerted immediately. No guesswork. No delay. This isn’t just a leap in efficiency — it’s a fundamental shift in how correctional institutions operate.

Privacy concerns remain valid, and consent must be part of the conversation. But by establishing transparent policies and third-party oversight, correctional leaders have an opportunity to balance operational security with respect for individual rights. The future of effective corrections lies in the smart adoption of technology — designed not to replace the human element, but to reinforce it where the risks are greatest.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida carries out 26th execution nationwide exceeding the number of executions in all of 2024

 The 26th Execution of 2025

 A man convicted of fatally shooting two people outside a Florida bar in 1993 as part of an attempted revenge killing was executed on the evening July 15, 2025. He was the 26th person put to death in the U.S. this year, exceeding the number of executions in all of 2024, reported The Associated Press.

Michael Bernard Bell, 54, was pronounced dead at 6:25 p.m. after receiving a lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke, said Bryan Griffin, a spokesperson for Gov. Ron DeSantis. Bell was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to death for the murders of Jimmy West and Tamecka Smith.

When the team warden asked Bell if he had any final words, he responded, “Thank you for not letting me spend the rest of my life in prison.”

Strapped to a gurney, Bell was alert and looking around the death chamber as the drugs began to flow into his outstretched left arm. After about 2 minutes, he closed his eyes and stopped moving. His breathing became more labored for about a minute and then slowed.

At 6:15 p.m., the team warden checked Bell’s eyes and shouted his name, but there was no response. The color began to drain from Bell’s face about 6:20 p.m. A medical worker entered the chamber at 6:24 p.m. and declared Bell dead a minute later.

With Bell’s death, the number of executions in the U.S. surpassed last year’s total with more than five months left on the calendar. The number of executions has largely trended downward nationally this century after peaking with 98 in 1999. From 1995 to 2006, there was an average of about 67 executions per year.

John Blume, the director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn’t appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather the function of the discretion of state governors.

“A number of these people being executed are people that have been in the system for a long time; they’ve been on death row for a long time,” Blume said, adding that there are aggressive executives and attorney generals “who want to execute these people.”

He pointed to a sweeping executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office aimed at urging prosecutors to seek the death penalty and preserving capital punishment in the states.

“The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,” Blume said of the governors.

Florida Department of Corrections spokesperson Ted Veerman said Tuesday that the department was well-prepared to do its duty as assigned by the courts and the governor.

Bell is the eighth person executed in Florida this year, with a ninth scheduled for later this month. The state executed six people in 2023 but only one last year. 

Florida has executed more people than any other state this year, with Texas and South Carolina tied for second place at four each. Alabama has executed three people, Oklahoma has killed two, and Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee each have killed one.

This undated provided by the Florida Department of Corrections shows Michael Bell, who is scheduled to receive a lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Florida Department of Corrections via AP)

In December 1993, Bell spotted what he thought was the car of the man who fatally shot his brother earlier that year, according to court records. Bell was apparently unaware that the man had sold the car to West.

Bell called on two friends and armed himself with an AK-47 rifle, authorities said. They found the car parked outside a liquor lounge and waited. When West, Smith and another woman eventually exited the club, Bell approached the car and opened fire, officials said.

West died at the scene, and Smith died on the way to the hospital. The other woman escaped injury. Witnesses said Bell also fired at a crowd of onlookers before fleeing the area. He was eventually arrested the next year.

Bell was later convicted of three additional murders — a woman and her toddler son in 1989 and his mother’s boyfriend about four months before the attack on West and Smith.

Prison officials said Bell woke up at 6:30 a.m. and ate his last meal, which was an omelet, bacon, home fries and orange juice. He met with a spiritual adviser but did not have any other visitors.

His lawyers argued in their state filing that Bell’s execution should be halted because of newly discovered evidence about witness testimony. But justices unanimously rejected the argument last week and pointed to overwhelming evidence of Bell’s guilt.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Bell’s request to stay the execution.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Balko: 'We're in dire times'

 RADLEY BALKO writes The Watch on substack.com:

Quaint disputes about the proper role of police and military have been superseded by a more urgent threat: Donald Trump is creating his own, personal paramilitary force.

One of [America’s] great strengths is that . . . we do not allow the Army, Navy, and the Marines and Air Force to be a police force. History is replete with countries that allowed that to happen. Disaster is the result.

— Marine Major General Stephen Olmstead, testifying before Congress in 1989

For about 40 years now, civil libertarians have been warning about the threat posed by police militarization. For the past 20 years, I’ve been one of them. My position has long been that a soldier is trained to annihilate a foreign enemy. A police officer’s job is to promote public safety while protecting our constitutional rights (or at least it’s supposed to be). These skills are not interchangeable. They are, in fact, often in direct contradiction to one another. And it’s dangerous to conflate the two.

There has long been an important and consequential discussion about the proper, constitutional role of police, the proper, constitutional role of the military, and the ramifications of blurring the lines between the two. In many ways, it’s a debate that dates back to the founding era, when British soldiers stationed in the streets of colonial American cities — Boston in particular — led to animosity, anger, and eventually violence. It was a precipitating factor in the Revolutionary War, it’s a big reason why we have the Second, Third, and Fourth Amendments, and it’s why the Founders were deeply distrustful of standing armies.

In six months, the Trump administration made that debate irrelevant. It has taken two-and-a-half centuries of tradition, caution, and fear of standing armies and simply discarded it.

We are now in territory so uncharted that the framing of the police militarization debate no longer works. Having that discussion requires at least a shared understanding that both police officers and soldiers are obligated to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Over the years, I’ve had clear, often pointed disagreements with police officials and their supporters over how to balance police safety, public safety, and individual rights, and about whether we do a sufficient job holding cops accountable for abuse and misconduct.

To read more CLICK HERE

Here is a name everyone should know--Erez Reuveni

You should know Erez Reuveni--the DOJ whistleblower--who has documented judicial nominee Emil Bove's disdain for the rule of law and U.S. Constitution.

The insistence that the Trump administration can do whatever it wants irrespective or rules, laws, or court orders; the demand that career officials are all in or must get the heck out; the willingness to obfuscate or just lie about what the administration has done, is doing, or means to do—both internally and in litigation—and the indignant rejection of any checks or mechanisms of accountability because they have a mandate from voters and Trump is deweaponizing the Justice Department and because there’s a unitary executive, reported Lawfare.  

What’s different about Reuveni is that he has brought a remarkable collection of receipts to the conversation. It’s not just the 27-page whistleblower complaint, which details in carefully crafted prose three separate incidents of the administration behaving—and demanding that he behave—unethically or illegally over a remarkably short period of time. It’s not just the 150 pages of supporting documentation, which includes multiple text exchanges, emails, and phone records supporting Reuveni’s claims. It’s the way all of this material intersects with an already-vibrant public record in the three cases at issue: The JGG case on Alien Enemy Act deportations to El Salvador, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, and the DVD case on deportations to third countries.

One can say, I suppose, that the public here has only one side of the story—a document dump from Reuveni and nothing from Bove or the other officials he accuses. But that’s not quite true. In all three of these cases, the government has had ample opportunity to explain its position before the courts, and in all three, the government has made its position very clear: It’s a big middle finger.

What’s more, Bove has been asked about Reuveni’s allegations specifically and under oath that he said the Justice Department might have to tell the courts, “fuck you” if they tried to stop Alien Enemies Act removals that had to proceed “no matter what.” He responded that he did not recall saying that but pointedly did not deny doing so.

Drew Ensign, an official Reuveni accuses of actively misleading the court, actually had an opportunity before Judge James Boasberg to clear up the matter Reuveni described, which took place on March 15 when the ACLU and Judge Boasberg were trying to make sure that Alien Enemy Act deportations were not happening illegally and were trying to determine whether planes were, in fact, currently deporting people or imminently going to do so.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida executes man for rape and murder

 The 24 Execution of 2024

A man convicted of raping and killing a woman near a central Florida bar was executed on the evening of June 24, 2025, reported The Associated Press.

Thomas Lee Gudinas, 51, was pronounced dead at 6:13 p.m. following a lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke, said Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Gudinas was convicted of the May 1994 killing of Michelle McGrath.

When the curtain to the execution room opened at 6:00 p.m., Gudinas was already strapped to a gurney with an IV in his left arm. Then, after the warden got off the phone with the governor’s office, he asked Gudinas if he wished to make a statement. Although Gudinas’ words were inaudible to those in the viewing room, Griffin said the inmate repented and made a reference to Jesus.

The drugs were then administered, and the inmate’s eyes began to roll back and he underwent slight chest convulsions. After several minutes, he started to lose color in his face and fell still. The prison warden subsequently announced that the sentence had been carried out and the curtain to the execution chamber closed and witnesses were led from the viewing area.

Gudinas was the seventh person put to death in Florida this year, with an eighth scheduled for next month. The state also executed six people in 2023, but only carried out one execution last year.

A total of 24 men have been put to death in the U.S. this year, with scheduled executions set to make 2025 the year with the most executions since 2015.

Florida has executed more people than any other state this year, while Texas and South Carolina are tied for second place with four each. Alabama has executed three people, Oklahoma two, and Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana and Tennessee each have one. Mississippi is set to join the other states on Wednesday with its first execution since 2022.

Despite the increased frequency of executions this year, Department of Corrections spokesman Ted Veerman said there’s been no significant operational strain.

“Our staff are doing a fantastic job keeping up with the pace of these executions,” Veerman said hours earlier Tuesday. “And we are going through with these in a professional manner.”

McGrath was last seen at a bar called Barbarella’s shortly before 3 a.m. on May 24, 1994. Her body, showing evidence of serious trauma and sexual assault, was found several hours later in an alley next to a nearby school.

Gudinas had been at the same bar with friends the night before, but they all later testified that they had left without him. A school employee who found McGrath’s body later identified Gudinas as a man who was fleeing the area shortly beforehand. Another woman also identified Gudinas as the person who chased her to her car the previous night and threatened to assault her.

Gudinas was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995.

Attorneys for Gudinas had filed appeals with the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court but those were rejected.

The lawyers had argued in their state filing that evidence related to “lifelong mental illnesses” exempts Gudinas from being put to death. The Florida Supreme Court denied the appeals last week, ruling that the case law that shields intellectually disabled people from execution does not apply to individuals with other forms of mental illness or brain damage.

Separately, a federal filing argued that the governor’s unfettered discretion to sign death warrants violates death row inmates’ constitutional rights to due process and had led to an arbitrary process for determining who lives and who dies. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied Gudinas’ request for a reprieve.

Officials said Gudinas had one visitor, his mother, during the day Tuesday and did not meet with a spiritual adviser.

To read more CLICK HERE

New York Times: ‘Egregious.’ ‘Brazen.’ ‘Lawless.’ How 48 Judges Describe Trump’s Actions, In Their Own Words

There have been more than 400 lawsuits brought against the Trump administration this year. Dozens of judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents ...(including four by President Trump)... have ruled against the administration. And they have often used tough, blunt language.

Many Americans in positions of power, including corporate executives and members of Congress, seem too afraid of President Trump to stand up to his anti-democratic behavior. Federal judges have shown themselves to be exceptions. “Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,” said Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University.

These rulings have halted Mr. Trump’s vengeful attempts to destroy law firms, forestalled some of his budget cuts and kept him from deporting additional immigrants. Yes, the Supreme Court has often been more deferential to the president. Still, it has let stand many lower-court rulings and has itself constrained Mr. Trump in some cases.

The bipartisan alarm from federal judges offers a roadmap for others to respond to Mr. Trump’s often illegal behavior. His actions deserve to be called out in plain language for what they really are. And people in positions of influence should do what they can to stand up for American values, as many judges have done.

To read more CLICK HERE