07/30/2026 (Updated)
As reported by Propublica, the United States federal government has officially "lost presumption of regularity", where normally a judge can immediately side with the government, assuming that everything is within official capacity, which confers qualified immunity from prosecution for federal employees, now gone say the nation's bipartisan judges. This means that any federal employee or appointee operating outside of official capacity can be sued and can be prosecuted for their crimes of weaponing ANY part of the government against civilians, Epstein victims, and whistleblower of illegal conduct by the federal government.
Especially interesting here is that judges tied presumption of regularly to "good faith", and yet ANY government employee, appointee, representative, contractor, or "de facto officer" (someone who is not officially an officer, specifically like Trump, because of his Special Counsel John Durham-to-Congress-affirmed treason and elections fraud "cheating in elections with enemies of the United States", is what Durham affirmed before Congress, and which occurred BEFORE and OUTSIDE of SCOTUS' retroactive immunity for those appointing SCOTUS), then acting in "bad faith" with "bad behavior" -- ESPECIALLY DE FACTO OFFICERS -- allows those who have lost their qualified immunity to be removed from their office, and all of their changes to government negated, voided, and/or mooted, per Prakash and Smith (2006) and per Baude and Paulsen (2024).
More specifically, Adam Schiff had Durham admit to Congress that Trump and the GOP engaged in immediate and permanently-disqualifying treason and elections fraud conduct and BEFORE SCOTUS' fantasy-RICO-obstructing retroactive immunity for the disqualified presidents that appointed 6/9 SCOTUS kicked in for Trump. And also super important here, the retroactive immunity is only available to Trump if he acted in good faith and in total compliance with the law, which he hasn't, and now judges have specified he's lost his qualified immunity, because as Whitehouse spokepeople specified, the whole team knows that every decision has to be made by Trump alone, now stripped of his qualified immunity, for having behaved outside of official capacity, having lost presumption of regularity, is a reasonable inference.
More specifically, after bipartisan WWII treason and elections irregularities linked to murders of Americans, after GOP South Vietnam treason and elections fraud linked to murders of Americans, after Iran Contra treason and elections fraud paired to murder of Americans, after 9/11 and Bush v. Gore treason and elections fraud paired to the murder of Americans, and after the COVID and Russian treason and elections fraud paired to murder of Americans -- many different Democratic and Republican presidents disqualified themselves immediately and forever, but because their conduct was RICO obstructed thereafter, outside of official capacity, and where doing the same proved intent or consciousness of guilt, and where there is no statute of limitation for these murders paired to the treason and elections fraud -- this created a situation we wrote about in February 2024, where 6/9 SCOTUS justices actually weren't SCOTUS justices, nor was Trump actually POTUS, nor was Aileen Cannon an actual judge, but rather the irregularities of them occupying offices made them something else, de facto officers.
Two months later, and outside of official capacity, they took up their own RICO defense to conceal our publication of their flawed appointments (see the article before this one for a link to the February 2024 article in question), as evidence of consciousness of guilt, to fabricate retroactive immunity for Trump, but to effectively appoint themselves to the bench as regular officers of the court, having conspired to conceal flaws in their appointments, in order not to be considered de facto officers, so that they could help conspire to rig the 2024 elections, joining the conspiracy of Jeffrey Epstein, Putin, Russia, Felix Sater, Michael Cohen, and/or others between 2013-2026, and thus doing so in bad faith with bad behavior as de facto officers operating outside of official capacity, outside of qualified immunity, and outside the presumption of regularity, is provable.
De facto officers can be removed from office if they act in "bad faith" and/or "bad behavior", and their changes to the government can be negated.
And so now returning to federal judges stripping away qualified immunity from de facto officers behaving in "bad faith" instead of "good faith" is the perfect and now judicially-corroborated path to go after any federal employee operating illegally, weaponizing the government against Epstein victims, whistleblowers, journalists, educators, investigators, jury members, and/or others.
The keywords employed by judges included "side of the law", and where depriving Americans or anyone of their rights is by default outside of the law and thus outside of official capacity.
Furthermore, even SCOTUS has recognized that SCOTUS individuals can be taken to court, in lower courts, and we know we can prove SCOTUS has been weaponized against us, depriving of us of our rights, outside of official capacity, while receiving bribes they unlawfully legalized in an impeachable and thus "bad faith" manner, six of them arguably de facto officers, whose retroactive immunity for those disqualified to appointment seals their fate as badly behaving and bad faith de facto officers, who like Trump, and in conspiracy with him outside of official capacity, may be removed from the bench by the lower courts, and all of their changes to the government negated, if doing so would protect the government, protect national security from radicals who have accepted bribes, including Harlan Crow bribing Clarence Thomas, who conspired with de facto officer Aileen Cannon and others to attack the rule of law, to give aid, comfort, and adhere to enemies of the United States, implied Special Counsel John Durham with his affirmations of "cheating in elections with enemies".
Ed Walker of Empty Wheel voiced what many journalists have been voicing, concern about the "bad behavior" of SCOTUS and how that creates the more popular way, but not the only way, to remove ANY government employee and/or officer behaving outside of official capacity, outside of qualified immunity, and/or outside of the law. Here, in the past, and submitted to DOJ, was lists of US laws that could indeed remove any liability from the government beyond impeachment, only one tool to remove RICO corrupted liabilities from government.
"Introduction
There has been a lot of talk about the need for court reform, by which people mean stopping the six SCOTUS Republicans before they destroy the nation. I do not think any of the proposed reforms will work as long as those six remain on the Court. I think they will blow off all limits on their control of the government on some fabricated rationale provided by one of their pet academic fantasists.
We also hear a lot about the long game played by the right-wing. Let’s be real. There is no right-wing movement. What there is is a bunch of fllthy rich assholes who want more: more money, more power, more prestige, more and more and more. They hire people to manipulate public opinion. They create media empires to support their propaganda. They find charlatans and cranks to rile up the loose-minded, the people Alasdair MacIntyre calls emotivists.
They’ve taken control of the levers of power, both political and financial. We don’t have time for the long game. We need to stop this immediately.
The long game takes too long
To get a handle on the nature of the long game, consider LGBTQ+ people. How many years were consumed arguing about whether HIV/AIDS should be treated like other diseases, whether some people should be “allowed” to enjoy the same privacy accorded to straight people, or to marry?
Or consider the history behind the Dobbs case. One tactic of the anti-abortion zealots was to slice away as support for Roe v. Wade using emotional appeals, like the non-esistant partial birth abortion. It was not the only tactic, but it was highly effective. They’re using the same technique to attack LGBTQ+ rights. They attack a tiny set of people, trans kids who want to play sports, calling it common sense, which it isn’t. This will gradually expand.
This is how emotivism works. If your opinions are based in vibes and feels, you are easy to manipulate: all it takes is different vibes and feels, easily supplied by PR hacks and charlatans, especially when subsidized by greedy rich people.
The problem is immediate
This six SCOTUS Republicans are corrupt to the bone. They do not believe in self-government. They are putting us under the control of billionaires and the trillionaire. I highly recommend this brief summary of this last term, when these anti-democracy activists shed all vestiges of self-control and wrote their own ideas into law.
It’s a mark of their seriousness that these authors don’t pretend anything will change until a few Republican Senators decide to abandon their humiliating submissiveness to Trump in favor of loyalty to the principles of our democracy.
A tough road
I recognize the difficulties with impeachment. The only thing that will make it possible is public demand. But the conditions are favorable for a rapid change in the public’s attitude towards the six anti-democracy members in particular.
The economy sucks under the whims of Trump. He lost the war against Iran in record time, but can’t quit it. Algae defeated him. We’re getting sick from his assault on our public and private health systems: explosive diarrhea and screwworm and measles don’t disappear because Trump won’t let the government count the sick and dead.
Farmers can’t get fertilizer; diesel is out of sight, and water is disappearing or heavily polluted. Electricity rates are skyrocketing because Trump supports the tech bros’ obsession with resource-hogging data centers. Even the craven billionaire media can’t hide the impact of climate disruption.
Trump and his minions are hunting for scapegoats: DSA politicians, Commies, Antifa, immigrants, Trans people, anything to hide reality from as many as possible. That’s going to work with some people, but I believe even the dullards have to see that the Mighty Zohran didn’t jack up the price of electricity in Texas.
Trump is lost without SCOTUS to uphold his attacks on the rule of law. He rarely wins at the lower court level, and those courts do not trust his politicized DOJ. If SCOTUS isn’t there to back him up, he’s toast.
When enough people understand this the demand for mass impeachment of the corrupt members of SCOTUS will burst through the media blockade.
Movement in the academic ranks
I read One First by Steve Vladeck, and listen to the Amicus and Strict Scrutiny podcasts. Amicus is hosted by Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern. Strict Scrutiny is hosted by law professors Melissa Murray, Leah Litman and Kate Shaw. None of them are radicals, but they all support some form of court reform. Slate is publishing a series on the need for Court reform, and Strict Scrutiny will do a podcast later this Summer. Here’s a post explaining Vladeck’s views.
There’s motion in the media as well. Here’s an article by Adam Server in The Atlantic, calling out the overt racism of this majority. And here’s a recent article by Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia Southern, pointing out that in major cases SCOTUS doesn’t act like a court. but rather like an unelected legislature.
Grounds for impeachment
The Constitution provides that the members of SCOTUS hold their positions “… during good Behaviour…”, an undefined term. The power of judicial review is not in the Constitution. It was the first major power grab by the Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison. So neither SCOTUS’ claimed power nor the remedy for its abuse is circumscribed by the text of our founding document. Impeachment is a purely legislative action; it’s not subject to SCOTUS review. It’s up to Congress to decide the boundaries of impeachment. Congress can act either by an impeachment proceeding or by legislation.
I prefer impeachment, which should begin with hearings on grounds for impeachment of these six renegades. Those hearings should take place around the country to avoid dependence on the billionaire media. Instead, people can actually attend the hearings. Local media, much of which is still reasonably honest, can cover them. Then clips can be distributed on social media. This establishes a public basis for impeachment, and sends a warning to the anti-democracy six, just like FDR’s court-packing plan did.
Then hold hearings in the House on impeachment of each of the six, one at a time, every week for six straight weeks. Lay out the grounds applicable to each. Here’s my tentative list, which doesn’t include the lying and financial corruption applicable to most of them.
1. Deliberate attacks on Congress’ powers under Art. 1.
2. Stripping Congress of the power given it in the Reconstruction Amendments.
3. Trump v. US with its destruction of the fundamental principle that no one is above the law.
4. Interference with agency power and control granted by Congress.
5. Differential treatment of Democratic and Republican administrations.
6. Disregard for stare decisive, justiciability, mootness, federal question, standing, and other guardrails that used to protect us from some abuses of power by SCOTUS.
Plan
In my next posts I’ll take up these issues in more detail. I realize that some of this is technical, but the issues raised by these grounds aren’t technical at all. They strike directly at the idea of Constitutional self-government. All of the grounds I listed point to an undeniable fact. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are arrogant thugs bent on remaking our government to suit their personal preference."
And so it is a bad time for de facto officers to be behaving badly and in bad faith if they have, are, and/or intend to deprive citizens of their rights, to help organized crime get away with treasonous child sex trafficking and war crimes against children, resulting in the murder or death of 18 Americans in Trump's illegal war in Iran, meant to grift and distract from the failure to release the Epstein files, coupled to heavy redacting.
Many different Trump de facto officers have been disqualified from office, and at least one of them had all of her changes to the government negated -- and so the writing is on the wall -- the end is nigh.
Per Propublica, "Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms.
From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.
Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.
ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.
“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.
“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”
In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.
“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”
Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.
In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.
“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”
Former federal Judge John E. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee
Federal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are “dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law.”
“The Department stands firmly behind the professionalism and good faith of its attorneys,” said spokesperson Kiersten Pels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Federal judges have found that the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts and filed declarations with inaccurate dates, the ProPublica review shows.
In one case, the government included documentation claiming a detainee had been convicted of marijuana possession in 2009. That detainee, the judge noted, citing what she called the government’s persistent “sloppiness,” would have been 4 years old.
“This Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from [the U.S. government] unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge,” Judge Christine O’Hearn, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in New Jersey while reviewing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed he was unlawfully imprisoned by immigration officers. O’Hearn accused the government of defying her orders when, instead of releasing the man, Immigration and Customs Enforcement transferred him to a different facility in New York.
In Minnesota, the state’s top political leaders had publicly clashed with the administration following the violent ICE raids that led to the deaths of two U.S. citizens. Then the administration filed a flurry of subpoenas against them.
Last month, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, who was appointed by George W. Bush and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, slammed the government’s actions and “spurious claims,” saying the presumption of regularity was being abused.
“Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action — particularly official action that the federal government cannot directly require those political opponents to take — is a blatantly unlawful and unethical use [of] the grand-jury process,” the judge wrote.
“Breakdown” of a Presumption
The presumption of regularity creates a high bar for those suing the government or defending themselves against it in criminal cases. They often must provide evidence that the government willfully violated a policy or otherwise deviated from its charge — that is, did something irregular — to overcome the standard.
It’s a shield the government wields often, with little notice, and one that is almost always successful. But overcoming that presumption has become increasingly common under Trump’s second term, according to court watchers.
About half of the cases ProPublica identified as questioning the presumption come from districts, including D.C., Maryland and Virginia, where by proximity and jurisdiction many of Trump’s actions are challenged and often heard by Democratic-nominated judges. The Southern District of New York, which has issued repeated rebukes of Trump administration actions, and the Northern District of California, another Democratic stronghold, are other hotbeds of judicial scrutiny.
Last September, D.C. District Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui accused the administration of working around the federal grand jury process, getting an indictment from a state court after prosecutors had failed to get one in his court, which he called “unseemly,” if not “unlawful.” He fired off one of the earliest signs that the presumption itself could come into question.
“This only deepens the growing mistrust of the actions of prosecutors,” the judge wrote. “That is a sentiment that was once unthinkable, but the irregular is now the regular.” While the case was largely managed by assistant U.S. attorney Caelainn Carney, according to court transcripts, Faruqui was aiming his frustration at her bosses, including senior prosecutor Jonathan R. Hornok, and the leadership at DOJ. Neither attorney responded to requests for comment.
Pels, the DOJ spokesperson, told ProPublica that Faruqui “was wrong on the law” and noted that after the government appealed to the district’s chief judge, his order was overruled. “Judge Faruqui has a long-standing documented pattern of editorializing from the bench beyond the scope of the cases before him,” Pels added.
But in recent months, skepticism about the presumption has also come from judges appointed by Republicans, such as McElroy, or in GOP strongholds.
In Indiana, Trump-appointed federal Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and a lawful U.S. resident, from ICE custody in March. Sarsour’s lawyers argued the government had targeted him to suppress his First Amendment right to free speech. The DOJ invoked the presumption of regularity and argued his arrest was part of an anti-terrorism dragnet, which the judge threw out.
In the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Michael R. Barrett, appointed by George W. Bush, ordered ICE to release a detainee after concluding the presumption had been overcome because the government hadn’t presented a reasonable argument that the man was a flight risk.
News outlets, including CNN, have documented federal judges’ ire with Trump’s DOJ, and some of the cases under question have been well-publicized, such as the government’s illegal deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. In that case, Judge Paula Xinis, a President Barack Obama appointee, criticized the government, saying, “You have taken the presumption of regularity, and you’ve destroyed it.”
Many of the rulings challenged one of Trump’s hallmark efforts: immigration enforcement and deportations.
“The presumption of regularity and integrity previously and routinely afforded to the Executive branch and the United States Attorney’s Office has been undeniably eroded in this jurisdiction and across the country,” O’Hearn wrote in February, noting that the federal government had repeatedly violated court orders in her district and others related to immigration operations.
In another immigration detention case, this one in Washington state, Biden-appointed Judge Lauren King said, “[t]he ‘presumption of regularity’ is dislodged here by the numerous factual errors in Respondents’ filings and by their conflicting representations.”
Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a former federal judge from California, said what’s happening in the courts feels more like a “political conflict” than the normal ebb and flow of the justice system.
“It’s really one branch that is really sort of questioning the legitimacy of the other one,” Fogel said. “I think the judges are trying to stand up for the legitimacy of their branch.”
Just Security, an online law and policy journal, has been tracking cases in which federal judges have admonished Trump’s prosecutors, including those involving the presumption.
“We’re witnessing a breakdown in the ways in which any administration ordinarily carries out its responsibilities, through the Justice Department in particular,” said Ryan Goodman, Just Security’s co-editor-in-chief.
Erosion of Trust, Ethics Inquiries
The erosion of trust from the federal bench comes as Trump has profoundly shifted priorities at the DOJ to align with his political platform: ending civil rights and diversity programs, deporting immigrants and stripping away environmental protections.
Those who deal with DOJ lawyers have noticed the difference in court.
Mitch Bernard, chief counsel at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, has faced off on environmental issues with the DOJ many times. Although they may disagree, he said, he always expected his opponents to be “fair and above board.”
That dynamic is gone, he said.
“I would call it a transformation of the role of the Justice Department,” he said. “There are many different judges in different jurisdictions not only ruling against the government but calling the government out for dishonesty and dissembling, and that’s an extraordinary thing.”
The result, Bernard said, is that “the government will lose more cases as a result of the way the Justice Department is behaving.”
“There are many different judges in different jurisdictions not only ruling against the government but calling the government out for dishonesty and dissembling, and that’s an extraordinary thing.”
Mitch Bernard, chief counsel at the Natural Resources Defense Council
Meanwhile, groups such as his are benefitting from the government brain drain. “We hired 10 litigating attorneys last year,” he said. Of those, eight came from the DOJ.
Judges aren’t just losing faith in the DOJ. Some are pushing to sanction Justice Department lawyers.
This month, Miami federal Judge Kathleen M. Williams ruled that Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was an improper exercise in self-enrichment, citing the president’s lawyers for a series of misstatements in the case.
The Obama appointee referred the lawyer who brought the president’s case against the IRS, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. She also forwarded her ruling to disciplinary officials in New York, who had earlier received an ethics complaint about acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
A DOJ spokesperson called the Blanche case “nothing more than a politically motivated bar complaint, filed by partisan activists who disagree with this Administration’s policies.” Brito did not respond to a request for comment.
In Rhode Island, McElroy referred DOJ lawyers to a review board for possible discipline for their handling of the hospital investigation.
“As citizens, we trust that federal prosecutors, when wielding this awesome power against a state, a company, or certainly against vulnerable children, will play fair and be honest with its counterparts and the judiciary,” McElroy wrote. “DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case.”"
https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-presumption-of-regularity
Now complicating this matter, as investigators of Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate for the last 24 years as their perpetual victim -- guaranteed by Aileen Cannon sealing our Editor's Brady evidence forever along with about a missing million pages of Epstein files, missing from the DOJ's release) -- we found that Trump and GOP are stuck in this escalation of commitment and that Epstein "engineered" Trump, GOP, and others into this position, often forcing his billionaire and non-billionaire victims to find and harm other victims, for which there is a serious pattern. Furthermore, the DOJ files that were released proved Epstein was likely in control of and/or blackmailing Putin, Trump/GOP/Barr, Clinton/Dems/Ruemmler, Leon Black, Bill Gates, and/or others harming us -- and then Epstein was "suicided" like Jean Luc Brunel, and many others -- leaving Trump and the GOP holding the bag of Epstein's massively orchestrated crimes he blackmailed, coerced, intimidated, leveraged, threatened with death and/or ruin.
And so we have likened this in the past to a puppet show of Shakespeare's All the world's a stage, where the audience is the public screaming at different puppets for their conduct on stage, with no one screaming at the puppet master, pulling the strings of all the puppets in the shadows, responsible for all of their conduct, which Trump and the GOP puppets are now on the hook for.
Said differently, Epstein made victims of us all -- including Trump, Putin, Russia, Rosneft, Alfa Bank, Edge Foundation billionaires, and the Editor of UPRights News -- is what our ongoing investigation for the last 24 years has concluded, as the original investigators in what became all three Special Counsel investigations, ruses to forever investigate the harm to us in order to never deliver us justice, coupled to Aileen Cannon sealing the million pages of evidence which proves (all of) this, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" said Jack Smith.
And so Smith acknowledged what we provided him (about a million pages of Epstein-Russia 2002-2024 evidence) via AUSA/USAO, Seattle, WA, August 29, 2024, and under camera -- and which was not found in the DOJ files -- was "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt", coupled to federal judges now stripping Trump and the federal government of their qualified immunity and/or presumption of regularity, for behaving outside of official capacity in bad faith with bad behavior, is a reasonable inference.