TOM RENZ: The Rise of Digital ID in the United States – A Legal and Privacy Crisis | The Gateway Pundit

TOM RENZ: The Rise of Digital ID in the United States – A Legal and Privacy Crisis

Photo by Rob Hampson on Unsplash

Republished with permission from Attorney Tom Renz.

The destruction of our privacy rights in the United States is making me sick. It’s happening right under our noses, and it’s getting worse by the day. Most people seem unaware, but digital ID is now the law, and its implementation is moving forward as we speak. This isn’t the work of a single piece of legislation; it’s a slow creep driven by updates to existing regulations, rooted in the post-9/11 “Patriot Act” mindset that trades our freedom for security. Let’s break this down academically, with the relevant laws and texts, so you can see the full scope of what’s at stake.

Foundational Federal Law: The REAL ID Act of 2005

The cornerstone of this shift is the REAL ID Act of 2005, codified in 49 U.S.C. § 30301 note. This law set minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards to be accepted for federal purposes, like boarding commercial flights. While it initially governed physical IDs, its mandates for digital features and databases laid the groundwork for what we now face with digital identification. The law was updated with the REAL ID Modernization Act, signed into law as part of a larger bill in 2020, pushing us further down this path.

Tom Renz’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

The Act’s Section 202(b) outlines the minimum requirements for an acceptable ID, and it’s packed with digital components that paved the way for today’s mobile driver’s licenses (mDLs). Here’s the breakdown from the relevant text:

• Digital Photo: “(5) A digital photograph of the person, which may be the photograph taken by the State at the time the person applies for a driver’s license or identification card or may be a digital photograph of the person that is already on file with the State.”

• Machine-Readable Technology: “(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.”

Additionally, Section 202(d) sets minimum issuance standards, requiring states to build an infrastructure around digital data retention. Consider the “facial image capture” requirement: “(3) Subject each person applying for a driver’s license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture.” This is biometric identification, folks, and it’s a key piece of the digital ID puzzle. The law also mandates digital source document retention: “(1) Employ technology to capture digital images of identity source documents so that the images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format.”

Key Federal Regulation: 6 CFR Part 37

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took this further with 6 CFR Part 37, the implementing regulation for the REAL ID Act, amended to embrace digital IDs. Section 37.7 specifically addresses the acceptance of mDLs for federal purposes, moving beyond the need for a physical card. The relevant text states:

• § 37.7(a) Generally: “TSA may issue a temporary certificate of waiver to a State that meets the requirements of §§ 37.10(a) and (b).”
• § 37.7(b) State Eligibility: “A State may be eligible for a waiver only if, after considering all information provided by a State under §§ 37.10(a) and (b), TSA determines that— (1) The State is in full compliance with all applicable REAL ID requirements as defined in subpart E of this part; and (2) Information provided by the State sufficiently demonstrates that the State’s mDL provides the security, privacy, and interoperability necessary for acceptance by Federal agencies.”

• This regulation formalizes the path for digital IDs, but it’s just the beginning of the problem.

The Data Sharing Nightmare: REAL ID Act Section 202(d)(12) and the S2S System

Here’s where it gets worse. The federal law mandating data sharing between states is found in Section 202(d)(12) of the REAL ID Act: “(12) Provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State.” The primary purpose is to prevent one person from holding multiple REAL ID-compliant credentials by allowing states to check an applicant’s status nationwide.

Share Tom Renz’s Newsletter

The mechanism for this sharing is the State-to-State (S2S) Verification Service, managed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), a private, non-profit entity. S2S is a “pointer system” that doesn’t store all data centrally but directs one state’s system to another to verify records. The platform, State Pointer Exchange Services (SPEXS), extends the system used for Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLIS). Data exchanged includes an individual’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number, and other fields to confirm or deny duplicate licenses. The AAMVA, being private, operates with limited public oversight, which is a red flag.

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) Loopholes

The DPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., governs how state DMVs can release personal information from motor vehicle records. While it prohibits public disclosure, it includes 14 exceptions that open the door for private entities. Key ones include:

• Insurance: For use in connection with motor vehicle, driver safety, or theft prevention activities.
• Legal Proceedings: For use in connection with civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceedings.
• Legitimate Business: For use by any legitimate business in connection with a motor vehicle transaction initiated by the individual, specifically to verify the accuracy of submitted information.
• Express Consent: If the individual has given express consent, a common path enabled by those agreements you sign for emails or cell phones.

Other exceptions allow use for research, statistical reports (if personal information isn’t published), notifications to owners of towed vehicles, and more, as long as express consent is obtained where required.

The 2020 REAL ID Modernization Act and Private Partnerships

The 2020 REAL ID Modernization Act, signed by President Trump, accelerates this with mDLs. States will partner with private entities—big tech companies—to develop the technology. These partners will have access to your data, and depending on state contracts, may use it for their own purposes. This public-private partnership, reminiscent of the Federal Reserve model, raises serious privacy concerns.

Conclusion

The implementation of digital ID, facilitated by the REAL ID Act, its regulations, and the DPPA’s loopholes, is a deliberate erosion of our privacy. The involvement of private entities like AAMVA and potential big tech partners compounds the risk, with data reselling a real possibility. As a lawyer, I see this as a clear threat to our freedoms, and I urge you to stay informed.

Share Tom Renz’s Newsletter

If you value this analysis, please consider donating to http://givesendgo.com/renzlaw, and following The Tom Renz Show on X, Rumble, or http://TomRenz.com. We need to keep fighting for our rights.

Sources: REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. § 30301 note), 6 CFR Part 37, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.), REAL ID Modernization Act (2020).

The post TOM RENZ: The Rise of Digital ID in the United States – A Legal and Privacy Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Liberals Rally Around Judicial Supremacy | VCY

Liberals Rally Around Judicial Supremacy

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F2063790168&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&visual=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&color=ff5500

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles · April 8 | Liberals Rally Around Judicial Supremacy

**Previously recorded by Phyllis Schlafly // June 2005 **

Many people have been fed up with judges for many years and for many different reasons, such as prayer in school, abortion, and capital punishment. What has brought the issue of judicial mischief to a head is the realization that we are not merely dealing with unrelated wrong decisions but with the systemic ideological error that proclaims the Rule of Judges. The liberals try to tell us that the Rule of Law requires the Supreme Court to be accepted as the final arbiter of constitutional questions. But they are just plain wrong. They are actually demanding that the Rule of Judges replace the Rule of Law, and that’s why we call them judicial supremacists.

The new battle cry of the liberals, who are still smarting from their losses in the last election, is their sanctimonious mantra that we must have an “independent” judiciary. What they really want is courts independent from the Constitution so that unelected judges can thumb their noses at our elected representatives in the other two branches of government.

The liberals claim they want us to respect judges just as we “respect the referee” in competitive sports even when we think he made the wrong call. But the fans would never tolerate a baseball umpire changing the rules of the game by calling a batter out after two strikes.

Likewise, we should not tolerate judges who try to change the rules of our written Constitution by pretending that its meaning is evolving, or that they have discovered new privileges in our written Constitution no one else has detected for two centuries, or that our Constitution must be changed to conform to modern trends in foreign law.

The Constitution is clear that it is not judges but the Constitution itself which is “the supreme law of the land.” The Constitution also specifies that every President must take an oath to the Constitution, not to the judges’ interpretation of the Constitution. Our right of self-government upholds the Rule of Law, but not the Rule of Judges.

Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley on Judges Interfering in Trump’s Agenda: ‘They Have Intruded Into Areas of Presidential Authority’ (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit

Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley on Judges Interfering in Trump’s Agenda: ‘They Have Intruded Into Areas of Presidential Authority’ (VIDEO)

A handful of judges are trying to stop Trump from enacting his agenda. This is an indisputable fact.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who is also a liberal, recently talked about this on FOX News and clearly sees this as judicial interference.

His point is simple. The people of America elected Trump, not a small group of activist judges.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

HEMMER: So the way we frame that question where there’s 650 district court judges across the country and what Barr says, a judge in the same court down the hall could disagree with him. That does not give the original judge the authority to go over the executive power. How do you view that?

TURLEY: No, I think there’s a legitimate complaint here. It’s like having a car where every passenger is grabbing the emergency brake. It’s pretty hard to drive that car.

And, you know, what you have here are judges that are imposing national injunctions which the Supreme Court, including liberals like Justice Kagan, have objected to. She said this is madness that you have all of these trial judges who are imposing national injunctions. Congress is looking at legislation to curtail the ability of lower court judges to do precisely that.

So I think there’s merit to that. I think that the Trump administration is likely to win. I also think the Trump administration is likely to prevail in most of these cases.

I think that federal judges have overextended themselves. I think they have intruded into areas of Article II or presidential authority.

Watch the clip:

Jonathan Turley: "I think that federal judges have overextended themselves. I think they have intruded into areas of Article II or presidential authority."

Read what @JonathanTurley said: https://t.co/fXgpoMrmto pic.twitter.com/3Cx9SFK9Aa

— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) March 27, 2025

People are tired of this. The public elected Trump for a reason. These judges need to get out of the way.

The post Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley on Judges Interfering in Trump’s Agenda: ‘They Have Intruded Into Areas of Presidential Authority’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Trump DOJ Declares Multi-Layered Protections for Administrative Law Judges Unconstitutional, Dismantling Longstanding Shield for Unelected Bureaucrats | The Gateway Pundit

Trump DOJ Declares Multi-Layered Protections for Administrative Law Judges Unconstitutional, Dismantling Longstanding Shield for Unelected Bureaucrats

Photo credit: depositphotos.com

The Department of Justice under President Trump has determined that the multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional.

The DOJ has concluded that current laws make it too difficult for the government to remove ALJs from their positions. These laws require multiple steps and layers of approval before an ALJ can be fired, which limits the President’s power.

ALJs in the United States are supposed to be “impartial officials” who preside over administrative hearings within federal agencies. They operate within the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

A letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) outlined the DOJ’s stance, explaining that restrictions preventing the removal of ALJs under 5 U.S.C. 1202(d) and 7521(a) are unconstitutional under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

5 U.S.C. 1202(d) states, “Any member may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

5 U.S.C 7521(a) states, “An action may be taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is employed only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.”

The DOJ’s position aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2010 Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. decision, which struck down similar “multilayer protection from removal” for executive officers. The Court ruled that such barriers were an unconstitutional infringement on the president’s authority to oversee executive officers.

In the DOJ letter, Harris referenced this ruling, emphasizing that removal restrictions preventing ALJs from being held accountable create an unconstitutional chain of protection, limiting the president’s ability to ensure executive officials serve the public interest.

The DOJ has also announced it will no longer defend these removal restrictions in court, a major policy shift.

The letter reads:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D, I am writing to advise you that the Department of Justice has concluded that the multiple layers of removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs) in 5 U.S.C. 1202(d) and 7521(a) violate the Constitution, that the Department will no longer defend them in court, and that the Department has taken that position in ongoing litigation. See 2/11/25 Letter, Axalta Coating Systems LLC v. FAA, No. 23-2376 (3d Cir.).

In Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), the Supreme Court determined that granting “multilayer protection from removal” to executive officers “is contrary to Article Il’s vesting of the executive power in the President.” Id. at 484.

The President may not “be restricted in his ability to remove a principal [executive] officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior [executive] officer.” Ibid.

A federal statute provides that a federal agency may remove an ALJ “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.” 5 U.S.C. 7521(a).

Another statute provides that a member of the Board “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 5 U.S.C. 1202(d).

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Enterprise Fund, the Department has determined that those statutory provisions violate Article II by restricting the President’s ability to remove principal executive officers, who are in turn restricted in their ability to remove inferior executive officers.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.

https://twitter.com/ChadMizelle47/status/1892743547519893792

More from far-left New York Times:

The Trump administration told Congress on Thursday that it believed President Trump had the constitutional power to summarily fire administrative law judges at will, despite a statute that protects such officials from being removed without a cause like misconduct.

The move was the latest step in the administration’s unfolding assault on the basic structure of the federal government and on Congress’ power to insulate various types of executive branch officials in sensitive positions from political interference from the White House. The Trump administration disclosed its approach in a letter from Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general.

Administrative law judges preside over administrative hearings in executive branch agencies. They are executive branch officials, not life-tenured members of the judicial branch, but they still perform judges’ role, including by administering oaths, taking testimony, ruling on evidentiary questions, and making factual and legal determinations.

Examples of such officials include Social Security Administration judges who handle disputes about disability and retirement benefits; National Labor Relations Board judges who resolve unfair labor practice cases; and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission judges who hear disputes about matters like electric utilities and regional grids.

To insulate the officials from political interference, Congress enacted a statute that says disciplinary action, including firings, may be taken against such judges “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the board.”

The post Trump DOJ Declares Multi-Layered Protections for Administrative Law Judges Unconstitutional, Dismantling Longstanding Shield for Unelected Bureaucrats appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CNN found liable for defaming Navy veteran, has to pay $5 million | WINTERY KNIGHT

CNN found liable for defaming Navy veteran, has to pay $5 million

Corporate news media is losing viewers, and no wonder – they are very biased in how they cover the news. But sometimes, they go beyond bias, and actually defame other people. Recently, CNN, a former news network, ran a story about a Navy veteran. And they got in big trouble for it. And now they have to pay millions and millions of dollars.

I have to link to the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters blog, because nobody does a better job of covering media bias than Newsbusters.

They write:

On Friday, a jury of six in Florida’s 14th Circuit Court in Bay County has found CNN liable for the defamation of Navy veteran Zachary Young and that he was entitled economic and emotional damages, a ruling that proved CNN was not worthy of their moniker “the most trusted name in news.” They also found that CNN’s reporters had demonstrated expressed malice, actual malice, and outrageous behavior, which opened the door for a massive punitive damages judgement.

The jury also found Young was entitled to $4 million in economic damages and $1 million in emotional damages. They also ruled that CNN should be subject to punitive damages, but the two sides settled Friday afternoon following nearly 90 minutes of discussions.

In another story from the New York Post, they talked about how much the punitive damages might be:

Louis G. Adolfsen, a defamation lawyer and founding member of the Melito & Adolfsen PC law firm in Manhattan, speculated that the settlement could be for as high as $25 million considering Panama City is a “rural or semi-rural” area where the jury pool is likely hostile to CNN.

Back to Newsbusters – this part is interesting. The material was false, and false to the level of defamation:

A ruling of liable meant the jury had determined CNN published the defamatory material, the material was “of and concerning” Young, the materials that was published was false, said false material rose to the level of defamation, CNN was negligent in their news reporting about Young, and that Young had sustained damages as a result of the material.

“False material rose to the level of defamation”. And these are the kinds of people who fact check what you say on social media.

Internal CNN e-mails show what they are really like:

Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman said in his closing that the Marquardt segment ran on 11 different CNN shows both domestically and on CNN International. And, in addition to Marquardt’s defamatory report, it was accompanied by anchors making their own defamatory statements about Young.

The jury also found CNN had operated with expressed and actual malice. The evidence presented to the jury was clear; Marquardt had messaged colleagues that he was going to “nail this Zachary Young Mfucker” while calling the report was going to be “your funeral bucko.” CNN editors called him a “shit” and “a shitbag” who had a “punchable face.”

They say that journalism is one of the easiest majors to get. And when you read their internal e-mails, you really can see that they’ve never really moved beyond high school. What do people learn in journalism school? Nothing.

Anyway, it’s Saturday, so enjoy some good news.

What Will You Do When You Can’t Buy Or Sell Anything On The Internet Without Your UN-Mandated Digital Identity Chip? | The Economic Collapse

Imposing mandatory digital identification on every nation on the entire planet has become a primary goal for the global elite.  It isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but eventually the plan is to get virtually everyone in the world into the system.  If the global elite get their way, a time will come when you will not be able to buy or sell anything on the Internet without logging in with your UN-mandated digital identity chip.  You won’t be able to go to school, get a job or open a bank account without your UN-mandated digital identity chip either.  In essence, you will become a complete and utter outcast from society.

I have been astounded by what I have discovered.  Leo Hohmann and a few others have been writing about this, but the general population has no idea what the global elite have planned.  All the way back in September 2018, the United Nations established the “UN Legal Identity Agenda Task Force”…

Inspired by the Secretary-General’s determination to tackle the global problem of statelessness (affecting more than 10 million people worldwide), but also noting the wider (and larger) issue of lack of legal identity, the Secretary-General’s Executive Committee, in January 2018, mandated the Deputy Secretary-General to convene “UN entities to develop, in collaboration with the World Bank Group, a common approach to the broader issue of registration and legal identity…”. To operationalize the decision of the Executive Committee, an inter-agency coordination mechanism — the UN Legal Identity Agenda Task Force (UNLIA TF) — was established from September 2018, where 13 UN agencies, under the chairmanship of UNDP, UNICEF and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, are working together to try to assist Member States achieve SDG target 16.9.

One of the responsibilities of this task force is to “oversee the implementation of the UN LIA at the regional and national level”.  The following comes from the official UN website…

• To oversee the implementation of the UN LIA at the regional and national level;
• To develop and maintain normative work related to the UN LIA (with UNDESA leading as normative focal point);
• To fully engage in fund raising, advocacy and communication of the UN LIA;
• To convoke UN system-wide meetings to advance the implementation of the UN LIA;
• To brief the DSG and other senior UN principals as required (including the Strategic Results Group on SDG Implementation) on latest developments in the implementation of the UN LIA;
• To support the UNDP Administrator in his role as member of the WBG ID4D programme’s High-Level Advisory Council.

The United Nations Development Program is on the ground in 170 different countries and territories, and they have become one of the key UN agencies that is working to advance this agenda.

On the UNDP website, they have an entire page that discusses what they intend to do.  They argue that “embracing digitalization” will help to close the “global identity gap”…

Legal identity serves as a fundamental gateway to accessing both public and private services. However, a staggering 850 million people worldwide lack the means to establish their identity. Embracing digitalization offers a pathway to bridging this global identity gap, with digital legal identity serving as a cornerstone of digital public infrastructure, fostering interoperability among diverse systems.

Whenever they want to sell us on some horrible new thing that they want to do, they make it sound like it is something that is necessary to help the poor and needy.

The UNDP has listed five “compelling reasons” why digital identification must be imposed on the entire planet.  The first reason they give is that digital identification will allow them to track all of us…

Digital legal identities offer a unique means of tracking population movements, facilitating swift access to essential information for each human being.

I’m sorry, but I don’t want the UN to ever track my movements.

I am sure that you feel the same way.

The second reason they give is that it will allow governments to register people more quickly during major disasters…

Several countries are adopting digital IDs to register disaster impacts, aiding in the comprehensive understanding of these events. With support from UNDP, countries are establishing tracking systems to collect data from various agencies, including environment, health, public works, transport, agriculture, statistics, and others at national, provincial, and sub-national levels.

So what would happen during a long-term global emergency such as a pandemic?

Would everyone be required to register for “assistance” with their national governments?

The third reason they give is that digital identification is necessary for “identifying vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure”…

Digital IDs aid in identifying vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure, thereby bolstering resilience and guaranteeing a dependable energy supply during adverse events like extreme weather, seismic activity, wildfires, or power grid failures. Utility providers and emergency services can utilize this personal data during disasters to precisely locate individuals in need of special assistance, including those reliant on medical equipment powered by electricity or facing mobility challenges. Targeted support ensures that the most vulnerable members of the community receive prompt assistance and access to necessary energy resources.

In other words, when things go wrong, digital identification will make it easier for governments to “help” us.

We just have to give away all of our privacy first.

The fourth reason they give is that digital identification will help fight “climate change” because it will allow governments to “track energy consumption” and “inspire behaviour change”…

Leveraging digital legal ID data to track energy consumption, inspire behaviour change, and enhance sustainability measures can mitigate climate-related disasters.

In other words, they want to monitor how much energy you are using.

If you use too much, lowering your “social credit score” will “inspire” you to use less energy.

The fifth reason they give is that digital identification that is tied “directly to digital wallets” will allow authorities to encourage people to fight “climate change”…

By offering rewards or subsidies directly to digital wallets, individuals are encouraged to invest in renewable energy, leading to broader adoption and increased participation in sustainable energy initiatives.

Ultimately, linking your financial life to your digital identification is such an important part of their program.

They will know what you buy, what you sell, and everything else that you are doing online.

In fact, eventually they want to make it impossible to conduct any commerce on the Internet at all unless you have digital identification.

They argue that forcing everyone to reveal who they really are will make the Internet “safer” for everyone.

But of course the potential for tyranny would be off the charts.

Once you have the ability to track the behavior of everyone on the planet and you also have the ability to exclude people that are unwilling to submit to your demands from the system, you would be able to exercise a level of control over the globe that is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

About the Author: Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. He has also written eight other books that are available on Amazon.com including “Chaos”, “End Times”, “7 Year Apocalypse”, “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”.  When you purchase any of Michael’s books you help to support the work that he is doing.  You can also get his articles by email as soon as he publishes them by subscribing to his Substack newsletter.  Michael has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and he always freely and happily allows others to republish those articles on their own websites.  These are such troubled times, and people need hope.  John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  If you have not already done so, we strongly urge you to invite Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today.

The post What Will You Do When You Can’t Buy Or Sell Anything On The Internet Without Your UN-Mandated Digital Identity Chip? appeared first on The Economic Collapse.

January 6 Political Prisoners Launch Historic $50 Billion Class Action Lawsuit Against DOJ | The Gateway Pundit

January 6 Political Prisoners Launch Historic $50 Billion Class Action Lawsuit Against DOJ

In a groundbreaking legal battle, over 100 January 6 political prisoners have come together to file what is being hailed as the largest lawsuit ever against the Department of Justice.

Officially named the January 6 Restitution and Wrongful Incarceration Lawsuit, this $50 billion class action is spearheaded by Jake Lang, a January 6 prisoner who has been incarcerated for nearly four years. Lang, through his new organization, Federal Watchdog, the Anti-Lawfare Group, is joined by an esteemed team of conservative attorneys, including Steven Metcalf, Anthony Sabatini, Stephanie Lambert, and Jonathan Gross. Together, they aim to expose the injustices faced by January 6 prisoners and secure much-needed restitution.

* THERE IS STILL TIME TO JOIN THIS CLASS ACTION J6 RESTITUTION LAWSUIT – CLICK HERE TO JOIN *

A Fight for Justice

The lawsuit, set to be filed on January 20, 2025, has already garnered widespread support, with over 100 prisoners signing on. This historic legal action seeks to compensate these individuals for the extensive harm inflicted by what they describe as a weaponized justice system. From the loss of generational family businesses, homes, and careers to the irreparable emotional and psychological damage suffered during years of wrongful incarceration, the plaintiffs are demanding accountability for the Federal Government’s actions.

Jake Lang, a prominent figure in the January 6 movement, emphasized the importance of this lawsuit, stating, “This isn’t just about restitution; it’s about setting a precedent. Weaponized government and lawfare against conservatives can never become the standard in America.”

A Two-Tiered Justice System

According to Federal Watchdog, the plaintiffs were “hunted down like animals” by the FBI for peacefully protesting at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Many have faced harsh sentences, inadequate legal representation, and conditions that have worsened their physical and mental health. Critics argue this is a glaring example of a two-tiered justice system, one that has been particularly hostile to supporters of former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit will highlight individual stories of suffering and resilience, aiming to illustrate the broad impact of the government’s actions. “The damage to children who have spent four years without their fathers at home cannot be put into monetary value,” Lang noted. “But we must being the healing process by holding those responsible for our unconstitutional cruel & unusual torture accountable!”

* ADD YOUR NAME TO THE CLASS ACTION J6 RESTITUTION LAWSUIT FOR FREE *

A Path to Healing

The road to recovery for these patriots will be long and difficult. Some prisoners have experienced severe mistreatment in custody, leading to health conditions that may never fully heal. Others face the daunting task of rebuilding lives, families, and communities shattered by years of persecution. Federal Watchdog aims to provide these individuals with the resources and support needed to begin this process.

“We’re standing up to secure restitution for the thousands of broken lives left in the wake of the January 6 persecution,” said Lang. “This is about giving these families a chance to rebuild.”

A Call to Action

Federal Watchdog is urging all January 6 prisoners and their families to join this historic lawsuit. Participation comes at absolutely no cost, and those interested can sign up at J6Restitution.com. “This is your chance to fight back and demand justice,” Lang emphasized. “We need every voice in this battle.”

A Historic Moment

The timing of the lawsuit is symbolic, as it will be filed just before January 20, 2025, a date many believe will mark the beginning of a new chapter for these patriots. Supporters are optimistic that former President Donald Trump will pardon the remaining 250 prisoners still behind bars on his anticipated inauguration day, bringing an end to years of suffering and uncertainty.

Federal Watchdog’s Track Record

Federal Watchdog is no stranger to taking on high-profile cases. Recently, the organization filed a $150 million wrongful injury lawsuit on behalf of over 80 plaintiffs who suffered injuries during clashes with Capitol police on January 6. With this latest effort, the group aims to send a clear message that justice will not be denied.

Setting a Precedent

This lawsuit is about more than restitution; it’s about ensuring that government overreach and politically motivated lawfare never happen again. Lang and his team hope to set a precedent that will protect future generations from similar injustices.

Join the Fight

If you or a loved one were affected by the events of January 6, now is the time to stand up for your rights. Visit J6Restitution.com to join this historic lawsuit and be part of the fight for justice.

This landmark case marks the beginning of a long road home for those who have been wrongfully incarcerated. The January 6 Restitution and Wrongful Incarceration Lawsuit is more than a legal battle—it’s a movement to reclaim justice and rebuild lives.

If you would like to support the January 6 Political Prisoners while they are still imprisoned, please sign up to become a vital Patriot Sponsor by visiting SponsorJ6. com to help.

The post January 6 Political Prisoners Launch Historic $50 Billion Class Action Lawsuit Against DOJ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Resisting the deep state | The Log College

Resisting the deep state

How a small team of attorneys is beating back federal agency overreach

---

Illustration by Krieg Barrie

by Kim Henderson; WORLD MAGAZINE

Dry as the desert, and about as easy to interpret as Hammurabi’s Code: That’s how many Americans might describe the Federal Register. It’s an online database chock-full of new rules and regulations issued by the U.S. government, and it publishes every workday, courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Attorney Rachel Morrison finds such reading fascinating. You could even call her a “regulations wrangler.” She works for the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a Washington, D.C., think tank focused on applying Judeo-Christian values to politics. Along with her four-member legal policy team, Morrison is determined to stem the tide of liberal regulations flooding the Register. And they have their work cut out for them.

More than 400 official agencies and subagencies, including heavyweights like the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, are involved in the rulemaking, notify-the-public-by-the-Register business. Many of the rules these agencies try to pass involve issues members of Congress won’t touch, in part because their constituents don’t want them to. But the rulemakers don’t answer to voters, giving them dictator-like influence over a wide swath of American life.

Before joining the EPPC as a fellow in 2021, Morrison clerked in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and served as an attorney adviser for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It was good preparation for the work she does today, attempting to hold federal agencies accountable.

It’s a David-and-Goliath battle, one that has Morrison valuing her undergraduate math degree, especially when she’s analyzing the costs and benefits of regulations. “Being number literate helps me understand certain arguments or gaps in arguments.”

She’s good with comparisons, too. Here’s one from 2023, a year when Congress passed a total of 68 bills. During that same period, federal agencies—staffed by unelected bureaucrats and headed mostly by partisan presidential appointees—finalized 3,018 new regulations. “That’s over 44 times the amount of laws passed by Congress,” Morrison stresses.

But regulations are, in essence, laws.

They affect American life in myriad ways, from the type of lightbulbs in lamps to the kind of programming on the radio. But when Morrison is at home in Falls Church, Va., hunkered down over her MacBook Air, she’s studying a specific subset of regulations. The kind that affect healthcare providers who refuse to participate in certain medical procedures based on their religious beliefs. Schools dealing with transgender ideology. Groups fighting for the unborn.

It’s no easy task. Even though the Register says wordiness isn’t the intention, it’s the practice. Since the first of January, agencies have published more than 75,540 pages of explanation for newly proposed and finally approved rules. Most of those pages are covered in small print, triple columns. 

Proposed is the operative word for Morrison. A lot can change as a regulation proceeds toward finalization. During the published proposal stage, the public, as well as groups like Morrison’s team, can submit comments—positive or negative—about the rules. Morrison emphasizes anyone can comment online, right on the Register’s website. “You can submit it anonymously. It can be as short or as long as you want. It can be detailed or generic. You can respond to one aspect of the rule, or you can respond to every aspect of the rule. You can ask questions, you can share a personal story, you can attach an article. So there’s a lot of freedom in that.” 

The comment period can last weeks, and once it ends, an agency can continue, modify, or withdraw its proposal. After that, a new review begins at the Office of Management and Budget. During this time, individuals or groups can meet with federal officials and express support or concerns. Only after all that can a regulation be finalized and become law. 

But here’s the catch: Agencies are required to respond to comments. A June Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency underscored that responsi­bility: If a federal agency fails to provide a reasoned response to comments raised during the rulemaking process, a court may consider the final rule unlawful.

According to Morrison, issues like abortion, marriage, and sexuality tend to draw comments from well-organized groups on the left—overwhelmingly so. That skews perception of public support. “When the federal agencies see these comments, they can say, ‘Well, 70 percent of comments were in favor of the proposal.’” 

Morrison’s fellow team member, attorney Eric Kniffin, wants to change that balance. His drive springs from a law career that’s put him in the ring for some of the biggest religious liberty fights of the past 20 years, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a landmark Supreme Court decision that ruled the plaintiff didn’t have to provide abortafacient contraceptives like the morning-after pill as part of its healthcare plan. “None of the cases had to do with federal laws,” Kniffin emphasizes. “They all have to do with regulations.” 

In 2012, Kniffin was at a public meeting of the Institute of Medicine when he had what he describes as a “Twilight Zone moment.” 

“I watched a group of liberals openly make plans to weaponize the Affordable Care Act. They wanted to use it to push for a contraception mandate,” he remembers. They succeeded, and Christian-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby were forced to fight back in court. Kniffin witnessed a similar hijacking in 2016 when proponents used the same act to advance their transgender agenda. They sought to force doctors to perform and insurance to cover medical interventions supporting gender transitions—all under the guise that sex discrimination means gender identity discrimination. 

“If there had been more of an outrage, if there had been more of a spotlight on it that said, ‘Hey, look at what they’re doing. This is going to be hugely consequential,’ maybe we could have stopped it.” 

Kniffin, who lives in Colorado, left private practice to join the EPPC last year. He focuses on strategy. One goal is to write excellent public comments. Another is to build public awareness about what’s going on in Regulation World. Still, Kniffin acknowledges that their team won’t make much of a difference alone. “But if we can get other groups involved in this, too, we can amplify our voices.” 

Some conservatives are hard to convince. After all, religious liberty cases are faring pretty well at the Supreme Court these days. Why not just deal with challenges that way? 

Kniffin says the left loves that approach and even expects to lose in court. Because in the meantime, as cases steep during months, sometimes years, of media coverage, public opinion sways. Kniffin says that’s how they shift the Overton window, the range of policies the mainstream population deems acceptable. American policy analyst Joseph Overton proposed the concept. He said an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range.

“Regulatory agencies can change the world,” Kniffin says.

That’s why he believes it’s critical to hold the government accountable earlier in that process. “What’s going on here is not agency expertise. It’s about an administration that wants a policy outcome, and it can’t get it through the lawmaking process.” 

Rachel Morrison at home in Falls Church, Va.Photo by Mike Kepka/Genesis

KNIFFIN, MORRISON, AND THE REST of the EPPC accountability team work remotely. Natalie Dodson, who focuses on policy analysis, lives in a sixth-floor apartment in Alexandria, Va. She admits her friends seem more interested in her view of the Potomac than what she does for a living. “When I say I’m primarily focused on federal regulations, that’s usually where I lose them,” she explains with a laugh.

But the team’s accomplishments are no joke. It contributed to several regulation changes at the Department of Health and Human Services, including a provision acknowledging existing legal protections for religious freedom, conscience, and free speech to an “LGBTQ+” foster care rule. Another involved conscience protections for staff working with unaccompanied refugee children entitled under federal law to abortions and gender transitions.

“These rules are all based on congressional laws that have been passed, but they’ve been warped to fit the policy goals of a certain administration,” Dodson points out. “What we’re trying to do is kind of get them back in line with the actual laws that were passed in the beginning. I’m not ready to take on the whole administrative state, but this is my little way of fighting back.”

Rachel Morrison says a general reticence to “take on the administrative state” has hurt the right. “The left has been very good at this. They’re lockstep. They’ve been doing this for years. But folks on the right say, ‘The administrative state is unconstitutional, so we’re not going to engage.’ But until you change the process, you’re only shooting yourself in the foot if you’re not engaging in the process.”

And engagement is up.

At a recent talk on religious liberty and regulations, Morrison asked audience members if they had ever submitted a public comment to the Federal Register.

“Three years ago, there might have been a couple of people that raised their hand. But there was a good percentage at this event that had submitted comments. I think some of it is just education on the process itself.”

Morrison sees a change on the government side, too. She believes agencies are realizing they can’t just ignore religious liberty issues. “Some of it could be litigation prevention. It’s not sufficient, but it’s a positive first step.”

Kniffin says the team goes into these fights knowing the truth is on their side. “We’re not just fighting for the correct answer on a given issue of sexual morality or sexual identity. We’re also fighting for what’s genuinely good for people.”