Girling the Boy Scouts

On the 115th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America that arrived on February 8, 2025, that fabled organization ceased to exist due to the woke mob of leftist radicals that included attorneys filing lawsuits for alleged child abuse. 

The "leadership" of the Boy Scouts caved in and changed the Boy Scouts of America to something called Scouting BSA. This new organization includes everyone: girls, transgenders, LGTBQ and other wacko groups. Boy Scouts founder Robert Baden-Powell must be spinning in his grave. 

You'll find this 2017 post interesting.

Explaining the transformation and what led up to it is in the following video from PragerU with Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute:

News From New Mexico Shooting Sports Association

 

While SB279, the gas-operated firearm and magazine ban, has been idling in the Senate Finance committee for a week, SB318 has been fast-tracked in Santa Fe. The bill could put every gun store in New Mexico out of business by amending New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act to make it easier to sue a gun store than any other type of business and imposing harsher penalties on gun stores than any other type of business. Further, the bill states: "proof of monetary damage, loss of profits or intent to deceive or take unfair advantage of any person is not required" to sue a gun store. Activist groups who hate the Second-Amendment would be given free rein to sue New Mexico gun stores until they were forced to close. No other state in the country targets gun stores in this extreme manner, but trial attorneys who have a grip on the New Mexico Legislature have put gun stores in their sights looking for a payday. What can you do right now? First, find and contact your state legislators, and tell them to oppose SB318 as it is on the Floor of the Senate with a vote by all State Senators scheduled for tomorrow. Second, forward this message to anyone, especially FFLs who need to be aware of what is happening in Santa Fe right now.

California Sides With Mexico Against US Gun Industry

Besides turning California into a hellhole cesspool, radical Democrat liberals have been trying to diminish Second Amendment rights.

Gun control radicals are siding with Mexico against gun manufacturers and the Second Amendment.

According to the Buckeye Firearms Association:

The willingness of some in the U.S. to aid a foreign power in an assault on American industry and Americans’ Constitutional rights is sad and disturbing.

On Jan. 17, California Attorney General Rob Bonta proclaimed his support for Mexico’s position in the ongoing case Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case, now at the U.S. Supreme Court, is an attempt by the Mexican government, working with U.S.-based gun control advocates, to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), make the U.S. firearms industry a scapegoat for Mexican lawlessness, and impose billions of dollars in liability on American gun manufacturers for violence perpetrated by violent criminals south of the border.

Readers should know that the PLCAA was enacted in 2005, with broad bipartisan support, to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

I, for one, am glad that I moved out of Commiefornia. This coming week will mark seven years since I did so.

To read more, go here.

 

National Park Service Sued Over Cashless Policies

Above, the South Entrance gate to Yellowstone National Park. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

What part of the U.S. dollar's being "legal tender" does the National Park Service not understand? 

Apparently, several parks (maybe all of them) under the National Park Service are refusing cash from visitors and are only accepting credit or debit cards. This has led to three lawsuits (at this time).

National Parks Traveler reported:

The National Park Service's increasing move to only accept credit cards for entrance to parks has driven three visitors to sue the agency, saying its policy is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion and that federal law states that legal tender is suitable "for all public charges."

Esther van der Werf of Ojai, California, Toby Stover, of High Falls, New York, and Elizabeth Dasburg, of Darien, Georgia, brought the lawsuit [attached below] earlier this month after being told their U.S. currency would not be accepted for entry into Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Tonto National Monument, Saguaro National Park, Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site, and Fort Pulaski National Monument.

"NPS’s violation of federal law cannot be overlooked in favor of any purported benefit NPS cashless could hope to achieve, such as reducing logistics of handling cash collected," reads a section of the lawsuit. "Moreover, there is an increased cost to the NPS in going cashless, such as additional processing fees that will be borne by NPS and by visitors who ultimately fund the federal government through taxes, in addition to personal surcharges and bank fees visitors may incur under NPS cashless policy.

"However, plaintiffs do not ask the court to prohibit NPS from accepting credit cards, debit cards, or digital payment methods (such as ApplePay) should visitors to NPS sites prefer to use them. Rather, plaintiffs ask the court to restore entrance to NPS sites to those who cannot access non-cash payment methods (and those who choose not to) by declaring NPS cashless to be unlawful."

Us "geezers" don't have to worry about this as our national park Senior Pass gets us in without having to pay anything. Still, I agree that the NPS should also accept cash for entry fees.

To read more, go here. 

Gov. Grisham Pushes Lawsuits Against Gun Makers

If there were any doubt as to how bad New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is when it concerns our Second Amendment rights, the following ought to lay to rest those doubts.

Breitbart has posted an article on what we're up against during the upcoming legislative session in Santa Fe.

They begin with:

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) introduced a gun control package Friday, which includes an “assault weapons” ban, the ability for New Mexicans to sue gun manufacturers, and a two-week waiting period for gun purchases, among other things.

The Los Alamos Daily Post noted that Grisham’s push will ban “guns in parks and playgrounds,” which will “make it illegal to carry a firearm in county or municipal parks, playgrounds, and their accompanying parking lots.” This would give the force of law to a ban that Grisham issued via executive order on September 8, 2023.

To read more, go here. 

Lawsuits Pile Up Against New Mexico Governor

Lawsuits against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham are piling up.

At present, there are four of them.

According to KRQE:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is now facing four different lawsuits as gun rights advocates look to challenge the constitutionality of her new order.

All of the lawsuits are similar, arguing that the Public Health Order (PHO) goes against the United States Constitution.

“We are making sure that this never happens again,” said Luis Valdes, a spokesperson for Gun Owners of America (GOA). “We want to make sure that the right to keep and bear arms is fully protected and that there’s no further infringement upon it like what we’re seeing in New Mexico at the moment.”

GOA lawsuit suggests the Governor’s PHO violates the Second Amendment. Other lawsuits have also been filed by a former law enforcement officer and three other gun rights advocacy groups.

They all claimed the governor does not have the power to strip the right to bear arms from New Mexico residents. Further, the lawsuit argues that abiding citizens will pay the price for the health order, while criminals will continue to carry firearms.

“You have law enforcement officers who are going to follow this unconstitutional law, order, and they are then going to think anyone on the streets exercising their god-given right is a criminal,” Valdes explained.

The Bernalillo County sheriff said his department will not enforce the order. The only police agency under Grisham's control is the State Police and they haven't said anything (or maybe I missed it) yet. 

To read more, go here.

Some "Never Say Never Again" Trivia

Above, Sean Connery and Kim Basinger. Orion/Warner Bros.

For the first time in a while, I watched Sean Connery's last outing as James Bond in Never Say Never Again (1983). 

It hadn't struck me before, but I got curious as to the age differences between Connery and co-star Kim Basinger at time time of the movie's production.

At the time of production, Connery was 52 (he was three years younger than Bond successor Roger Moore) and Basinger was 29. She's only a couple of months older than me. 

At the time, or since, I don't remember if Connery's and Basinger's age differences ever became an "issue". It would be considered as a May-December romance these days.

For those who aren't aware, Never Say Never Again is a remake of Thunderball (1965).

According to Wikipedia:

Never Say Never Again is a 1983 spy film directed by Irvin Kershner. The film is based on the 1961 James Bond novel Thunderball by Ian Fleming, which in turn was based on an original story by Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, and Fleming. The novel had been previously adapted as the 1965 film of the same name. Never Say Never Again is the second and most recent James Bond film not to be produced by Eon Productions, the usual producer of the Bond series, but by Jack Schwartzman's Taliafilm, and was distributed by Warner Bros. instead of United Artists. The film was executive produced by Kevin McClory, one of the original writers of the Thunderball storyline. McClory had retained the filming rights of the novel following a long legal battle dating from the 1960s.

Never Say Never Again had its origins in the early 1960s, following the controversy over the 1961 Thunderball novel. Fleming had worked with independent producer Kevin McClory and scriptwriter Jack Whittingham on a script for a potential Bond film, to be called Longitude 78 West, which was subsequently abandoned because of the costs involved. Fleming, "always reluctant to let a good idea lie idle", turned this into the novel Thunderball, for which he did not credit either McClory or Whittingham; McClory then took Fleming to the High Court in London for breach of copyright, and the matter was settled in 1963. After Eon Productions started producing the Bond films, it subsequently made a deal with McClory, who would produce Thunderball, and then not make any further version of the novel for a period of ten years, following the release of the Eon-produced version in 1965.

Bruen Attorney: Where 2nd Amendment Lawsuits Stand Today

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made important decisions on the Second Amendment in their  in Heller and Bruen cases.

Unfortunately, some liberals are trying to skirt the law and the SCOTUS decisions. If anyone needs to view this video, it is liberal legislators, judges and attorneys.

The Bruen attorney explains where the Second Amendment lawsuits stand today in a YouTube video.

The summary of the video:

MUST WATCH INTERVIEW: NYSRPA v. Bruen was decided by the Supreme Court about 8 months ago and much has happened in America's courts since then.  David Thompson, the lawyer whose firm commenced NYSRPA v. Bruen, discusses where the 2nd Amendment stands in America's courts and how best to understand Bruen as applied to current gun control controversies. Very geeky legal discussion here. Mark Smith conducts this breaking news interview.

Southwest Airlines P.R. Fiasco

From CNN Business:

Southwest Airlines CEO Bob Jordan released an apology to stranded travelers as the beleaguered airline continues to grapple with what US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has referred to as a complete "meltdown" of the system. In all, Southwest has canceled more than 15,700 flights since winter weather began disrupting air travel on December 22.

To say that Southwest Airlines has a major public relations problem over flight cancellations would be a gross understatement. Industry reports that the airline's system was antiquated and the airline knew that it was. This was years in the making. They chose to pay dividends to stockholders instead of updating their infrastructure, according to other sources.

I think the only flights I took aboard Southwest Airlines was round-trips to Love Field in Dallas last year. 

They really owe customers a lot of money for ruining their Christmas vacations. Winter weather problems are one thing, but having their whole flight system going into "meltdown" is quite another. They need to step up and take care of these people or they can expect a huge class action lawsuit. 

I am glad that I didn't fly anywhere during this holiday season.

Federal Lawsuit Against The D&SNG Settled

Above, the D&SNG train at Highline above the Animas River this month. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

I hadn't heard anything about the federal lawsuit against the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad over the 416 Fire in 2018.

So, I did some checking and found that the matter had been settled earlier this year.

According to the Durango Telegraph (June 23 article):

As part of the settlement in a federal lawsuit related to the 416 Fire, the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad is now subject to sudden closures if wildfire danger is too high, which is having mixed results just a few weeks in practice.

In March, the D&SNG and the U.S. Forest Service signed a settlement stemming from the federal lawsuit, in which the railroad was accused of starting the 416 Fire, north of Durango in the summer of 2018. The agreement held several conditions, namely that D&SNG would pay the federal government $20 million to recoup firefighting costs. 

In addition, the D&SNG has agreed to not run trains if wildfire danger is too high, as determined by a fire restriction system set by the Forest Service.

“It’s definitely a game changer for the way we do business,” Jeff Johnson, general manager of the D&SNG, said. “And cancellations are the most difficult part of this process, because we’re aware this is something people have planned for a long time. It’s on their bucket list.” 

With an incredibly dry spring and early summer, the D&SNG has already been forced to shut down several days this June, canceling thousands of reservations and affecting the two towns that rely on the tourism dollars, Durango and Silverton. 

The situation is further muddled by the fact that after the 416 Fire, the D&SNG promised to convert its fleet from running on coal, which holds a huge fire risk, to oil- and diesel-burning engines. The D&SNG spent millions to fulfill this commitment, but even still, these locomotives are not allowed to run in certain conditions. 

Above, the Animas River next to the train during the trip to Silverton. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

During our ride on the train earlier this month, I did not see any evidence of the fire. The locomotive that took us to Silverton is one converted to oil from coal. Admittedly, I miss the smell of burning coal.

Fortunately, we've had a great monsoon season which lowered the fire danger in the San Juan Mountains where the train runs. We had rain while we were in Silverton and it rained prior to our arrival at Alpen Rose RV Park in Durango. We had some rainfall during our train ride and we saw several waterfalls along the way. 

To read the full article, go here.

Remington Arms Settles Sandy Hook Liability Claims

In an action that I totally disagree with, Remington Arms settled a liability lawsuit with families of the Sandy Hook massacre victims.

ABC News reported:

Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held liable for a mass shooting in the U.S.

Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million.

The settlement comes over seven years after the families sued the maker of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School, and in the course of 264 seconds, fatally shot 20 first-graders and six staff members.

The rifle Lanza used was Remington’s version of the AR-15 assault rifle, which is substantially similar to the standard issue M16 military service rifle used by the U.S. Army and other nations’ armed forces, but fires only in semiautomatic mode.

I'm afraid that this settlement will open up a "can of worms" for the future.

To read the full story, go here. 

Biden Gun Control Proposal Could Bankrupt Firearms Industry

The Democrats never give up. 

By hook or crook, they aim to take away our Second Amendment rights.

The latest is Joe Biden's proposal to do away with federal legal protections for gun manufacturers.

According to Breitbart:

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s plan to do away with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) could bankrupt the entire firearms industry.

President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA into law in 2005 as a way of protecting firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. But Biden campaigned on opening up firearm manufacturers to suits tied to the criminal misuse of the products they make.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s plan to do away with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) could bankrupt the entire firearms industry.

President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA into law in 2005 as a way of protecting firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. But Biden campaigned on opening up firearm manufacturers to suits tied to the criminal misuse of the products they make.

That's why it is imperative that the GOP retain control of the U.S. Senate to block such dangerous legislative proposals.

To read more, go here. 

New Mexico Businesses Sue Governor and State Over Health Orders

"Actions have consequences", as the old saying goes.

Several businesses around the state of New Mexico hope that Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham and her administration are made to compensate businesses that were forced to close by her health orders. Several lawsuits have been filed in different jurisdictions.

According to the Carlsbad Current Argus:

A group of New Mexico businesses from around the state sued Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and her administration for compensation for lost business resulting in the State’s public health orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Lujan Grisham enacted several executive orders throughout the pandemic restricting large gatherings and business activities deemed “non-essential,” hoping to slow the spread of the virus. 

This led to the temporary closure of multiple business sectors throughout New Mexico as owners grappled with losses in revenue and potentially permanent closures. .

Albuquerque-based attorney Blair Dunn represented each of the businesses in separate suits filed in district courts around New Mexico. 

He said the purpose of the cases is gain financial reparations for the business owners from the State after they were forced to close, and to hold the governor and her administration accountable for the costs inflicted on the New Mexico business community in enacted the health orders.

Good! I hope they prevail in their lawsuits.

To read more, go here. 

Why The Durango Train Isn't Going To Silverton

Above, a winter view of Silverton, Colorado. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Last week, Mitch Geriminsky and I were going to take a vacation camping trip to southwest Colorado. The vacation would have included a ride on the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad.

Unfortunately, a week before the trip was to begin, Mitch came down sick with, what the doctors initially thought, was COVID-19. So we cancelled the trip.

Later, it turned out after more tests, that his illness was caused by bacteria in his face mask(s) that gave him Legionnaires' Disease. He is nearly over this illness.

At the time of the cancellation of our trip, a representative for the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad said they expect to begin selling tickets for train trips to Silverton in mid-August. At present, the train only goes part way to Cascade Canyon. This is a nice trip, but the complete ride to Silverton is even better. So far, no announcements have been made. I decided to do some checking.

I had thought that the rides to Silverton were stopped due to the coronavirus, but my perusal of news articles present a different picture.

The Durango Herald posted this article on July 14:

The Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad’s plea to a federal judge for permission to resume a fire mitigation project along its tracks, as well as a separate project to repair a damaged bridge, was denied Tuesday. 

In recent weeks, the U.S. Forest Service has ordered the D&SNG to stop two projects along its tracks. 

On May 27, the Forest Service sent the railroad a cease-and-desist order after concerns were raised the D&SNG was removing and selling mass amounts of trees along its right of way to reduce fire risk. 

Then, on July 2, the Forest Service told the D&SNG to stop emergency repairs at the Elk Creek Bridge, which was recently damaged by debris during a washout, effectively cutting off any potential trips to Silverton. 

The D&SNG on Friday asked the federal court judge who is overseeing the lawsuit in which the Forest Service is suing the railroad for millions of dollars for the 416 Fire to override the agency’s stop orders. 

The Forest Service, according to court filings, said the D&SNG is allowed to work within its right of way, but may have to secure a permit for projects that are outside the scope of routine operations and maintenance. 

A spokesman for the Forest Service referred all questions to the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffery Dorschner, spokesman for the department, said in an email, the “U.S. attorney is pleased with the court’s decision,” but declined to comment further. 

On Tuesday, Judge Robert E. Blackburn denied the D&SNG’s request, saying the issues raised over the railroad’s stopped projects are unrelated to the 416 Fire lawsuit.

Above, the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad in the 1980s. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The repairs to the washed-out section of track would take up to four months to complete, according to the article. At present, the repair project is still stopped. Nobody knows when the bridge repairs will be allowed to start again. In the meantime, the businesses in Silverton who rely on tourist dollars from train passengers suffer.

It is alleged in the 416 Fire lawsuit that sparks from a coal-fired locomotive started the fire in 2018.

We will likely reschedule our vacation shortly.

To read more, go here.

NM Restaurants "Don't Feel Listened To"

Above, Don Diego's Restaurant & Lounge in Gallup. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

To be a restaurateur in any state, particularly New Mexico, is not a winning proposition.

Restaurants have been singled out by governors with lockdown orders or limited services.

In New Mexico, it has been a teeter-totter existence for restaurants as they have been allowed and then disallowed to serve dine-in patrons at 50% capacity.

Unfortunately, when a state has a governor, such as Michelle Lujan Grisham, who won't listen, unnecessary chaos erupts that forces restaurants to seek relief through the courts. Grisham has the attitude of, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" 

The latest comes from the Santa Fe New Mexican:

Though another legal showdown with the Governor’s Office looms later this month, the New Mexico Restaurant Association is pleading its case to the public in the interim. 

A day after a flurry of action placed Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s indoor-dining ban before the state Supreme Court, restaurant association CEO Carol Wight again made her arguments on behalf of the industry, asserting indoor dining in June and early July wasn’t a significant source of the surge of COVID-19 cases in the state. 

“It was never dine-in restaurants that was the problem,” Wight said Tuesday. “I really hope to drive home it’s not making a difference [to shut down dine-in]. The [statewide overall] spike is still going up. We don’t think what the industry is doing has anything to do with the spread of coronavirus.” 

The fight over indoor dining reached the state Supreme Court on Monday when a District Court judge in Carlsbad issued a restraining order that temporarily stopped the governor from enforcing a renewed ban on dine-in options. Hours later, though, lawyers for Lujan Grisham requested a stay from the Supreme Court, which ordered the parties to file legal arguments in the next several days. 

For now, the ban remains in place. 

The state has about 3,300 restaurants, with about 200 permanently closing since the pandemic started, Wight said. 

A spokesman for the Governor’s Office wrote an “open line of communication” exists with the association and discussions have taken place “since the outset of the implementation of pandemic-related restrictions.” 

“As far as there being an open line to the governor, we are not feeling that,” Wight responded. “Yes, I can email the secretary of environment and secretary of tourism, but we don’t feel listened to.”

Remember, brick walls don't have ears.

To read more, go here. 

Bernalillo County D.A. Files Lawsuit Against New Mexico Civil Guard

It looks like Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez wants to be New Mexico's answer to California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a noted radical leftist imbecile.

Torrez has filed a lawsuit against the New Mexico Civil Guard.

KOB 4 News reported:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- The Bernalillo County district attorney filed a lawsuit Monday against the New Mexico Civil Guard, a group that has showed up at protests in military-like uniforms, carrying guns, and telling people they are there to protect property. 

"When you have self-appointed police officers and military units out there advancing their own form of justice, there is no democratic accountability," District Attorney Raul Torrez said.  

The lawsuit asks a judge to order the New Mexico Civil Guard to stop representing itself as a police force. 

"What is affected is their ability to organize, train and operate as an unlawful group," Torrez said.  

The lawsuit also claims the group's "presence fostered and encouraged violence by counter-protestors." It specifically mentions Steven Baca, who is accused of shooting someone at a protest of a Juan de Oñate statue, and is not affiliated with the group. 

New Mexico Civil Guard leader Bryce Provance said in a KOB 4 phone interview that city leaders are trying to divert the blame away from law enforcement over how the protest was handled that night. 

"They are deflecting," he said. "The mayor and deputy chief ordered their officers not be in an area so that violence could be carried out against property against counter protestors and it backfired. Somebody got shot, and then we had to disarm the shooter, form a perimeter around him and hold him until police arrived and because of the mayor and deputy chief's ineptitude, they are going to deflect and try and charge us and sue us whatever they are going to do."

I don't see how the New Mexico Civil Guard represents themselves as a "police force". Torrez's frivolous lawsuit will likely fall flat on its face.

To read the full article, go here.

Is Travel Self-Quarantine Being Enforced?

The stupidity of New Mexico's governor in imposing a 14-day quarantine on anyone traveling into the state is just incredible.

As I said in a previous blog, it it tantamount to false imprisonment on people to force them to remain in the state if they are not infected and just passing through or just staying less than 24 hours. The woman is a lunatic.

Is it being enforced, or can it even be enforced? KRQE has an article on this.

They begin with:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – With the Fourth of July weekend approaching, the governor is reminding us that anyone traveling to the state of New Mexico must self-isolate for 14 days. Is that rule being enforced? People said they understand that we cannot monitor every single person who travels to New Mexico, but they said the least we can do is man the self-quarantine information table at the airport. 

People are traveling to New Mexico. “We are coming from Providence, Rhode Island,” traveler Darren Ferrell said. “We are going to Albuquerque and Santa Fe.” 

The Albuquerque Sunport expects an average of more than 4,000 passengers a day this Fourth of July weekend. “We determined that it was time to go on vacation, and New Mexico is a good destination,” Ferrell said. “It seems to be one of the lowest infection rates in the country.” 

Even with the governor’s travel order in place requiring a 14-day self-quarantine for people arriving into the state, passengers said no one is taking it seriously. “I do not really think people are following it,” traveler Phyllis Duncan said.

If someone were to pass through New Mexico to go to another state (such as Texas, Arizona or Colorado) on a vacation trip, and they already paid for attractions and lodging in that other state before the order and are forced to remain in New Mexico for 14 nights, it would be likely that lawsuits galore would be flooding the courts.

To read more, go here. 

Silver City's Jalisco Cafe Wins Reinstatement of Food Service Permit

Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham and her Environment Department lost in court over a Silver City, New Mexico restaurant's food service permit.

The Silver City Daily Press reported:

Sixth Judicial District Court Judge Jarod Hofacket directed the New Mexico Environment Department to reinstate the food service permit for downtown Silver City’s Jalisco Cafe during a hearing Wednesday afternoon, and denied a request by the secretaries of the Environment Department and the New Mexico Department of Health that Hofacket order Jalisco’s owners to shut down the restaurant pending resolution of both civil and criminal cases now in the courts. 

Jalisco Cafe’s owners opened for limited dine-in service May 15, in defiance of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s public health order in effect at the time, and continued to stay open after their food service permit was revoked by the Environment Department on May 19. The restaurant remained open this week. 

“We want to let you all know we WON our court case to get our license reinstated!!!!!!” the owners of the Jalisco Cafe announced on Facebook, shortly after the 45-minute-long emergency hearing adjourned. 

Hopefully, this will be the first of many court cases the diminutive dictator of Santa Fe will lose.

To read more, go here.

NM GOP Backs Business Group Lawsuit Against Governor

Businesses in New Mexico have filed suit against Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham over her lockdown orders and the New Mexico Republican Party supports the lawsuit

KRQE reported:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – A group of New Mexico businesses is suing Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham over the state’s public health order and some of the fines the state has levied while enforcing it. Filed Wednesday in Curry County District Court, the lawsuit comes from seven different businesses mostly in southeast New Mexico. Some of those businesses have been threatened with a $5,000 fine if they remained open for service to customers. 

Supporting the lawsuit, New Mexico Republican Party Chairman Steve Pearce claims the state is mixing two different laws to enforce the public health order. 

“The governor is mixing two laws, she’s taking the enforcement from one law and applying it to the other,” Pearce said. “Under the law that she’s shutting down businesses, she really only has the opportunity to levy the equivalent of a parking ticket, she can give a misdemeanor fine for $100 bucks.” 

As of Thursday, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration hadn’t formally responded to the lawsuit. During a news conference last week, the Governor welcomed any legal challenges to her administration’s public health orders while saying she expects her decisions to “prevail” in court. 

The two laws at the center of the lawsuit are the “Public Health Act” and the “Public Health Emergency Response Act.” The Public Health Act is the law the state has been using to temporarily close businesses. That laws allows for the state to levy $100 dollar fines against non-compliant businesses, per day. 

The “Public Health Emergency Response Act” (PHERA) is the law the state has been using to threaten or issue businesses an up to $5,000 fine per day. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs claim PHERA and the fines associated with it don’t apply to the current public health order.

Papas Pawn & Gun in Grants has been fined $6,500 for the days they opened for business, despite precautions that were taken for customer safety.

To read more, go here. 

Judicial Watch Moves To Stop Cash Payments To Illegals In California

Judicial Watch Files for Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining Governor Newsom’s Initiative to Provide $75 Million in Cash Benefits to Illegal Aliens

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it has filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against California Governor Gavin Newsom and his Director of the California Department of Social Services Kim Johnson to restrain them from spending $79.8 million dollars of taxpayers’ money to provide direct cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens (Crest et al. v. Newsom et al. (No. 20STCV16321)). Judicial Watch attorneys are asking the California Superior Court to hold a hearing on the TRO on May 5.

Judicial Watch argues in its TRO application that the court should preserve the status quo by restraining the State’s public officials from spending any taxpayer money on his executive initiative, known as the “Disaster Relief Fund” or the “Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Project (DRAIP),” and “prevent this manifest abuse of power before it’s too late to do so.”

Judicial Watch advises the court that an emergency temporary restraining order is necessary because starting imminently in May, Newsom plans to have the Department of Social Service distribute $75 million of taxpayer funds in direct cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens in violation of federal law.

In its April 29 lawsuit on behalf of California taxpayers, Robin Crest and Howard Myers, Judicial Watch alleges that Newsom overstepped his authority and violated federal law when, without affirmative state legislative approval, he took executive action to create DRAIP and provide cash benefits to individuals who otherwise are ineligible for state or federal insurance or other benefits due to their unlawful presence in the United States.

In its application to the court today, Judicial Watch tells the court: “A temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo is warranted because taxpayers can demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits and … will suffer an immediate, irreparable harm without the order.”

Governor Newsom announced his new executive initiative on April 15, 2020. The initiative would spend $75 million to provide direct cash payments to illegal aliens and cost an estimated additional $4.8 million to administer. DRAIP would provide one-time cash benefits of $500 per adult / $1,000 per household to 150,000 unlawfully present aliens in California. These benefits are not to be provided to U.S. citizens or legal aliens residing in the state, according to an April 17 fact sheet issued by the California Department of Social Services, the “Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Fact Sheet,” which reiterates that only unlawfully present aliens are eligible for direct assistance.

Under federal immigration law, 8 U.S.C. § 1621(a), unlawfully present aliens generally are ineligible for State or local public benefits. Section 1621(d) requires a state legislature to enact a state law that affirmatively provides for such benefits for illegal aliens:

A State may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any State or local public benefit … only through the enactment of a State law … which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit alleges that the California State Legislature has not enacted any law which affirmatively provides that unlawfully present aliens are eligible for the $75 million of cash public benefits announced by Newsom.

Governor Newsom intends to fund his initiative with $16.5 million from the Rapid Response Program, which the Legislature created and funded in June 2019 as part of the Budget Act of 2019, and $63.3 million from a March 17, 2020 amendment to the Budget Act of 2019 that references his March 4, 2020 proclamation declaring a state of emergency. Judicial Watch explains to the court today in its application for a temporary restraining order that the governor derives no authority from these legislative actions to spend the money for his executive initiative and therefore should grant a TRO:

[N]either the proclamation nor the budget amendment makes an express or even an implied reference to authorizing direct cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens. Similarly, neither the Rapid Response Program nor the appropriation of monies for that program makes any reference, express or implied, to authorizing direct cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens. Indeed, the California State Legislature has not enacted any state law which affirmatively provides that unlawfully present aliens are eligible for the cash public benefits of $75 million.

UPDATE:

From Judicial Watch:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued a statement on a California’s court’s denial of Judicial Watch request temporary restraining order (TRO) against California Governor Gavin Newsom and his Director of the California Department of Social Services Kim Johnson to restrain them from spending $79.8 million dollars of taxpayers’ money to provide direct cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens.  Though the court found that Judicia Watch was likely to succeed on the merits (that Governor Newsom had no authority under law to spend the money), the court found that there was a public interest in sending tax money to the illegal aliens during the coronavirus crisis:

It is astonishing that a court would allow a public official to ignore the law and spend tax money with no legal authority. Simply put, as the court seems to acknowledge, the governor has no independent legal authority to spend state taxpayer money for cash payments to illegal aliens. We will appeal the court’s manifest error.