Five Things for Wednesday, June 18, 2025

“Let me invert the Question” - Pastor at a protest.

1. Proud Boys Lawyer Convicted of Felony, in Trouble with Judge

Attorney Augustus Sol Invictus agreed to represent the Proud Boys in their Million-dollar lawsuit against DOJ for wrongful arrest and abuse of civil rights. The case was filed on June 6.

(The words Augustus Sol Invictus translates from the Latin to “majestic unconquered sun.”)

Invictus has been called a white supremacist, Nazi sympathizer. He is said to have called the Nuremberg trials, where World War II-era Nazi leaders were held accountable for their crimes, a “kangaroo court.” He once said that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was part of “a different breed of lesser men.”

He once said since he was pagan, and a worshiper of the Goddess he could not be a sexist. Two different wives accused him of spousal abuse. One refused to testify in court against him, the other said she would but never showed up.

He implies that he is genius, a prophet, a revolutionary and a conqueror meant to lead people in war against the cultural Marxists, egalitarians and financiers who have forced a system of democracy on America.

He got a law degree then renounced it along with his U.S. citizenship in a letter.

In 2012 he took a case. He represented Marcu-Faella neo nazi leader of the white supremacist militia American Front.

He became second in command in the tactical defense arm of the Proud Boys, the Fraternal Order of Alt-knights (FOAK). He is said to have been one of the organizers of the Unite the Right Rally in 2017 in Charlottesville, VI. While there he led the nighttime tiki-torch march where a multitude chanted “Jews will not replace us.”.

Victims of violence at the Rally sued FOAK including Invictus. A default judgement was entered against him for violating a hate crime statute.

In October 2024 he was convicted in Virginia of violating an old law written during the time of the Ku Klux Klan, that makes the burning of an object in order to racially intimidate a crime. He was sentenced to five years in January 2025 with all but 9.5 months suspended. His imprisonment was delayed for two months so he could appeal.

In March of 2025 he appealed.

And he took on the Proud Boys case.

In Florida if a lawyer is convicted of a felony, he must notify the court. And he is then automatically suspended. He can petition for relief.

Invictus did not notify the judge in the case. The judge is not pleased and has ordered him to show cause “why he has not violated” the law and “why he is not currently suspended from the bar”.

A show cause order is a directive from a judge requiring an explanation as to why they should not be found in violation of a rule or order.

2. Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges Sue Architect of the Capitol; Put Up the Plaque!

Dunn was a Capitol police officer, Hodges a Metropolitan officer, at time of the attack on the Capitol in 2021. Both fought the attackers. Hodges was the officer stuck between metal doors being crushed by attackers,

Congress approved the creation of a plaque honoring police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol then and its installation inside the building. It has yet to be installed.

By law, the Architect of the Capitol was to install the plaque within a year after the bill went into effect in March of 2022.

“After the law was passed, the politics around Jan. 6 changed, and many politicians who once spoke plainly about the dangers of that day began to rewrite its history, and minimize the terror of the attack,” the officers wrote. “Four years since Congress passed the law, and three years since the deadline for its installation has lapsed, the memorial has not been put up.”

According to Courthouse News the spot picked is along the path a president elect takes on the way to the inaugural stage. A place that would have been a point of contention by Donald Trump this past January.

The officers tried to get the architect Thomas Austin to hang the plaque by asking a federal judge to order him to do so and to declare his failure unlawful. That idea did not work out.

So, they are going to court. They are being represented by former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. Brandan Ballou. He left that office in January.

3. State Ownership? Golden Share in U.S. Steel/Japan Steel Merger

Reuters reports: “An unusual move by the Trump administration to give itself a golden share in U.S. Steel as part of a deal to approve Nippon Steel's takeover of the well-known U.S. company could drive away foreign investors in U.S. companies, national security lawyers said on Monday.”

According to Westlaw a Golden Share “Refers to special rights retained by a government with respect to a newly privatized company or other government entity. These rights may take the form of a special statutory provision or the issuance of a single share in the company. Governments usually want a golden share to maintain some control over the company's activities for a certain period of time following the privatization for political or other reasons. These rights typically include a veto right on certain material transactions (for example, the sale of material assets) undertaken by the company.”

Many jurisdictions prohibit the use of golden shares because they restrict the free flow of capital.”

That ‘single share’ is called a ‘G’ share. “G” for golden.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced on Saturday, "President Trump has secured a perpetual Golden Share as part of Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel," he then listed corporate decisions that the Trump administration would have veto power over.

This type of arrangement might make foreign investors wary, Joshua Gruenspecht, a national security lawyer said. "It leads to the question of, 'Am I going to get what I bought? Do I actually get control of this asset?'" he said.

Trump says the golden share gives the American people a 51% stake in the firm.

Lutnick said the share would prevent the companies from:

• Reducing or delaying $14 billion in promised investments

• Transferring production or jobs outside the United States

• Closing or idling plants before certain time frames, without the president's consent.

And it gives the administration a veto over

• any relocation of U.S. Steel's headquarters from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

• a transfer of jobs overseas,

• a name change

There are also protections relating to "employee salaries, anti-dumping pricing, raw materials and sourcing outside the U.S.”

One of three board members will be appointed by the president, and he has veto power over the other two.

As has happened before, “Trump's dealmaking introduces uncertainty for global investors and sets a precedent that could complicate future cross-border deals."

During Trump’s campaign he promised to block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. He then changed his mind launching a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) that examines foreign investments for national security risks.

4. Noem Tries to Memo Away Congressional Oversight Statute

Like many things she does, I find this one confusing. But also memorable is reporting in the press that confers upon its fait accompli with headlines like “ICE gives Congress new rules on visitations.” As if ICE memos overturn federal law.

I don’t know why the press did that. But I can take a look at what they think the memo says. First though,

The Law

Congress has the right to inspect federal detention centers without notice. Congressman Jason Crow cites the applicable law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, in a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting ICE Director Patrick J. Lyons, on May 12, 2025

“Members of Congress possess explicit statutory authority to conduct unannounced oversight visits to facilities operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security. This was outlined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-93), Division D – Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2020, Sec. 532 and re-affirmed in each year since, including Section 527(a) of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–47), which stipulates:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent...a Member of Congress...from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland

Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens... [nor] to make any temporary modification at any such facility that in any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress... compared to what would be observed in the absence of such modification.

Furthermore, subsection (b) clarifies that nothing in this section requires a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of intent to enter such a facility for oversight purposes. The Department itself has affirmed the oversight duties of Members of Congress in guidance posted by ICE dated to February 2025. Arresting Members of Congress for performing their lawful oversight duties cannot be “on the table” because that action would be explicitly unlawful.

There have been times recently when Congress members have arrived unannounced at a detention center and been turned away.

According to KCVR 91.9, “Congresswoman Judy Chu and a small delegation of federal lawmakers and immigration attorneys were denied entry into the Adelanto Detention Facility on Sunday — just days after a major enforcement sweep led to dozens of arrests across the Los Angeles area.” This was on June 9 as mass immigration raids were occurring. The ACLU had informed them the day before than some ACLU clients were in the detention center. Congress Woman Chu, Democrats Gil Cisneros of Covina and Derek Tran of Cypress, along with members of the ACLU and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights were denied entrance.

Chu said she has tried to visit detention sites at another time, with notice, and things have been ‘cleaned up’ prior to the visit.

“An ICE spokesperson said in a statement that access to federal spaces has been limited due to safety concerns and confirmed that Adelanto is being utilized for some detainees.”

Noem’s Memo

Now Noem has attempted to change the law by issuing a memo.

The memo itself provides paragraphs from the law but then states detention center should receive notice.

“SEC. 527. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such facility that in any way alters what is observed by a visiting member of Congress or such designated employee, compared to what would be observed in the absence of such modification: (1) A Member of Congress. (2) An employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section. (b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight. (c) With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”

The memo goes on to purportedly state what is required of members of Congress that wish to visit.

ICE Facility Visit and Engagement Protocol for Members of Congress and Staff

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention/iceFacilityVisitationCongressional.pdf

The very first section states that ICE “requests to be submitted at least 72 hours in advance.” (And implies that’s 72 hours after a receipt is delivered back to congress acknowledging the request. (And requests after business hours, on the weekend or a holiday will not be acknowledged till the next business day.))

After reading the entire memo, there are nods to the actual law saying Congress has the right to visit without notice and that calls into question what the 72-hour requirement is about. Perhaps it applies to non-congressional visits? Like you and me? Like the press? Who knows. It does not specify. It implies it applies to Congress.

The requirements to be submitted in the request are, the date of the proposed visit, the visit location, the length of time for the visit, and the names and titles of all participants. (and only those stated will be allowed to visit).

After that, is when the memo weirdly goes on to state that no advance notice is needed by members of Congress, but 24 hours advance notice is needed for staff. (The law does state that visits by staff must give 24 hours advance notice. It does not state that member of Congress has to give advanced notice.)

The memo lists exceptions for which scheduled visits can be cancelled:

1) an emergency arises; 2) the safety, security, and orderly operations of the facility are potentially jeopardized; 3) any violation(s) of this Protocol occur; 4) any other identified operational concerns exist; 5) facility management or other ICE officials deem it appropriate to do so.

I can see how conditions might mean a delay. But the number five reason for delay tells me how non-serious they are, “management or other ICE officials deem it appropriate to do so.” So hey, anyone of ICE officials present can, upon a whim say, ‘not today.’

Unless specified in advance, and approved, visitors cannot speak with detainees, ice staff (unless the ICE staff are conducting the tour.)

So, if a member of Congress needs no notice, they can state the person they wish to speak with when they arrive at the facility? Nothing tells me they can do so or cannot. “If Members and/or Congressional staff would like to meet with a specific detainee or set of detainees, please provide names, alien registration numbers, and valid, signed privacy releases with your request.” “If Members and/or Congressional staff would like to meet with non-specific detainees, a minimum of 48-hours’ advanced notice is needed for the facility to post sign-up sheets,” and if member of Congress just want to maybe, check with detainees in general to see if they have commentary they must give 48 hours’ notice. I get the privacy issue, but it would seem that volunteers could be asked for when the Congress members arrive. And what detainee would sign up two days in advance and maybe be punished for doing so or transferred elsewhere before the visit?

The memo states that no visits to ICE fields offices are allowed as they are not detention facilities. (However there have been many reports of detainees kept at ICE fields offices for days before being transferred, so they are detention facilities. There are also reports filed with courts stating a detainee was kept overnight at a field office, perhaps sleeping on the cold floor with no blanket, before being transferred. If there are secure places at field offices used for detention, no matter how infrequently or how short, it would seem the conditions of those spaces would warrant oversight.

Two possible conclusions might be made by a quick reading of the law.

Note that the last subsection “c” says “With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2) the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”

However, section (2) refers to “An employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.”

So, put together DHS may require a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility, made by or for an employee of Congress. For staff, in other words. And indeed, that is stated in the memo. (But in some press reports it does not distinguish between staff and Congress members.)

Also note, the sections and subsection refer to the description of facilities in subsection (a) that states “any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens, “. It does not say “detention center” it does not exclude “field office.”

My Conclusion

It looks like a previous memo was cut and new rules pasted in without any regard to contradictions created by leaving the previous memo there as well. It’s like a hastily made attempt in response to a neglected assignment by a middle school student with no composition ability and no ability to understand the law.

It looks like reporters did not read the law and parse the memo, just read the first statement in the memo and assumed that DHS could ignore the law.

5. Law Enforcement Defies Florida State Immigration Law Block

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in Civil Contempt on Tuesday. He defied her order blocking enforcement of a Florida state immigration law.

The law allowed local and state law enforcement to arrest suspected non-documented immigrants for illegally entering or re-entering the State of Florida. The charge would be a misdemeanor at the first arrest and could mean a sentence of up to 9 months. A repeat illegal entry means a felony charge and conviction provides a mandatory sentence of 2 years.

The Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farm Workers Association of Florida along with two individual plaintiffs challenged the law.

Judge Williams blocked its enforcement on April 4, 2025, with a temporary restraining order (TRO), saying plaintiffs would likely succeed in proving the law was in conflict with federal immigration law. Since then, she has entered a preliminary injunction.

She ordered A.G. Uthmeier to notify all law enforcement of her order to ensure they knew not to arrest suspected non-documented under the law. Uthmeier notified law enforcement but twisted words in his notice to inform l.e. that he disagreed with her order and didn’t see any reason for local or state law enforcement not to enforce it. (“But I cannot prevent you from enforcing [the challenged law] when there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so.”)

When notified that at least 5 people had been arrested under the law, after her TRO, Judge Williams held a hearing. (a total of 15 arrests were made after the TRO) Uthmeier said that he had obeyed her order by giving a notification but felt her order only applied to those listed as defendants in the lawsuit, i.e. he and his assistant attorneys. Judge Williams was not pleased and told him she had read his social media and reports of his public answers and speech where he openly defied her order. She clarified to him that the order applied to all of law enforcement and ordered him to send out a new memo so saying.

Uthmeier did send out a new notification but in it once again said he believed it was an illegal order and there was no reason for local law enforcement to obey it.

When Judge Williams asked him why should not hold him in contempt he said because he had followed her order. He had notified law enforcement about it.

(In public he said he would not “rubber stamp” her order and not tell police to stand down. He was not “going to bow down.”

She said his repeated comments were the chance of harm for continued non-compliance.

Now Judge Williams has held him in civil contempt for defying her order and has threated to further sanction Uthmeier if he doesn’t obey the order and ensure that state and local law Enforcment are made aware that any more arrests could provide more contempt findings.

She also ordered him to file bi-weekly reports on if there has been detention under the new law.

He can appeal her contempt order.

Note: On April 18, after the TRO, a U.S. Citizen, Jaun Carlos-Lopez Gomez was arrested for illegal entry into Florida. You may have heard of the case. His mother brought a copy of his birth certificate to a judge who judged it authentic, but police still would not release him. Eventually he was released

Rest of the Story

Social Media Access Demanded of Internatinal Students for Visa

The U.S. State Department restarted the suspended process for applications for student visas. Now, however, students must unlock their social median accounts so they can be reviewed. Consular offices are ordered to look for posts, messages that they deem hostile to the U.S., its government, culture, institutions or founding principles.

It appears that the State Department is overruling the Constitution and cancelling the First Amendment.

If students refuse, they may be rejected.

Secondarily consulates are to prioritize students enrolling at a college where international students are less than 15% of the total number of students. Most all 200 top U.S. Universities already have more than 15% international students enrolled.

This spring, permission to continue to study in the U.S. was revoked. Then the administration reversed course.

The Trump administration expanded the grounds on which foreign students can have their legal status terminated.

“Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the new policy evokes the ideological vetting of the Cold War, when prominent artists and intellectuals were excluded from the U.S.”

“This policy makes a censor of every consular officer, and it will inevitably chill legitimate political speech both inside and outside the United States,” Jaffer said.

Trump Set to End LGBTQ+ Youth Suicide Hotline

“The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) -- which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services -- said the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline would close the LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services program on July 17.”

To the Trump administration this is consolidation. They do not see LGBTQ+ youth as in need of speaking with someone attuned to their needs.

Masks, No ID, Unmarked Trucks, No Respect

Let Me Invert the Question (why are we here, what do we hope to accomplish?)

Are they ICE or are they Imposters?

Street arrests are looking more like kidnappings. Men show up without badges, warrants, identification of any kind and wearing masks. They grab someone and forcibly remove them without stated reason, they do not answer requests from bystanders, employers, neighbors as to what they are about, where they are taking them.

ICE does not answer calls seeking to know that the abduction was really an ICE arrest and where were the person(s) taken.

There have been arrests of ICE and law enforcement impersonations, including one that occurred very early last Saturday morning where a man impersonating a police officer and driving a police-car-look alike vehicle shot and killed a MN state legislator and her husband, severely injured another MN state legislator and his wife and had a hit list of 40 of primarily state legislators who are democrats.

How do we know if we are seeing a kidnapping or an assassination or a murder or just a brutal ICE arrest? Who do we call, what should be do? Where were they taken?

On MSNBC’s Jen Psaki’s the Briefing she reported on several cases where there were ICE and police pretenders, and on cases recently where men in masks and no id showed up and took people. said they did not have to id themselves, did not need a warrant.

In Pasadena, CA the community decided to stand up and protest. Six men were abducted from a bus stop after unmarked cars showed up and masked men took them. The masked men’s shirts said “police”, but they would not respond to questions. Hundreds turned out to protest. They had signs. They were part of a ‘rapid response group’ a group organized by local churches and other community groups. Not to obstruct an arrest but to respond to an incident, to take notice of it in the only way that appears to be bringing results.

A pastor in the crowd was asked what they hope to accomplish by being there. He said “let me invert the question. what would it say if we were not here? It would say that we accept the abuse of our rights, and we do not. It would say we don’t care about our fellow community members, and we do not care about ourselves. For this is just a trial run, to see what they can get away with, and it will grow, and you will not have to look like someone born elsewhere, it won’t matter. Your citizenship won’t matter.”

Their protest did not get the individuals back, it did raise awareness, it may help them find the person, and at least know that it was well, a legit arrest by ICE and not by someone cosplaying to do harm, to rape or rob or beat or by some random serial killer.

Utah Protest Killing Details do not Match Video

In a twist, that killing at a Utah protest Saturday by a “peacekeeper” may not be what it seemed. The death of fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo happened when two event assigned peacekeepers in yellow vests said they saw a man, later identified as Arturo Gamboa, 24, run into the crowd with his AR15 style rifle pointed at the people. Both of the peacekeepers pointed their guns at the man. One fired three shots. Ah Loo was killed, Gamboa was grazed.

Utah is an open carry state.

Peacekeepers were selected for military and/or police experience as well as their training and ability to deescalate. No one attending the rally, even peacekeepers were advised to bring a gun.

Gamboa was taken to the hospital for treatment and then detained by police. He has not been charged.

Tuesday a video taken by an observer appears to show that the man, Gamboa, did not have his gun pointed at the crowd but at the ground, was walking along, not running. When the shots were fired, he began to run.

Lobbyists Try Again with Trump for Carveout

Since last week’s order by Trump to exclude agricultural and hospitality businesses from ICE raids on businesses, was rescinded, lobbyists for the groups are trying again to get his attention, to get a carve out. National Immigration Forum represents Fortune 500 companies on the hill and have been lobbying congress and the White House. American Farm Bureau, another lobbying group is also doing so.

Other large businesses have joined them, construction, manufacturers, retailers, elder care and dairy industries.

Some, including the United Farm Workers Union said that raids of agricultural and hospitality businesses continued during the brief pause.

On Tuesday ICE raided Delta Downs, a horse racing track in Vinton, Louisiana and arrested 100 equine care takers. The National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Professional Association CEO Eric J. Hamelback says that nearly 75% of their workers are foreign born.

Yet Another Signal Chat Controversy

This one concerns a law enforcement group chat on Signal for law enforcement officers assigned to address a reduction of drug trafficking. Federal, state and local law enforcement are in the chat.

They discuss cases, other law enforcement concerns.

Here’s what happened. Officer Alexander Zwinck stopped nursing student Caroline Dias Goncalves, 19 for following too close to a semi. He let her off with a warning. He apparently asked her where she was from as she had a “bit of an accent”. She replied, Utah. Then later said she had moved with her parents to U.S. as a child from Brazil.

Apparently, he talked about her during a Signal chat with the other officers.

Soon afterwards, ICE officers stopped and arrested and detained Goncalves. Some, including the local sheriff believe it was as a result of the Signal chat.

Goncalves’ s mother told ICE that the family had applied for asylum and had been given work permits and social security numbers, so they were legally in the country.

Goncalves is reportedly to be released soon on bail.

Meanwhile the sheriff has removed his officer from the chat group.

700 Military to Support Ice Arrests in Three New States

Hegseth says 700 additional military are set to support ICE arrests in three additional states. Florida, Louisiana and TX. to provide logistical, clerical, administrative support. not law enforcement.

Appeals Court Won’t Let DOJ Stand in for Trump in E. Jean Carroll $83.3M Award Case

When a president, or an officer of the government is accused of a crime committed when they held the office and were just doing their job, the federal government may defend them. This is not the same as immunity. Immunity could preclude a court case before it goes to trial.

Trump did try to claim presidential immunity, as the crime E. Jean accused him of, defamation, resulted from words he said in 2019 while he was president. However, it was judged not to be an official act, but a personal one and therefore he was not immune. (In another case E. Jean Carroll brought for sexual assault and defamation, the sexual assault occurred long before his first term. The defamation occurred after his term ended. An appeal left the judgement intact.)

If the appeals court had approved Trump’s request, then we the taxpayers would be paying for his appeal. And possibly, once DOJ was approved, the case could get removed to federal court where Trump believes he’ll get a better deal.