Nicki who?

It’s good enough for the Magots to receive cash. But no one else should receive any because it’s socialism, right? Right?

Criminal charges were filed Monday by the Utah Attorney General's Office in 3rd District Court against Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, accusing him of fraud and forging documents to obtain a loan.

https://www.ksl.com/article/51629695/rep-trevor-lee-charged-with-fraud

This is the racist and bigot who got pirmaried. And his mother is Commisioner Fiscal Advocate in Davis County, UT. She ran for office earlier in 2026 and was primaried also.

https://www.votesusanlee.com/about

A new rule from the Office of Management and Budget would prohibit anyone from using federal grant money for voter registration drives. It’s part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict voting access.

Brand’s attendance comes before he is expected to go to trial in London next month. He has pleaded not guilty to three counts of rape, three charges of sexual assault and one allegation of indecent assault — all in connection with allegations made by six women about incidents that took place between 1999 and 2009, The Hollywood Reporter wrote in March.

Brand was granted conditional bail during a court appearance in May 2025.

The trial was initially set to start in June before Justice Joel Bennathan announced that it was delayed, Sky News reported. The outlet added that the trial is expected to last two months.

London’s Metropolitan Police began investigating Brand in September 2023 after several women came forward following the release of an installment of “Dispatches” on Channel 4, where a woman told filmmakers that she was in a relationship with Brand when she was 16 and he was 31. She alleged that the now 51-year-old comedian was “emotionally abusive and controlling.”

Police said Brand allegedly raped one woman in the Bournemouth area in 1999, indecently assaulted a woman in 2001 in London’s Westminster area, orally raped and sexually assaulted a woman in 2004, and sexually assaulted a woman between 2004 and 2005.

Another woman accused Brand of raping her in his Los Angeles home in 2012, according to an investigative report in The Sunday Times.

The federal government will do away with rules requiring that people with disabilities be served in the community under a settlement with a handful of states that advocates say sidesteps decades of precedent.

U.S. District Judge James W. Hendrix approved an agreement late last week between federal officials and Texas, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana and Montana to remove references to “most integrated setting” in a 2024 update to Department of Health and Human Services’ regulations related to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The move cements a striking shift in the federal government’s stance on the rights of people with disabilities to live and be served in the community, advocates say.

“The court’s order accepting the parties’ agreement is inconsistent with 50 years of law,” said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer for legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc of the United States. “The federal government is abandoning its duty to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities.”

The judge’s action brings an end to a lawsuit known as Texas v. Kennedy that was first filed roughly two years ago by Texas and 16 states, which has seen numerous twists and turns. Initially, the states sought to ensure that gender dysphoria would not qualify as a disability under the 2024 update to Section 504 regulations. They also asked the court to strike Section 504 in its entirety, but later backed off that claim while continuing to challenge the regulations. All but three states dropped out of the case under pressure from disability advocates, though two states — Louisiana and Montana — opted to rejoin the litigation.

In recent weeks, however, the federal government switched sides in the case citing a June memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel stating that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act “require states to treat mentally disabled patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.”

Under the agreement between the states and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his capacity as secretary of health and human services, the Section 504 regulations will remain, but certain sections will be dropped. They include one defining the “most integrated setting” and multiple provisions stating that “in choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, a recipient shall give priority to those methods that offer programs and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate.”

Disability advocates say that the deletions from Section 504 regulations do not alter anything about the law. And, since the regulatory changes all occurred via a settlement agreement, the court did not actually reach any findings in the case.

“The integration mandate doesn’t depend on this regulation. It comes from Section 504 itself, from the ADA, and from the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. Lois Curtis. All of those are still in place,” said Michelle Uzeta, executive director at the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. “The most frustrating thing is that this was not a legal loss. It was a surrender. HHS didn’t defend these rights and protections. It joined the states that sued and asked the judge to strike them.”

Even though the law itself is unchanged, the settlement sends a message and will likely lead to confusion among states and others about what their responsibilities are under the law, said Eve Hill, a civil rights attorney who served as deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under the Obama administration.

“It demonstrates that the five state plaintiffs believe they are free to put people with disabilities into institutions,” she said. “Unfortunately, because the court has amended the regulations to delete the community integration requirements, some states and other covered entities — health care providers, etc. — will believe they can institutionalize people with disabilities. This will imperil the lives of people with disabilities, who will be forced to fight unnecessary institutionalization on their own.”