Aggregator

Aaron Judge isn't giving up hope just yet.

Jamar Goff joined the TV personality's family in 2018 when he was a teenager.

Jamar Goff joined the TV personality's family in 2018 when he was a teenager.

Brandin Cooks, 32, gives a major boost to the 49ers' wide receiver position after losses of Ricky Pearsall, De'Zhaun Stribling and Demarcus Robinson.

This week I read two stories back to back that made me realize woke never died — it just went off-the-grid in western Massachusetts and went for a spray tan in Philly.

D’Angelo Ponds believes he’s prepared. He’s healthy. He’s just waiting on the green light from the Jets coaching staff.

Dopamine sites mimic shopping’s thrill without the spending, turning the ritual of consumption into a digital game.

Trump Social Media Firm Sues Ex-Co-Founder, Claims He Gambled Away Company Cash in Wild Slot Machine Spree

X Strategies, the Florida social media firm that powers some of President Donald Trump's most-followed social media accounts, is taking its former co-founder Derek Utley to federal court, accusing him of quietly draining at least $5 million from the company to fund a jet-set lifestyle and a staggering gambling habit, according to POLITICO.

The company filed a 34-page complaint September 18 in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach against Utley and his former girlfriend Anna Weisheimer.

Co-founded by Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz, X Strategies runs the Trump War Room and Team Trump accounts on X and helps manage the president's TikTok presence.

Utley, X Strategies' former chairman and chief financial officer, allegedly had exclusive control over the company's bank accounts after he and Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz launched the firm in 2017. Starting in 2021, the complaint alleges, Utley began funneling company money into his personal life, splurging on sports cars, designer clothing, jewelry, and luxury condos.

In 2025 alone, Utley spent a whopping 200 days at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Florida, dropping $29 million in company funds into slot machines, X Strategies alleges. Utley allegedly won back more than $26 million, but kept the winnings for himself while the company was left holding a $3 million loss. The filing further alleges Utley pulled cash from casino ATMs and told banks the withdrawals were for client entertainment.

The alleged shortfall came to light after the firm brought on Michael Seifert, the former CEO of PublicSq, a marketplace that connects conservative consumers with small businesses, as X Strategies' president. Utley departed from the social media company in April and gave up his 50% ownership stake.

The lawsuit brings civil RICO, theft, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and seeks damages that could be tripled.

"I dispute these allegations in the complaint and will address them through the legal process," Utley told POLITICO. "I have no further comment at this time."

Weisheimer, a social media influencer and Pilates instructor, also denied any wrongdoing.

"I have absolutely nothing to do with the drama between Alex and Derek. I briefly dated Derek, during which time I asked him to purchase a Pilates studio for me. He ultimately decided not to, and our relationship ended shortly thereafter," Weisheimer told The Independent. "I have requested that I be removed from this lawsuit immediately, as I have no involvement in the issues between these two gentlemen."

  FOR ZEROHEDGE READERSA $10 HEDGE,
ON US.$10 off one order of $30 or more. New or returning, one per person. YOUR EMAILGET MY $10 →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. $30 minimum, once per person, can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:50

Philadelphia teacher Hannah Gann has admitted to lying about having Palestinian heritage after activists exposed her as a wealthy white woman.

Jay Katari has resigned from the board of equalpride, which owns The Advocate, Out, and Them.

The pilot, flying under the call sign Snake4, ejected before the jet hit the water.

With cuts and AHL Hartford assignments looming over the next five days, Smits’ immediate future with the Rangers will come into focus.

OpenAI's Sam Altman has called for risk evaluation standards, as have Anthropic's Dario Amodei and Hugging Face's Clement Delangue.

Transgender athletes have stripped women and girls of nearly 2,300 gold medals and more than $500,000 in prize money over the past four decades, according to an analysis from a socially conservative think tank.

Fernando Mendoza is known as a sharp guy, but this is taking it to a new level among athletes.

Just a year ago, Zoe De La Paz was living like any other 20-something.

A Mr. Olympia judge has shared a heartbreaking tribute after accidentally backing over and killing his six-year-old son with his Tesla Cybertruck.

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court's October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons in out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins).

A recent column from Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again. The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases. Here is the portion that I wanted to address:

The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently. Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms" left undisturbed, part III said "we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ... the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'" (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns). I add emphasis on "at the time," because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this "important limitation."

As the solicitor general's brief notes, "the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956," and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the "most commonly owned rifle[] in America" today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use "at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Indeed, as the SG's brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general's Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s "are in common use" today (again, my emphasis). This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing "were" to "are") - an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh's 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011. Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say.

As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller.

Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way...Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment "extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding." It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court).

Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases.

I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as "earth-shattering." I do not.

I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in "changing 'were' to 'are.'"

This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word "were."

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:25

The ex-mistress of former American Idol contestant Caleb Flynn said in court Wednesday she now loathes him because she believes he’s a murderer.

San Francisco 49ers fullback Kyle Juszczyk shared a hilarious confession about his teammate Mac Jones' romantic life.