Federal Judge Slaps Down CDC Order Stopping Residential Evictions

Federal Judge Slaps Down CDC Order Stopping Residential Evictions


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/federal-judge-slaps-down-cdc-order-stopping-residential-evictions/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In his ruling Thursday against the CDC’s unconstitutional overreach, U.S. District Court Judge J. Campbell (“Cam”) Barker declared, “Although the COVID-19 pandemic persists, so does the Constitution.”

At issue was whether a federal agency — in this case, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC — had the power to prevent landlords from evicting tenants during the pandemic. Or, in the words of Barker, “whether the federal government has [the] authority to order property owners not to evict specified tenants.”

Barker continued:

Here, after analyzing the relevant precedents, the court concludes that the federal government’s Article 1 power to regulate interstate commerce and enact laws necessary and proper to that end does not include the powers to impose the [CDC’s order].

The order from the CDC ignored any such constitutional restraints, declaring unilaterally its power “to … halt residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.”

Its order had no time limit:

Under this Order, a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory action, shall not evict any covered person from any residential property … during the effective period of the Order.

Thou shalt obey, or else, said the CDC: Anyone who violated the order could face up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $250,000. 

The lawsuit was brought by several plaintiffs who either owned rental properties or managed them, and was presented to the court by the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).

When the lawsuit was originally filed last October, TPPF General Counsel Robert Henneke stated, “The federal government cannot interfere with private property rights or our clients’ access to the courts to exercise their rights under state law. The CDC uses a facially absurd and twisted logic to suggest its intrusion into private property rights is a public health issue.” This logic, he added, “has inevitably and predictably allowed [politicians and government agencies] to exploit the [issue].”

Following the decision, the legal groups said that this ruling is likely to be the first of many:

[This] decision is the first of what will ultimately be many decisions by the federal courts rolling back the executive and regulatory overreach of the administrative state….

The current administration has shown no restraint.

We are preparing cases across the constitutional spectrum to defend against unrestrained government action.

Much comfort may be drawn from this case: There are judges who understand and will defend the Constitution when it is assaulted; “Cam” Barker was a Trump appointee; governmental overreach is generating many similar court cases and lawsuits; and the court system is the final arbiter and backstop or roadblock to unlimited federal tyranny using the COVID-19 scare as an excuse.

Although Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court have greatly disappointed many by ignoring legitimate constitutional issues surrounding the 2020 presidential election, the more than 200 federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, including Barker, are going to have a lot more to say about defending and restoring the Constitution to its rightful and proper place in restraining governmental overreach.

HR 127 A Bill Designed to Express Hostility Toward Legal Gun Owners

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE'S H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

The Evil Intent Behind HR127 | Dan Wos

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/02/the-evil-intent-behind-democrats-new-anti-gun-bill-hr-127

HR 127 would effectively end American’s right to keep and bear arms.


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/02/hr-127-a-bill-designed-to-express-hostility-toward-legal-gun-owners/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- All gun control bills share the same basic goal: a world in which fewer people own firearms. Some bills simply ban certain types of firearms or ammunition outright. Others place obstacles in the path of owning firearms or ammunition to make them more difficult and expensive to obtain, thereby shrinking the market for them. The fundamental flaw of these approaches is that they treat all law-abiding firearm owners as would-be criminals, when the reality is that most firearm-related assaults and homicides are committed by people who completely disregard the law, including laws against taking human life.

H.R. 127 combines both failed approaches. It bans common types of ammunition and original equipment magazines for most self-defense firearms. And, it makes all firearms more difficult to obtain and possess through a punitive licensing and registration scheme. In its details, however, H.R. 127 is so outrageous, persecutory, and unworkable that its main function is simply to display the hostility of its author and supporters toward firearms, those who own them, and those who want to own them.

  • H.R. 127 would ban common types of ammunition, including every shotgun shell larger than .410.
    • The bill states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
    • Violations of this ban would result in the imposition of a fine of at least $50,000 and imprisonment of at least 10 years, mandatory penalties not seen in many violent or infamous federal crimes, including torturing someone to death outside the U.S. or committing treason during wartime.
    • Hunting whitetail deer would be legally impossible in at least 10 U.S. states if these restrictions went into effect.
    • The bill would also make it impossible for Americans to follow President Biden’s advice to keep a double-barreled, 12 gauge shotgun for self-defense, rather than an AR-15.
    • Innumerable numbers of shotgun shells currently possessed by law-abiding people for lawful purposes would suddenly become contraband.
    • H.R. 127 would force Americans to relinquish hundreds of millions of firearm magazines with no compensation.
    • The bill states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device”, and defines such devices to include those “that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” excluding certain integral .22 rimfire magazines.
    • Industry production figures show that there are hundreds of millions of 11+ round magazines.
    • As with its ban on shotgun shells, H.R.127’s magazine ban would apply retroactively, affecting items already owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, with no compensation for owners forced to relinquish property that was lawful when obtained
    • H.R. 127 would require the federal government to register some 400 million guns in the span of only 3 months.
    • The bill states that registration information would have to be provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, “in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section.
    • But BATFE would also have to create the registration system during those 3 months.
    • Because the U.S. (intentionally) does not already have a national firearms registry, it would be impossible for the government to fairly and effectively enforce this system with respect to existing gun owners.
    • The firearm registry database would have to be made available to “all members of the public,” as well as “all branches of the United States Armed Forces,” among others.
    • This would facilitate private discrimination against gun owners, including in such things as employment and access to essential services such as banking, insurance, or housing. It also seems to presuppose that the military, which is prohibited by law from engaging in domestic law enforcement, has some role in policing civilian firearm ownership.
  • Ironically, criminals who possess firearms illegally would self-exempt themselves from the registration requirement, and under U.S. Supreme Court case law, could not be required to disclose their illegal firearm possession through registration.
    • H.R. 127 would retroactively criminalize firearm ownership by young adults.
    • Currently, there is no federal prohibition on adults aged 18 or older possessing otherwise lawful firearms.
    • The bill, however, would require a license to possess any firearm, and licenses would only be available to those aged 21 or older.
    • Millions of young adults, including those in the military, would become ineligible to possess firearms for their own lawful purposes under this legislation, including any firearms they already owned
    • H.R. 127 would discourage voluntary mental health treatment, including for combat veterans or victims of violent trauma, by permanently prohibiting the issuance of a license to anyone who “has been hospitalized … with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including … addiction to a controlled substance … or alcohol) … .
    • Anyone who had been hospitalized with a “brain disease” would also be ineligible for a license, including those suffering from brain cancer, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s disease.
  • H.R. 127 would effectively price lawful firearm ownership out of reach for many of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.
    • It would require the holder of a firearm license to pay a tax (masquerading as government-issued “insurance”) of $800 per year.
    • License applicants (and even other members of their household, as directed) would also have to undergo a psychological evaluation at their own expense.
  • H.R. 127 has a long way to go before becoming law.
    • The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing, and it currently has zero cosponsors.
    • While it is not presently moving, it does show how far gun control advocates would like to go in attacking the right to keep and bear arms.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Supreme Court To Decide If Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without Warrant~Hold the Line PAC

A new case tests the limits of the “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment.

SEE: https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/caniglia-v-strom

AND: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-157.html

AND: https://reason.com/2021/02/04/scotus-to-decide-if-cops-need-more-elbow-room-to-conduct-certain-warrantless-home-searches/


"The case is Caniglia v. Strom. It originated in 2015 when Cranston, Rhode Island, police paid a "well call" on 68-year-old Edward Caniglia. His wife had been unable to reach him after they had a fight and she was worried that he might be suicidal. So she called the authorities. The police took Caniglia to the hospital, where he was examined by a nurse and a social worker and discharged that same day. Meanwhile, the police entered his home without a warrant while he was gone and seized his two handguns. The present case centers on Caniglia's claim that this warrantless police action violated his Fourth Amendment rights."


SEE: https://holdthelinepac.com/supreme-court-to-decide-if-police-can-enter-a-home-to-seize-guns-without-warrant/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens against warrantless searches of their homes. A police officer cannot enter your home unless they have shown a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime. There are “exigent circumstances” exceptions to this right. If a police officer is witnessing an assault or murder in the home, or if the officer sees that the person in the home is in need of “emergency aid” they may enter the home in good judgement. Overall, the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect a citizen’s private home above all other places.

The Supreme Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on the case Caniglia v. Strom. The Caniglia v Strom is a case that involves the police untruthfully telling the wife of Mr. Caniglia that her husband had given them permission to seize his guns, and searched the home of Mr. Caniglia without obtaining a warrant. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the police, and the Supreme Court is going to be reviewing Caniglia v Strom to possibly overrule the lower court’s decision.

Bill Gates Buying Up Huge Amount of Farmland While ‘Great Reset’ Tells Americans Future is No Private Property

Feudalism makes a roaring comeback in the name of progress.


SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/bill-gates-buying-up-huge-amount-of-farmland-while-great-reset-tells-americans-future-is-no-private-property/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

While Americans are being told by ‘Great Reset’ technocrats that the future is one without private property, Bill Gates and other billionaires have been buying up huge amounts of farmland.

Indeed, Gates is now the biggest owner of farmland in America, according to a Forbes report.

“After years of reports that he was purchasing agricultural land in places like Florida and Washington, The Land Report revealed that Gates, who has a net worth of nearly $121 billion according to Forbes, has built up a massive farmland portfolio spanning 18 states.”

“His largest holdings are in Louisiana (69,071 acres), Arkansas (47,927 acres) and Nebraska (20,588 acres). Additionally, he has a stake in 25,750 acres of transitional land on the west side of Phoenix, Arizona, which is being developed as a new suburb.”

Gates now owns 242,000 acres of farmland across the U.S., mostly “through third-party entities by Cascade Investments, Gates’ personal investment vehicle.”

According to Forbes, it is not known what Gates is doing with the land and Cascade Investments refused to comment on the issue.

In terms of individual landowners, Gates is still far behind media mogul John C. Malone, who is in top spot with 2.2 million acres of ranches and forests and CNN founder Ted Turner, who owns 2 million acres of ranch land.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is also “investing in land on a large scale,” according to the report.

What billionaire philanthropists and technocrats are acquiring land at an accelerating speed, they appear to be telling the general public that in the future private property will virtually cease to exist.

In his books, World Economic Forum founder and globalist Klaus Schwab makes clear that the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ or ‘The Great Reset’ will lead to the abolition of private property.

That message is echoed on the WEF’s official website, which states, “Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city”. I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.”

Apparently, you won’t be allowed to own any private property and your only recourse will be to live in a state of permanent dependency on a small number of rich elitists who own everything.

That used to be called feudalism, which is a form of slavery.

European Court of Human Rights Dismisses Christian Family’s Lawsuit Over Govt. Seizure of Children

Norwegian social workers Barnevernet are doing what they do daily, kidnap children

OUR STORY - Bodnariu Family



SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/12/22/european-court-of-human-rights-dismisses-christian-familys-lawsuit-over-govt-seizure-of-children/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

After agreeing last year to hear the case, the European Court of Human Rights has now decided to dismiss a legal challenge filed by a Christian family whose children were seized by Norwegian child welfare agents after the school principal contacted authorities to express concern over the manner in which the children were being raised, including that they were sometimes spanked.

While the court concluded that Marius and Ruth Bodnariu had not availed themselves of possible localized means to obtain vindication after their children were returned, the family says that was not a feasible option for them.

“The decision is a blow to the family, who argued before the European Court of Human Rights that any further remedies in Norway were illusory at best,” Christian Concern outlined in a blog post on Thursday.

“They would not risk further punishment and separation of the family by going back into the system that had so ill-treated them, especially after all of the international media attention the case had garnered. Asking them to go back into the proverbial lion’s den would have been cruel, and something Ruth and Marius Bodnariu would never put their children through,” it explained.

As previously reported, in 2015, Norway’s child welfare agency, Barnevernet, seized the Bodnariu’s two daughters, two sons and then-baby Ezekiel after being informed of concerns about the home life and upbringing of the children.

The two eldest children were reportedly removed from school without their parents' knowledge, and Barnevernet representatives soon also arrived with police at the Bodnariu home, where they seized the remaining children, minus the baby. The organization returned the following day and removed the infant as well when attempts by the Bodnarius to resolve the matter were not successful.

The matter began when the principal of Vevring School contacted the Department of Culture to outline the content of two conversations with the couple’s daughters, which included being occasionally spanked.

The letter was forwarded to Barnevernet, which reached out to the principal. According to reports, the principal also expressed concern that the family’s religious beliefs might stunt the girls’ development — but only requested counseling for the children as she did not believe the Bodnarius were abusive.

[T]he principal stressed that she was only requesting the Barnevernet’s counseling services, as the girls are intelligent and creative, and that she, the principal, doesn’t believe that the girls are being physically abused at home,” Daniel Bodnariu, Marius’ brother, said in a statement in 2016.

“This same principal had previously scolded and categorically forbid one of the Bodnariu girls from singing as a result of the girl singing a Christian song to her schoolmates,” he advised.

But despite the principal’s request for counseling only, the Barnevernet instead pursued proceedings against the parents, alleging that they had abused the children.

“The Barnevernet ordered extensive medical examination of the children, as there was no evidence to support the allegations of physical abuse, but the medical reports emphasized that there was no sign of physical or mental abuse,” Bodnariu stated.

After interviewing the couple’s two daughters, who reportedly conjured up information about their family life — such as that they would be punished if they did not know the Bible from memory, Barnevernet returned and took the rest of the children into government custody, dividing them up into three different foster homes.

In realizing that the seizure was unjust, the matter resulted in protests against Barnevernet around the world, including in Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom and Poland.

Seven months later, in June 2016, the children were returned to their family. The Bodnarius then fled Norway to find freedom in Marius’ homeland of Romania, and Mrs. Bodnariu gave birth to a sixth child.

Attorneys for the family soon filed a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights, stating that Norwegian officials had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to privacy within a family.

While the court originally agreed to hear the case, it has now found the matter to be inadmissible as it believes the situation should have first been addressed in Norway.

Roger Kiska, an attorney with the Christian Legal Centre, said in a video released about the case on Friday that the incident reflects a broken welfare system that could adversely impact any family.

“I think what’s important about this case is that you have a loving family, a Christian family, a gentle family, who has been torn apart by a broken system filled with prejudices, lack of due process [and] a guilty until proven innocent mentality,” he stated.

“I think what they represent is every family out there, that this can happen to anyone.”

As previously reported, Barnevernet also took a young child into custody in 2018 as his parents had been homeschooling him for a time since he had been bullied at school. Leif and Terese Kristiansen had planned on sending their son back to school once they found a better location for him to attend.

According to Ray Skorstad, founder of the legal assistance group Barnets Beste, the government took Kai because they believed the child needed to be in school for “socialization purposes” and thought that the family was “avoiding them.” Following intervention from the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), the boy was allowed to return home with his parents.






SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/excrement-everywhere-italian-officials-ignore-womans-plea-to-remove-squatting-dog-eating-islamic-migrants-from-her-property-video/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A video translated by RAIR Foundation USA reveals a distraught woman in Lampedusa, Italy complaining about illegal migrants squatting on her land even after she repeatedly tries to report the problem to authorities. In addition to the “mattresses,” “bottles of alcohol,” and “excrement everywhere,” Rosy Matinais explains that the Muslim migrants have eaten all of her animals, including dogs, with the exception of pigs.

Ms. Matinais, a farmer who lives off the crops on her land, earns her living from raising farm animals. “They have eaten chickens, the goats, the dogs,” she said. “I can’t have any more animals. I only have pigs.” The illegal migrants ate four of her dogs by skinning them and grilling them, she explained.

According to Italian newspaper ilgiornale.it, her father purchased the property on the island in 1967. Lampedusa, Italy, at the southernmost part of Italy, has become an epicenter for the socialist-driven illegal migrant invasion. The tiny island, an Italian tourist destination, has a population of about 6,000. There have been times when the migrants outnumbered the citizens. Socialist Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte  “reversed [former Deputy Prime Minister Matteo] Salvini’s immigration stance when he came to power,” as reported at RAIR.

“I make reports to the Guardia di Finanza, the mayor [Totò Martello], the assessor, and the director of the center. You tell me if I can’t be the owner of my land?” she laments. Rosy’s requests for help have not only been ignored by politicians but also law enforcement officers.

The local report explained that the migrants harassed her and her daughter. “We asked the police for help,” she was quoted as saying. “They told us that migrants are untouchable. They do what they want ”

Rosy lamented that if her father was alive he would have “used the shotgun” on the migrants squatting on their property. She further expressed her anger at the Mayor Totò Martello for not helping the situation.

Despite ongoing reports of migrants eating citizens’ pets, the mayor posted on Facebook that her accusations are “fake news.” In the meantime, Rosy appears to be without her four dogs and has been abandoned by those elected to protect her.

As reported at RAIR last month, a 23-year-old migrant was scolded by a woman for skinning and cooking a cat openly on a sidewalk near the Campiglia Marittima train station Livorno, Italy. “This poor creature, look here, Shame! Shame! You should go back to your own country,” the woman exclaimed.

Hundreds of migrants have been landing daily in this beautiful Southern Italian coastal town that survives on tourism. Rosey and her native Italians have been failed by left-wing politicians pushing open border policies at all costs. Not only are these elected leaders turning a deaf ear to the unspeakable problems citizens are facing but they smear anyone who goes public with their stories.

Watch the RAIR exclusively-translated video here:

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

Transcript below: many thanks to FouseSquawk for the translation

…they hear me. You’ll see what’s happening. I make reports to the Guardia di Finanza,
the mayor, the assessor, and the director of the center. You tell me if I can’t be the 
owner of my land?

[unintelligible] my father was going to finish down there.

Tell me what I have to do. Look. —There are mattresses, everywhere, covers… have eaten everything… 

Come. I’ll show you all the bottles of alcohol here. [unintelligible] that many Arabs drink alcohol.

Look. Look [unintelligible] Look. Look. —Excrement everywhere.

Look. Look. Look.

Private property. They enter and leave it like this. —Look. Come. Look. You can’t breathe, boys.

You cannot breathe! —

An incredible odor of excrement. The stink kills you. I go to the Guardia di Finanza and report.
The mayor, the assessor and the director of the center. Because the last time
the Carabinieri came up here, they promised me they would come and clean it up. Instead,
[unintelligible] passed and nobody comes.

Tell me… —Tell me one thing. They have eaten goats… —So, they have eaten chickens,
the goats, the dogs. I can’t have any more animals. I only have pigs.

[unintelligible] only the pigs. Look.

Look here. Look. Look.

[Reporters speaking unintelligibly] Look how many bottles there are. Look.

An open air dump An open air dump. So, I’m going to do this, if they don’t listen to me, 
I’ve reached the point I’ll have to carry out justice myself. As soon as somebody comes, 
I’ll shoot him, because they always tell me they are being cared for. Who the hell takes 
care of me?

Who takes care of me? Who pays me for these damages? They even eat doggies. This is shameful. 
This is shameful!

We are Italians, yes or no?  

The remains of a dog?

Yes, [unintelligible] all this, remains, hair, the covers, a small grill. — 

So they killed the dog.

Even the dogs, four dogs, yes… —

They skinned it? —

Yes, they skinned it.


President Trump and Missouri Governor Chime In On McCloskey Case

McCloskey Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Hawley Asks Barr to Launch Civil Rights Probe into Prosecutor Targeting McCloskeys


SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/36409-hawley-asks-barr-to-launch-civil-rights-probe-into-prosecutor-targeting-mccloskeys;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is submitting a request to the Justice Department to start a civil rights investigation into the St. Louis district attorney seeking to indict the infamous couple who drew guns on the Black Lives Matter agitators who broke into their private neighborhood and allegedly threatened them on their property.

Kim Gardner, District Attorney for the St. Louis Circuit, said she was “alarmed” by the incident on June 28. Last week, local police seized the AR-15 rifle that Mark McCloskey was seen wielding in the viral video. The handgun held by his wife, Patricia, was handed over to authorities by the couple’s attorney.

Al Watkins, their former lawyer, said the search warrant was executed because Gardner “sought weapons held by Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey during June 28, 2020 in defense of themselves and their home at time of the march.” Watkins maintained that the handgun was inoperable at the time she pointed it at the neighborhood invaders and that she drew it as an “intimidation factor” for “self-defense.”

Hawley argued Garder is targeting the McCloskeys out of political motives.

“Unfortunately, this family is facing new threats, not from demonstrators but from the local government. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is now threatening to prosecute not the trespassers, but the McCloskeys, and she is using the powers of her office to target them,” he wrote to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. “Her office has seized their firearms, and police have applied for warrants in the case, with an indictment believed to be imminent.”

Hawley is a supporter or the Second Amendment who received a 93 percent approval rating from the National Rifle Association in 2018. He called Gardner’s actions an “abuse of power.”

There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound. The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. No family should face the threat of harassment or malicious prosecution for exercising that right. The Department of Justice must ensure that all Americans’ rights are protected from this kind of abuse of power.

Patricia McCloskey told Fox News’ Sean Hannity the mob threatened her and her husband. “That they were going to kill us,” she said. “They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead. They pointed to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom, and that’s going to be the living room, and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room.’... There were so many threats. Then, the dog barked, and they said, ‘I’m going to be killing her, too,’ or ‘It, too.’”

According to Mark, he and his family were having dinner outside of their mansion in a gated community when the crowd broke through the neighborhood’s iron gates, which were marked with signs that read “No Trespassing” and “Private Street.”

“A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives,” he told KMOV4.

The McCloskeys are personal-injury lawyers who have donated to both Republicans and Democrats over the years. They have given at least $4,000 to the Democratic Party and $2,400 to the Trump campaign.

The crowd broke into the Portland Place to protest at the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson, who, during a Facebook Live video, read the letters submitted by individuals who want to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department — including their full names and full or partial addresses.

Of the incident, Gardner has said: “Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable.”

Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, said at a news conference on Tuesday that he does not believe the couple should be charged and that he spoke to President Donald Trump about the case. Though Parson did not mention Gardner, she had her office post a statement on Twitter later that evening in which she claimed the governor and president are going after her.

Gardner did not explain in what way they are allegedly going after her.