Aggregator

Decades after the beloved author's death, treasures are still being uncovered in his archives.

Bondi Beach terror attack survivor and human rights attorney Arsen Ostrovsky gave an account on Monday of his experience in the aftermath of the shooting before Australia’s royal commission, which convened for its third round of hearing since its formation in January.

From the tennis matches to the star-studded parties, scroll through to see all the best photos from the event.

From the tennis matches to the star-studded parties, scroll through to see all the best photos from the event.

She’s the belle of the wedding ball. 

Mamdani, 34, said it's a turning point in the Democratic Party with rank-and-file members opposing -- rather than supporting -- Israel in Middle East conflicts.

Major retailers, including Neiman Marcus, Ulta, Kohl’s and Michael’s, quietly stopped selling brushes made from badger hair over the past couple of months, The Post has learned.

Lawsuit Filed For Records On Jan. 6 Provocateur Ray Epps

Authored by Ken Silva via Headline USA,

During the Biden years, Kash Patel accused Jan. 6 provocateur Ray Epps of being a federal asset.

Referring to the fact that Epps was taken off the FBI’s Most Wanted list in early 2021, Patel said there was only two ways someone could get off that list—either they died or they’re working for the government.

Now that he’s FBI director, Patel has gone silent on Epps. But a New Jersey investigative journalist is trying to force disclosure with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

In his lawsuit, the journalist, Yehuda Miller, said he filed a request in April 2025 for all communications and directivesrelating to the removal of Epps from the FBI’s wanted list, as well as all communications between the FBI and Epps from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 1, 2025.

For those who still care about the truth relating to January 6th, please checkout this lawsuit!!

I want to know why Ray Epps was removed from the wanted list by the FBI!!!! pic.twitter.com/EnSpsQLEAE

— Yehuda Miller (@yehuda_miller) June 28, 2026

Miller filed his lawsuit after the FBI denied him those records on privacy grounds. Miller urged a judge to force the FBI to produce the documents on Epps.

“The public interest in understanding whether the FBI maintained a confidential informant or undercover relationship with Ray Epps, the circumstances of his disparate treatment relative to other January 6 participants, and the FBI’s internal communications and directives relating to his removal from the wanted list substantially outweighs any privacy interest Ray Epps may assert,” his lawsuit says.

“The current FBI Director’s own public statements confirm the significance of this public interest.”

According to FBI records, agents had “photographic/and or video evidence that James Ray Epps conspired to and/or recruited others to storm the United States Capitol Building.”

However, a July 29, 2021, FBI report said that its “investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence that Epps … engaged in acts of violence or committed any other criminal violations.” That’s despite the fact that video had already surfaced showing him pushing a sign into a group of police officers, and that Epps had admitted to trespassing on Capitol grounds.

The Justice Department apparently reopened the Epps case after Rep. Thomas Massie, Revolver News and other conservatives began to question whether he was being protected by government. The DOJ eventually slapped him with a lone misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct, and he received one year of probation in January 2024.

I sent a letter to the FBI director one month ago requesting unreleased information on Ray Epps. pic.twitter.com/I3amze9lUZ

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 9, 2025

Last October, Massie wrote to the DOJ, also seeking records on Epps. Massie sought all internal communications between FBI Headquarters and its Phoenix field office, which initially investigated Epps. He also sought all communications between the FBI and DOJ about him.

Additionally, Massie wanted to know whether the DOJ or any of its components, including the FBI, had any communication with Epps prior to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill protest. Such communications might indicate whether Epps was working for the government at the time.

However, there’s no public indication that the DOJ ever responded to Massie’s letter.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 11:20

MS NOW’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski blasted Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) for not denouncing a controversial Mamdani-endorsed democratic socialist – urging Dems to “call out crazy” within their own party.

In the late 19th century, Queen Victoria was desirous of a railway network across her then-dominion of Canada that would connect settlements on either coast for the first time But canny Canucks didn’t just want cheap freight lines; they had far grander designs. The railroad would drive tourism from coast to coast, while offsetting the...

From a love letter to modern art in Montreal to the rebirth of a family-owned Banff inn, here are five new hotels worth discovering right now.

The former Mets hitting coach and bench coach can be added to the list of critics of president of baseball operations David Stearns.

Whales, glaciers and choppers, oh my.

You'll soon call it the Ate White North.

The coastal town on Vancouver Island, home to some 2,500 year-round residents, punches far above its weight.

Last year, the United Nations named Canada’s first “Creative City of Gastronomy.” Was it cosmopolitan Toronto, French-inflected Montreal, or “Hollywood North” Vancouver? No, it was Kelowna, a small city in British Columbia best known to die-hard American skiers as the gateway to Canada’s deep powder. But Kelowna is also the northern seat of the Okanagan Valley,...

Laker starting center Deandre Ayton will accept his $8.1 million player option for 2026-27, foregoing unrestricted free agency.  Ayton had until Monday to make a decision on the option he had in his contract as part of the two-year, $16.2 million deal he signed with the Lakers last year.  Deandre Ayton had until Monday to...

The latest warning comes as many Californians are already under financial strain from rising utility costs.

The NBA guard is expected to voluntarily surrender to authorities this week.

Supreme Court Allows Late Receipt Of Ballots During Elections

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5–4 to uphold a Mississippi law providing that absentee ballots do not have to be received by Election Day – and that states may count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward.

The Supreme Court in Washington on April 28, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee reverses the Fifth Circuit, which had sided with the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party. It leaves in place the ballot receipt practices of roughly 30 states and puts Congress, not the Court, on the hook if anyone wants a nationally uniform receipt deadline.

The Case

Mississippi lets certain residents – including college students away from home, senior citizens, and others – vote by absentee ballot. They can mail their ballots or send them by common carrier. The deadline: ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the registrar no more than five business days afterward.

The RNC argued that the three federal Election Day statutes – governing presidential electors, House members, and senators – use the word “election” to mean two things at once: ballot casting and ballot receipt. So when Congress set a day for the “election,” the RNC argued, it also set a receipt deadline. The Fifth Circuit agreed. The district court had not.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett framed the question at the outset: does counting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later violate the federal statutes?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Barrett’s argument runs on three tracks: text, statutory context, and constitutional structure.

On text, “election” has always meant the act of choosing. Webster’s 1869 dictionary defines it as “[t]he act of choosing a person to fill an office.” The Court’s own precedent in United States v. Classic (1941) called an election “no more and no less than the expression by qualified electors of their choice of candidates.” That choice, Barrett writes, is made when voting is complete – not when ballots land on a registrar’s desk. The statutes set when the people vote, and says nothing about when the mail arrives.

The 2022 amendment to the presidential Election Day statute reinforces this point. When Congress inserted the phrase “election day” and defined it, it tied the definition to “the period of voting” – not the period of receipt. That is the act Congress was governing.

The Electoral College has always separated the act of voting from the act of transmission. Electors “give their Votes” on a uniform day and then “transmit” those votes to the seat of government. The Constitution mandates that the voting day be uniform; it says nothing about the day of receipt. The federal Election Day statutes follow the same architecture. As Barrett closes the majority opinion: “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”

The Dissent Comes Out Swinging

In a scathing dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that an “election” is a collective act, not an individual one. The electorate does not express its choice until the full collection of ballots is in official custody. Until that moment, the choice is not made – it is still in transit, still subject to recall, and still incomplete. Receipt is therefore part of the election, not merely an administrative matter.

Justice Samuel Alito

He cited two centuries of practice to support that view: from the founding through most of the 20th century, Election Day was the day ballots were collected. Even during the Civil War, when states had every logistical incentive to extend receipt deadlines for soldiers at the front, none did. Alito finds it implausible – a “delicately put understatement,” he says, borrowing the majority’s own phrase – that extending receipt deadlines simply never occurred to Civil War-era legislatures as an option. In short, he argues, they understood federal law to require receipt by Election Day.

Alito also cites Foster v. Love (1997) – the Court’s only prior interpretation of the Election Day statutes – which defined “election” as the “combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.” If officials receiving ballots is part of that “combined action,” then officials receiving ballots must occur on Election Day. The majority, Alito argues, quietly reads the “officials” half of that formula out of the statute.

And he raises a practical alarm: what is the outer limit of today’s holding? Mississippi uses a five-day window. Washington state allows receipt up to 21 days after Election Day. The majority’s reasoning sets no federal floor. Could states eliminate receipt deadlines entirely? Could a voter hand a ballot to an Uber driver on Election Day for delivery weeks later?

What Happens Next

The immediate effect: Mississippi’s five-day post–Election Day receipt window survives. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling is reversed and remanded.

The broader effect: the roughly 30 states that already count ballots postmarked by Election Day and received afterward are now on solid federal legal footing. No federal preemption argument runs against them under today’s ruling.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 11:00