California Man Said ICE Stole His Wife. Police Now Say He Murdered Her.

A man who accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of taking his wife is now in custody under suspicion of murdering her.

There have been some creative excuses to cover up murder, but this might be a first. Gurinder Gill — immigration status currently undisclosed — first told investigators that his wife went missing after September 30 because ICE detained her. Detectives subsequently uncovered inconsistencies in his story and dug deeper, coming to the conclusion that she was actually dead, and her husband is the likely guilty party. Jasmine and Gurinder were in a divorce dispute at the time she went missing.

The biggest tell that his story was bunk, as Fox News notes below, is that there had not actually been any ICE activity at the Gills’ home. 

As Fox also reported, investigators found burned and buried remains, which they have since confirmed as Jasmine Gill — what Gurinder left of her. Apparently, he tried to destroy her corpse about 70 miles from their home. Jasmine was born in India, but was a registered nurse in California and the mother of Gurinder’s 8-month-old baby. Part of the couple’s struggles was a child custody dispute. As usual, the child will end up suffering most from the craziness of the parent.

Jasmine’s family started a GoFundMe to deal with the financial aftermath of her death and help her baby. It describes her as “A Daughter, a Sister, a Nurse, and a Mother Who Deserved So Much More.” Apparently, the family needs money to send Jasmine’s body back to India, where her mother still lives. Fox News did not state whether Jasmine is a legal immigrant or not.

SFGate, which obtained the criminal complaint from the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, also mentioned that Gurinder claimed ICE arrested his wife while she was getting her mail outside, but that the agency confirmed it had not been to the residence. Apparently, Gurinder forgot to put out the fire he was using to try to burn his wife’s corpse, because authorities discovered her remains after spotting smoke and having to put out a minor forest fire. Jasmine’s jewelry was also in the burned area.

SFGate also reported:

Detectives obtained an arrest warrant for Gurinder Gill, who was taken into custody Oct. 14. Investigators also executed search warrants at two residences associated with him, although authorities have not disclosed what evidence, if any, was recovered. The criminal complaint, filed Oct. 16 in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleges that Gill killed his wife “with malice aforethought” on or about Sept. 30. He faces one felony count of murder.

Gurinder Gill is not only evil but also stupid. He seems to have expected that California authorities would just take him at his word if he accused ICE of kidnapping. He also apparently set his wife’s body on fire and then left without bothering to see what would happen. The whole situation would be humorous if a young mother were not dead.

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/10/21/california-man-said-ice-stole-his-wife-police-now-say-he-murdered-her-n4958535

Elon Musk Promises Sweet, Sweet Revenge on Democrats Who Plan to 'Come After' Him

Back in the glory days of DOGE, Elon Musk used to joke that he was "Public Enemy no. 2" behind President Trump, the obvious primary target of the Left. Musk has, of course, left his gig with the Trump administration to focus on flying cars and rocket ships, but he apparently still remains a serious threat to Democrats. 

And those Democrats are more than happy to let him know that they plan to go after him if they take back the majority in the House. The "Dem gavels," warns Politico, will be "coming for Elon Musk."

Politico wrote Tuesday that "Democrats have long eyed investigating the world’s richest man and the GOP’s top donor," and that "senior members are mulling how a range of panels could target Musk and a huge swath of his businesses."

Musk's biggest infractions are that he took a blowtorch to the Democrat slush fund known as USAID and is currently pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns for the midterms, but it sounds like House Democrats are cooking up reasons to investigate him.

For instance, some Democrat House members say they plan to look into reports that Musk recently throttled Starlink access to the Ukraine military. 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) wants to know “What happens when one guy gets a giant contract from the government and then uses it to do something that shuts down communication in a war that has been extremely important to the United States to support Ukraine?”

DOGE is another thorn in the side of Democrats and they're out for revenge for the Musk-led effort to cut waste, fraud, and unnecessary federal spending while shrinking and streamlining the federal bureaucracy. 

“Congress must demand a full accounting of the damage Mr. Musk and DOGE caused, and we will not let anyone obstruct our oversight,” bleated House Foreign Affairs ranking member Rep. Greg Meeks (NY-05).

Per Politico, "Meeks named Musk’s part in “the cruel dismantling of USAID” as a prime target for his panel next year."

DOGE was "cruel" only because it took money out of Democrat pockets.

Musk did not respond to Politico's request for comment, but he did take to X Wednesday to let his feelings about a possible Democrat witch hunt against him be known: "Live by the sword, die by the sword," he wrote.

He continued, "Those who pick fights with me should understand that I will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them, not just their puppets …"

Well then.

You'll notice Musk's warning goes beyond those House Democrats making threats and straight to the people and organizations who support them. He means to expose the vast networks that send socialists to Congress and antifa thugs to PTA meetings.

Democrats may very well get their gavels in January – we'll know in two weeks – but if their plan is to spend the next two years making Elon Musk their newest Public Enemy No. 1, he has made it abundantly clear that he intends to enjoy the fight.

https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2026/10/21/elon-promises-sweet-sweet-revenge-on-any-dem-who-plans-to-come-after-him-n2208431

Amid the Ongoing Federal Investigation Ilhan Omar Surfaces to Beg for Money on TikTok

Ilhan Omar, who had been pretty quiet amid the ongoing federal investigation into her, has finally resurfaced. A worn-out and tired looking Omar, who faces questions about her immigration status and finances, shared a video on TikTok where she begged followers to send her money.

"Thank you so much again," Omar said. "And please continue to support us. It is going to be a very expensive and challenging time. And so we appreciate whether you are able to send five, 10, 20. Thank you."

What happened to the millions she said she had?

It takes some nerve.

Her sister met with federal investigators last week, too.

It's not about the seat.

Exactly.

Kind of surprised she didn't say this was a political persecution.

https://townhall.com/news/amy-curtis/2026/10/21/ilhan-omar-crying-for-money-n2685055 

Study Shows Foreign-Born Judges Rule Against Trump’s Migration Reforms

An audit of decisions handed down by all 58 foreign-born federal judges looks to see if they are more likely to favor migrants’ legal claims and to oppose President Donald Trump’s border policies.

The decisions by the federal judges were measured against the decisions by the rest of the federal judiciary to see how the decisions by foreign judges stack up against the rest.

“Across the full 58-judge cohort, anti-border enforcement rulings average 61.9% (vs. the 34.0% U.S. federal court baseline) and below-guideline criminal departures average 45.3% (vs. 31.0% nationally),” the audit found.

The study was conducted by the watchdog group Bench Receipts, an organization that tracks actions by the judiciary, prosecutors, and sheriffs.

The audit looked at the decisions by federal judges who are Article III judicial appointees, or judges appointed to the bench by a U.S. president and approved by the U.S. Senate. The audit meant to answer the question of whether foreign-born judges were softer on crime and if they more often ruled against America’s safety and immigration laws.

The study was conducted by the watchdog group Bench Receipts, an organization that tracks the results of actions by the judiciary, prosecutors, and sheriffs.

The new study reviewed the 58 foreign-born judges across the federal judiciary, which comprises the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and a handful of others. The audit hypothesis sought to answer the question of whether being foreign-born amounted to a controlling factor for rulings that sit below the U.S. federal judicial baseline for rulings that tend to go against the law and against America-first policies.

However, after the rulings of foreign-born judges were tabulated against the average rulings of the rest of the U.S.-born federal judiciary, the question was answered revealing a startling result. It wasn’t being foreign-born that caused these 58 federal judges to make rulings that all too often put blocks on America-first and U.S. sovereignty matters. Instead, it was what jobs they held before becoming a federal judge and what president appointed them.

As it happens, the bulk of the federal Article III judges appointed by Democrat presidents had jobs before taking the bench in left-wing think tanks, or social justice organizations such as the ACLU, or were public defenders. These jobs all lean decidedly toward activist leftism and are jobs were “the law” is only used to push an agenda, as opposed to being used to adjudicate a legal issue. And the audit found that once they became judges, their decisions ended up reflecting that ideological drive, pushing their rulings below the average baseline and into left-wing activist territory.

On the other hand, the judges appointed by Republican presidents were found to have risen above the baseline with their rulings, and as the audit authors noted, “controlling for Appointing President and Pre-Bench Career reveals the true driver.”

“…43 of the 58 judges (74.1%) were appointed by Biden (28) or Obama (15), heavily drawn from ACLU, NILC, and Public Defender pipelines—who block border enforcement at an 80.1% rate. Conversely,” the authors added.

Meanwhile, “The 14 Trump and 1 Bush appointees average a 14.3% anti-border rate and 86.9/100 Sovereignty Score—outperforming the U.S.-born federal baseline in strict law-and-order adherence,” the audit revealed.

The top five of the most anti-sovereignty judges, four Biden and one Obama appointees, showed that they all voted against U.S. border sovereignty more than 90 percent of the time, and in favor of criminals at more than 60 percent.

According to the audit, the worst of them all is Federal Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California. Tigar issued anti-border rulings at 94 percent while ruling at 65 percent below crime guidelines. Tigar was born in London, England, and was an Alameda County Judge and a San Francisco Public Defender before being appointed too the bench by Barack Obama in 2013.

The next four of the worst of the worst include:

• Sparkle Sooknanan, born in Trinidad, appointed by Biden: 94% anti-border, 62% pro-crime
• Araceli Martinez-Olguin, born in Mexico, appointed by Biden: 93% anti-border, 63% pro-crime
• Myong Jin Joun, born in South Korea, appointed by Biden: 90% anti-border, 67% pro-crime
• Tana Lin, born in Taiwan, appointed by Biden: 91% anti-border, 64% pro-crime

The most pro-America judges are all Donald Trump appointees, and include:

• James C. Ho, born in Taiwan, Trump appointee: 5% anti-border, 12% pro-crime
• Joshua M. Divine, born in Japan, Trump appointee: 8% anti-border, 15% pro-crime
• Aileen Cannon, born in Colombia, Trump appointee: 10% anti-border, 19% pro-crime
• Roy Kalman Altman, born in Venezuela, Trump appointee: 11% anti-border, 18% pro-crime
• Kenneth Kiyul Lee, born in South Korea, Trump appointee: 12% anti-border, 18% pro-crime
• Rebecca L. Taibleson, born in Canada, Trump appointee: 11% anti-border, 16% pro-crime
• In conclusion, it isn’t necessarily being foreign-born that will lead to anti-American decisions by federal judges, but is, instead, the blatant ideological positions they hold before being appointed to the bench that will result in decisions that run contrary to American interests, public safety, and U.S. sovereignty.Follow Warner Todd Huston Facebook at: Facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston, or at X/Twitter @WTHuston

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/10/20/study-shows-foreign-born-judges-rule-against-trumps-migration-reforms/

Married Virginia Man Allegedly Ties Wife to Chair in Their Basement So He Can Watch Football Game by Himself

Terry Ward. Credit: Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC Facebook

A football fan apparently took his devotion to an extremely disturbing level earlier this month and is now facing criminal charges.

Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC revealed earlier this week that a 64-year-old Richmond, Virginia man named Terry Ward stands accused of tying his wife to a chair and leaving her restrained in the basement of their home while he watched football upstairs.

The incident occurred on October 11. The two teams playing that night were the Baltimore Ravens and the Atlanta Falcon, a game the Ravens won 30-23 in overtime.

Richmond Police say they received a call around 11:30 p.m. for a reported domestic disturbance.

Upon arrival, they spoke with an adult woman, who identified herself as Ward’s wife.

Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC notes that the responding officer revealed that the woman stated Ward had previously tied her up to a chair using tape in their home’s basement.

Police also say that the woman had marks and sticky tape residue around both of her arms.

She added that she had been tied up for between 30 and 45 minutes while he watched the Ravens and Falcons upstairs alone.

Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC adds that an officer documented Ward admitting to tying his wife up.

“When I arrived on scene, [name redacted] stated that her husband had tied her to a chair with tape in the basement,” a police officer said in a criminal complaint filed in Richmond court that Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC viewed.

“Ward Terry stated that he did indeed tied his wife [name redacted] to a chair and place[d] her down in the basement.”

Court documents obtained by Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC show that Ward was charged with felony abduction and misdemeanor assault on a family member.

Court records viewed by Virginia Statewide Incidents LLC show that oth Ward’s arraignment and bond hearing were continued earlier this week.

Ward’s next court appearance is scheduled for November 10 in Richmond Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/10/married-virginia-man-allegedly-ties-wife-chair-their/

Lefty Florida Mayor Arrested on Charges of Grand Theft, Organized Scheme to Defraud

A lefty Florida mayor was arrested on charges of grand theft and organized scheme to defraud, Attorney General James Uthmeier announced on Wednesday.

Kissimmee Mayor Jackie Espinosa was handcuffed and taken into custody early Wednesday morning.

Details about the charges and criminal accusations were not immediately available.

Espinosa has been mayor of Kissimmee since 2024.

Florida officials will hold a press conference on Espinosa’s arrest at 2 pm ET on Wednesday.

Per AG Uthmeier: This morning, we arrested Kissimmee mayor Jackie Espinosa and are charging her with Grand Theft and Organized Scheme to Defraud.

We will be holding a press conference at 2pm at our Orlando office with CFO Ingoglia and FDLE Commissioner Keefe to provide more information.

DEVELOPING…

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/10/florida-mayor-arrested-charges-grand-theft-charges-organized/

Gavin Newsom’s legislative minions just got a lesson in constitutional supremacy

The court ruled the 'No Vigilantes Act' violated the Supremacy Clause by regulating federal immigration enforcement

It is no surprise that a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit just enjoined the blatantly unconstitutional attempt by the "No-Longer-So-Golden State" to impose restrictions on the ability of ICE and other federal agents to enforce federal immigration law. That panel was doing exactly what federal courts are supposed to do — uphold the U.S. Constitution.

On October 14 in U.S. v. California, the court tossed the so-called "No Vigilantes Act" (NVA) onto the ash heap. This law was part of the state’s continuing effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which has included relentless public attacks by the governor and state officials on federal agents just trying to do their job of enforcing the law. That includes noxious claims like Newsom likening them to the thuggish "secret police" of an "authoritarian" state.

The NVA required any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California to "visibly display identification" when carrying out federal law enforcement duties. A federal agent violating this requirement could be criminally prosecuted by the state.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS NEW YORK LAW BANNING ICE AGENTS FROM WEARING MASKS

Video

As the Ninth Circuit pointed out, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … the Supreme Law of the Land." In other words, federal law not only overrides any state law to the contrary, but it requires what is called "intergovernmental immunity." Under "the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause … states may not directly regulate the Federal Government’s operations or property." The panel cites to a 1996 Ninth Circuit decision, Blackburn v. U.S., on this issue, but then points out that this basic legal principle — that states cannot interfere in federal functions — goes all the way back to one of the most seminal Supreme Court cases in our history, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). "It is the very essence of Supremacy," said the Court in McCulloch, "to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence." That is why "States have no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government."

California tried to argue that the NVA was constitutional because it did not "substantially burden" federal law enforcement. But the Ninth Circuit shot that down, too, saying any attempt by a state law to directly regulate "the conduct of the United States … is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations."

Video

What made this law even worse was its threat to criminally prosecute federal agents. This is especially ironic because California attempted to do with the NVA what the Supreme Court specifically told the state it couldn’t do 136 years ago in another seminal case, In re Neagle (1890), also cited by the Ninth Circuit panel. That decision reads like a Hollywood movie but also demonstrates just how bizarre state officials have acted in California for a long time, not just in today’s heated political arena.

In re Neagle involved the state of California trying to prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder. Marshal David Neagle was acting as a bodyguard for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, a job the U.S. Marshal’s Service still carries out today. He shot and killed the former chief justice of California’s state supreme court, David Terry, at a railway station in the San Joaquin Valley, after Terry tried to assassinate Field. Terry was known for his violent temper and apparently had a grudge against Field for a court decision involving the prior divorce of Terry’s current wife.

DOJ DEMANDS SANCTUARY STATES END 'BLATANTLY UNLAWFUL' ANTI-ICE POLICY AS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH

Video

The Ninth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court’s opinion in Neagle that even the "most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States." California couldn’t prosecute a U.S. Marshal then for doing his job, and it cannot criminally prosecute federal agents now who are "acting under and in pursuance of the [immigration] laws of the United States." End of story, end of case, end of unconstitutional state law.

By the way, a second law enacted by California’s constitutionally ignorant legislators, the "No Secret Police Act," was already enjoined by a lower court for the same reason. That law made it a criminal offense for federal agents to wear "a facial covering that conceals or obscures their facial identity." You know, the same agents who have been villainized, doxxed, followed home, harassed, run down by cars, and shot at by thugs who masquerade as protesters.

As the Ninth Circuit correctly recognized, the lawlessness occurring in California is not limited to thugs. Perhaps some remedial courses on the Constitution for Governor Newsom and the California legislature may be in order.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gavin-newsoms-legislative-minions-lesson-constitutional-supremacy