Home » Topics » Federal Court

Sarah Hornbeck’s Deposition Disaster: Five Admissions That Expose a Reckless Witch Hunt Masquerading as Justice

In the custody case Reichert v. Hornbeck, attorney Sarah Hornbeck’s deposition revealed alarming admissions that undermine her accusations against ex-husband Jeffrey Reichert. Her reckless actions, including reporting incidents without knowing the child’s location and relying on hearsay from biased witnesses, raise serious questions about her credibility. All charges against Reichert were dismissed, suggesting her motives were more about control than safety.

Sarah Hornbeck’s Deposition Disaster: Five Admissions That Expose a Reckless Witch Hunt Masquerading as Justice Read More

Disabled Father’s Explosive ADA Lawsuit Slams Maryland Court for Systemic Discrimination—Will AG Brown Defend the Indefensible?

Disabled veteran Jeff Reichert’s federal lawsuit against the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court reveals alleged systematic discrimination and retaliation in his custody battle. Despite his disabilities, the court denied reasonable accommodations required under the ADA, raising significant concerns about bias and access to justice within Maryland’s family court system.

Disabled Father’s Explosive ADA Lawsuit Slams Maryland Court for Systemic Discrimination—Will AG Brown Defend the Indefensible? Read More

Hornbeck’s Panic Play: Motion to Dismiss Filed Days After Deposition Raised Questions About Basis for Criminal Charges

Sarah Hornbeck has filed a Motion to Dismiss in the federal case Reichert v. Hornbeck after a deposition where she faltered under questioning regarding the evidence for her criminal charges against ex-husband Jeff Reichert. Critics claim her motion is a desperate attempt to avoid accountability in a long custody battle that alienated Reichert from their son.

Hornbeck’s Panic Play: Motion to Dismiss Filed Days After Deposition Raised Questions About Basis for Criminal Charges Read More

“I Don’t Recall”: Inside the Deposition That Could Unravel a Maryland Attorney’s Protective-Order Case

A recent deposition in the federal case Reichert v. Hornbeck is raising serious questions about the credibility of key accusations that once led to dozens of criminal charges against a father locked in a custody dispute.

During questioning, Sarah Hornbeck repeatedly stated she did not recall critical events surrounding those allegations—events that ultimately led to the plaintiff spending time in jail and facing years of litigation before the charges were dismissed.

Court filings indicate the accusations resulted in at least 26 criminal charges, all of which were later dropped or dismissed.

The pattern of memory gaps now sits at the center of a federal malicious prosecution lawsuit.

“I Don’t Recall”: Inside the Deposition That Could Unravel a Maryland Attorney’s Protective-Order Case Read More

The Reichert Files: What the Defendant Admitted Under Oath

A February 2026 deposition in the federal case against Jeffrey Reichert revealed significant details about his contentious custody battle with Sarah Hornbeck. Hornbeck admitted her past DUI arrest and expressed memory gaps regarding critical events, raising questions about the reliability of her prior legal filings. The deposition highlights the complexities and ongoing nature of their legal conflict.

The Reichert Files: What the Defendant Admitted Under Oath Read More

Federal Judge Limits DHS After Minneapolis Shooting — A Necessary Check or Dangerous Overreach?

A federal judge has issued a restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security following a deadly shooting involving federal agents in Minneapolis, forcing the agency to preserve evidence and submit to judicial oversight. The move underscores a growing clash between federal enforcement power and constitutional accountability.

Federal Judge Limits DHS After Minneapolis Shooting — A Necessary Check or Dangerous Overreach? Read More

Tuberville Draws Line Ahead of Supreme Court Showdown on Women’s Sports

As the Supreme Court weighs challenges to state laws protecting women’s sports, Senator Tommy Tuberville frames the debate as one of fairness and common sense—not partisan politics. The ruling could reshape Title IX and athletic policy nationwide.

Tuberville Draws Line Ahead of Supreme Court Showdown on Women’s Sports Read More

Even Trump Judges Are Drawing the Line: The Halligan Fight and the Limits of Executive Power

Judge David Novak, appointed by Trump, ordered Lindsey Halligan to justify her title as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, reinforcing that legal statutes bind the executive branch. The case highlights concerns about executive overreach and the importance of judicial compliance, emphasizing that the rule of law is essential for governance.

Even Trump Judges Are Drawing the Line: The Halligan Fight and the Limits of Executive Power Read More

Roberts’ Year-End Report: A Quiet Defense of Judicial Independence Ahead of America’s 250th Anniversary

In his 2025 Year-End Report, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. emphasizes judicial independence as essential to the Constitution, framing the judiciary as a counter-majoritarian check rooted in American history. He reflects on past principles rather than current controversies, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law amidst political strife.

Roberts’ Year-End Report: A Quiet Defense of Judicial Independence Ahead of America’s 250th Anniversary Read More

Supreme Court Checks Trump’s National Guard Deployment — For Now

The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling in Trump v. Illinois blocks — for now — the federalization of National Guard troops for immigration enforcement, exposing deep divisions over executive power, domestic military use, and how far a president can go without invoking the Insurrection Act.

Supreme Court Checks Trump’s National Guard Deployment — For Now Read More