West
My house almost burned down in the Palisades fire. Alleged arsonist is not who I blame
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced they had determined the cause of the Pacific Palisades fire and arrested an alleged arsonist. Previously, local officials had said the cause was unknown but may have been caused by fireworks.
As a Palisades resident whose home was damaged but survived the fire, I hope whoever is guilty goes to jail for a long time. However, let there be no mistake, he was not the one responsible for the town of Pacific Palisades burning to the ground. The brunt of that responsibility lies with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Newsom has failed to properly manage the state’s forests, leaving them dangerously overgrown with the brush that fuels the fires. Rather than taking swift action to clear them, Newsom seems to relish in blaming climate change after each devastating fire. After the Palisades fire, he said, “The hots are getting a lot hotter. Dries are getting a lot drier. The wets are getting a lot wetter. That’s climate change.”
ARREST MADE IN CONNECTION TO DEADLY PACIFIC PALISADES FIRE, SOURCES SAY
Bass has shown her utter disregard of her duties as mayor. During her campaign, she said if elected, “I would not travel internationally. The only places I would go would be DC, Sacramento, San Francisco and New York in relation to LA.” Yet, she left the country five times, including her now infamous trip to Ghana while LA was under a Fire Weather Watch from the National Weather Service (which quickly became a Red Flag Warning the next day) in order to attend the inauguration of the president of Ghana. She was at a cocktail party when she learned of the fire.
It is bad enough to violate a campaign pledge, but to do so at a dangerous time, and for something that has absolutely nothing to do with her job as mayor, is inexcusable. She is the mayor of the second-largest city in the U.S., but does not seem to appreciate the responsibility that comes with the job. (This was her second inauguration party outside the country; she also attended the Mexican president’s inauguration.)
Bass is also to blame because her DEI hiring practices put less qualified people into critical positions in charge of protecting the safety of city residents. These positions included the deputy mayor of public safety, the fire chief, and the head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), all of whom let down the city. She proudly states on her website her commitment “to make sure our administration truly reflects the full diversity of the people of Los Angeles,” rather than a commitment to hire the best and brightest.
Thanks to the feds, we now know conclusively that the fire, and its spread, was utterly preventable. The ATF has determined that the January 7 fire was a re-ignition of a very small fire created by the arsonist on New Year’s Day. The fire only burned eight acres, and the arsonist even called 911 immediately after starting it. However, anyone knowledgeable about brush fires knows that just because you put it out does not mean it cannot reignite, especially when dealing with overgrown brush.
The ATF special agent on the case, Kenny Cooper, reported that “the fire burned deep within the ground, in roots and in structures, and remained active for several days.” He reported that when he worked at a state forestry agency, “we would have a lightning strike, and it would hit a tree, and it would burn for days, sometimes weeks, and then ignite into a forest fire. We would go suppress that, and then every day, for weeks on end, we would patrol those areas to make sure they didn’t reignite.”
Flames from the Palisades Fire burn a building on Sunset Boulevard amid a powerful windstorm on January 8, 2025, in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. (Apu Gomes)
But this was not done in the Palisades. Instead, according to the ATF, the LAFD returned the next day to collect their hoses and did not return until it had reignited on January 7, when it was too late. The ATF findings are a stinging indictment of the LAFD. From other reports we also know the LAFD did virtually nothing to prepare for the potential of a fire despite the red flag warning that had been issued, like pre-deploying fire trucks in sensitive areas.
The fire chief was Kristin Crowly, an LGTB female who herself is known for DEI hires. (As reported by the Los Angeles Times, she has “elevated younger historically marginalized deputies to replace older veterans.”) Bass fired her after Crowly partly blamed the mayor’s budget cuts to the department for the failure to better contain the fire.
She was not wrong. Under Bass, the city has increased spending on the homeless while decreasing spending on basic services to protect residents. Last year, the Council passed a budget providing $1.3 Billion for homeless-related expenses while cutting the fire department by $17 million. The city has the same number of fire stations today as it had in the 1960s.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, right, and Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, left, address the media at a press conference on Saturday, Jan. 11, 2025. (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
We also know they were handicapped by a lack of water because the Santa Ynez reservoir, built to provide water for fire fighting in the Palisades and managed by the LADWP, had been left empty for almost a year awaiting minor repairs, causing all the fire hydrants in the Palisades to run dry by the evening of the fire. The fault for this lies at the feet of Bass’s pick to run the department, Janisse Quinones, a Latina female, born and raised in Puerto Rico with a degree from the University of Puerto Rico. Her experience was in energy, not water. Without the reservoir, firefighters were left with three million gallons of water rather than over 100 million. The cost of the repair: $130,000.
We also know that at the time Bass left for Ghana, the city had no one in charge of public safety. That is because her deputy mayor of public safety, Brian Williams, a Black male, was on suspension at the time for calling in a fake bomb threat to the police. He admits he did so and says it was to get out of a long meeting. He recently pled guilty to a felony for “threats regarding fire and explosives.” Bass did not replace him until April, months after the fire.
Bass said of the DOJ’s indictment of the arsonist that the city is “working towards closure and towards justice — and today is a step forward in that process.” It is a first, small step. Justice means those responsible paying a price. For the arsonist, it means jail time. For Bass, it means resigning her post.
If she had any shame, she would have done so immediately upon her return from Ghana. Instead, she has put herself in charge of leading the recovery of the town she destroyed. Recently she announced she is running for reelection. In deeply blue LA, she is favored to win.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JIM BRESLO
Read the full article from Here
Mckinsey Lyon, vice president of external affairs for Perpetua Resources, points out the layout of some of the mining companyís environmental restoration plans at its proposed Stibnite Gold Project. The company hopes to begin mining operations for gold and antimony by 2029. (Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
TNS
The U.S. District Court for Idaho last week denied an injunction sought by climate activist groups, ruling that construction may proceed on the Stibnite Gold Project in central Idaho. This decision, secured with the active involvement of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, represents a significant win not just for the project’s developer, Perpetua Resources, but for the Pentagon, which covets the large volumes of antimony the Stibnite mine can produce.
The Stibnite project, as I’ve written here in the past, is a carefully vetted initiative following years of environmental reviews, culminating in U.S. Forest Service approval in January 2025. The project will produce substantial quantities of gold (about 4.2 million ounces) and silver (1.7 million ounces) over its life, but its real strategic value lies in antimony reserves, an estimated 115 million pounds. Antimony is a critical mineral essential for munitions, military-grade antimony trisulfide, lead-acid batteries, advanced sensors, radar materials, and flame retardants. For too long, the U.S. has depended on foreign sources via supply chains dominated by China, which has repeatedly restricted exports and left our National Defense Stockpile dangerously depleted.
Between 2020 and 2023, China accounted for 70% of U.S. rare earth imports. This chart shows where the U.S. gets its rare earths from. Data Source: USGS. (Graphic by Visual Capitalist via Getty Images) Getty Images The Pentagon says this vulnerability cannot be allowed to linger. As Michael Cadenazzi, Assistant Secretary of War for Industrial Base Policy, emphasized in a briefing to the Court: “The urgent construction of the Stibnite Gold Project and commencement of antimony production from the Project is of paramount importance to national security. The Stibnite Gold Project is the only opportunity known to the Department which is projected to produce sufficient antimony quantities to meet defense requirements by 2029 and supply substantial quality to the U.S. commercial market, as evidenced and de-risked by a feasibility study conducted in accordance with SK 1300 or equivalent standards.”
This is the core of the issue. As Cadenazzi notes, further delays here don’t just stall a mine; they prolong “the nation’s currently unacceptable supply chain risk for antimony.” Without domestic production, America remains exposed to supply shocks from adversarial nations. The sooner Stibnite ramps up, the sooner resiliency for both defense needs and essential civilian applications can be built.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department put it well: “Antimony is among the minerals most vital to our national defense, and for too long the United States has relied on foreign adversaries to supply it. This decision allows construction to move forward on the most significant domestic source of antimony, and it reflects the Department’s commitment to defending projects critical to America’s national security.”
The court’s ruling hinged on the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate “imminent, irreparable harm.” That’s a high bar, and rightly so. Activist groups have long used litigation as a tool to delay or derail resource projects, often prioritizing ideology over practical trade-offs. Stibnite isn’t a pristine wilderness being bulldozed for profit: It’s a historically disturbed site from over a century of prior mining. The project includes robust reclamation efforts: removing legacy tailings, restoring fish passage on the East Fork of the South Fork Salmon River, and commitment to overall environmental restoration.
Perpetua Resources, a Canadian mining company with offices in Idaho, has spent more than $17 million on some cleanup and restoration work at the site of its proposed Stibnite Gold Project in the Payette National Forest. (Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service via Getty Images) TNS There is near-universal acceptance now of the reality that any true energy transition will of necessity require a major increase in mining for an array of critical energy minerals, including antimony. If the U.S. is to get back into the mining business in a meaningful way after almost half a century of relative dormancy, this project presents a clear example of responsible mining in action, balancing extraction with stewardship while meeting a compelling national security need.
The same climate activist groups who favor such a transition seem to knee-jerk to oppose development in national forests; but context matters, and they raise issues which have been litigated repeatedly for more than a decade now. Defense officials have identified Stibnite as the only near-term domestic source capable of meeting major portion of the country’s antimony needs. Historically, the site supplied 90% of America’s antimony during WWII and the Korean War. Reviving it now aligns with the Trump administration’s broader push to onshore critical mineral supply chains to reduce reliance on China and bolster the Pentagon’s defense industrial base.
This latest win in court fits the established initiative by the Trump administration of prioritizing energy and mineral security. It should be noted here that this same initiative was at least nominally favored by the Biden administration. In a major speech delivered in June 2021, President Joe Biden promised to mount a “whole of government” effort to reshore supply chains for critical energy minerals like antimony. It was a commitment which was unfortunately was left largely unaddressed over the final 3 years of his presidency.
But that commitment has been revived and amplified over the last 17 months. Permitting reform, executive actions on domestic production, and judicial pushback against reflexive injunctions are chipping away at the regulatory and litigation thicket that has stifled investment. For rural Idaho, Stibnite means jobs, economic vitality, and infrastructure improvements. Nationally, it means less vulnerability in an era when adversaries weaponize supply chains.
Of course, litigation will no doubt continue: No one should expect the anti-development activists to relent. But the court’s denial of this injunction sends the clear message that national security interests still carry weight. The repeated environmental reviews to which this project has been subjected have been not just thorough, but exhaustive. The project is fully vetted. Now, it’s time to build. America’s competitors don’t tie themselves into bureaucratic and legalistic knots over every project. China dominates antimony production and has not been at all shy about deploying that dominance strategically.
The Stibnite mine is an answer to that aggression: It clearly exemplifies the “all-of-the-above” approach needed, not just for energy, but for the array of other minerals like antimony which help power modern defense and industry. Environmental reviews and protections to truly endangered species are important and must remain in place, but at some point, America simply must be able to say “go” on vital projects like this one.
An “Urgent” Antimony Resource
Antimony is “Vital To Our National Defense”
A Key Near-Term Antimony Resource
America Must Be Able To Eventually Get To “Go”
Montana
Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case – Transnational Litigation Blog
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act discourages forum shopping in child custody disputes by assigning subject-matter jurisdiction to the court located in the “home state” of the child. In Allen v. Allen, decided on April 21, 2026, the Montana Supreme Court had to determine whether the child’s “home state” was Montana or the Netherlands. This case shines an important spotlight on the importance of timing in international child custody disputes. The left-behind parent’s likelihood of success is strongly correlated with how quickly he or she acts to vindicate their legal rights.
Facts
Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) and Petronella Gerline (Van Oosterom) Allen (Mother) were married in Colorado in 2009. Father is a United States citizen. Mother is a dual citizen of the United States and the Netherlands. Their child (R.A.A.) was born in 2015. In 2020, the family moved from Colorado to Montana.
In August 2023, after Father and Mother began having marital difficulties, Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands. In February 2024, Mother filed a petition for divorce and custody with the District Court of Central Netherlands (Netherlands District Court).
In January 2025, Father filed a petition with the District Court of The Hague seeking the return of R.A.A. pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This petition was denied. Although the court held that R.A.A. had been wrongfully removed from the United States, the court reasoned that the one-year automatic return period had passed and that R.A.A. had become settled in her new environment in the Netherlands. This decision was affirmed on appeal.
In September 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in Montana state court. That court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it held that it lacked the power to adjudicate the dispute because Montana was no longer the “home state” of R.A.A. Father, acting pro se, appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) assigns exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to courts located in the child’s “home state” when it comes to matters relating to child custody. The “home state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” The UCCJEA specifically provides that courts “shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” for purposes of resolving these disputes.
On the facts presented in Allen v. Allen, the Montana Supreme Court correctly held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Father’s emergency motion. Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands in August 2023. Six months later—in February 2024—R.A.A.’s home state shifted to the Netherlands. The Dutch courts—rather than the Montana courts—now had exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve custody disputes involving R.A.A. Father did not file his motion in Montana until September 2025, which was nineteen months too late.
Conclusion
If Father had filed his suit in Montana before February 2024, he could have shown that Montana was R.A.A.’s “home state” because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for six months. The suit was, however, not filed until September 2025.
If Father had filed suit in the Netherlands before August 2024, he could have argued that R.A.A. should be returned to the United States pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for a year. The suit was, however, not filed until January 2025.
The key takeaway of Allen v. Allen is the need for speed in international child custody cases. The timelines baked into the relevant laws and treaties mandate that the left-behind parent move quickly to assert their rights. If they are slow off the mark, they be forced to litigate in foreign courts under less favorable legal rules.
-
Hawaii25 seconds agoHonolulu City Council adopts nearly $5B budget package | Honolulu Star-Advertiser
-
Idaho33 seconds agoCourt Clears Path For Idaho’s Critical Stibnite Antimony Mine
-
Illinois13 minutes agoSuburban Chicago man charged after Illinois Tollway worker killed on I-294
-
Indiana15 minutes agoWhat do Skylake Adventures Indiana tickets cost? When Sheridan water park opens, location, hours
-
Iowa21 minutes agoOne dead and another injured after train strikes semi-truck in Iowa
-
Kentucky25 minutes agoKentucky’s Mark Pope can look to Joe B. Hall entering pivotal season
-
Kansas28 minutes agoKansas City’s Crossroads Arts District gets a new media tech museum ahead of the World Cup
-
Louisiana36 minutes agoLouisiana among states selected to receive federal funding for rare earth projects
