Attorney Ronald W. Chapman II breaks down why Letitia James’s motion to disqualify U.S. Attorney Colleen Halligan is doomed. Backed by DOJ’s own OLC memo and two centuries of Appointments Clause precedent, Chapman argues the motion is pure politics masquerading as law.

The NBA gambling indictments aren’t about a few players making bad bets—they’re about the weaponization of insider information. The Department of Justice is using conspiracy and money-laundering statutes that don’t even require an overt act, meaning simply agreeing to share non-public injury data can be treated like organized crime. What’s really happening here is the collision of real-time sports data, online betting, and insider access—creating a new frontier for white-collar crime. This isn’t just a sports scandal; it’s the first major test of how federal prosecutors will police information markets in the age of legalized gambling.

Federal criminal defense attorney Ronald W. Chapman II, together with the rest of Dr. Kumar’s dedicated healthcare fraud defense team, successfully secured the dismissal of the majority of the healthcare fraud federal charges brought against Dr. Kumar, a respected OBGYN practicing in Memphis.

If you think the John Bolton case is just another “classified‑documents” brawl, you haven’t read the charging paper. This is not a storage‑unit saga; it’s a diary‑to‑family indictment with compartments like HCS and SI splashed across the pages, an alleged Iran‑linked hack of a personal AOL account (yes, AOL), and a timeline that tracks right through a decommissioned home SCIF.

The federal system has long recognized that juveniles who come into contact with the criminal justice process deserve a degree of protection and privacy that is not typically extended to adult defendants. Central to this protection is the confidentiality of juvenile records, which reflects a rehabilitative philosophy: a belief that minors should not be permanently stigmatized by their youthful mistakes.

As the trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs approaches, the spotlight shifts from headlines to hard evidence. While the charges carry the weight of serious federal crimes, the case may be weaker than it first appears. A first-time federal judge, a media-saturated jury pool, and a prosecution strategy that leans heavily on public perception rather than legal precision all raise critical questions. Is this trial a reckoning—or an overreach? The outcome may surprise those expecting a repeat of Weinstein or Epstein. Diddy could very well walk away vindicated.

The United States airline industry, once the crown jewel of American ingenuity, is now on the brink of collapse—not because of war, terrorism, or technological stagnation, but because of unchecked greed. In 2025, the illusion of safety has finally unraveled. Behind the glossy terminals and frequent flyer perks lies a Darwinian marketplace where profits eclipse passengers. Self-certification schemes, crumbling oversight, and cost-cutting masquerading as innovation have paved the runway to disaster. The Boeing 737 MAX debacle wasn’t an outlier—it was a warning shot. And as near-misses pile up and regulators play catch-up, one thing becomes clear: flying in America is no longer a calculated risk. It’s a roll of the dice.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling in USA v. Holmes highlights a troubling trend in criminal trials—courts dismissing improper expert witness testimony as "harmless error." In Elizabeth Holmes' appeal, the court acknowledged errors in admitting expert-like testimony but upheld her conviction anyway. This article explores why relying on speculative harmless error rulings in cases like Theranos sets a dangerous precedent.

Thelegal authority of federal judges to dismiss indictments at a prosecutor’s request is limited. Federal Defense Attorney Ronald Chapman explores the differences between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice, and the implications for high-profile cases like Mayor Eric Adams’ indictment. Learn how Rule 48(a) governs judicial oversight and prosecutorial discretion in politically sensitive prosecutions.

Constitutional attorney Ronald W. Chapman II analyzes the ongoing legal battles against President Donald Trump’s executive actions. With at least 45 lawsuits pending, challenges range from birthright citizenship to federal spending disputes and LGBTQ+ rights policies. Chapman breaks down how these cases navigate the federal court system, what early rulings mean, and how appellate courts—including the Supreme Court—could ultimately decide the future of executive power in America. Stay informed with expert legal insight into the constitutional stakes of Trump’s second-term agenda.

Houston adult entertainer Chanel Nicholson takes her racial descrimination case against Houston area strip clubs all the way to the Supreme Court. Using an anchient civil rights statute that gurantees equal rights to black workers, she sued the clubs claiming that they improperly applied a quota to strippers at the club. She is represented by Ronald W. Chapman II.

The 2025 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines propose major changes, giving judges more discretion in supervised release, expanding safety valve relief for drug offenses, and introducing alternatives to revocation for technical violations. Courts can now modify conditions, shorten terms, or impose concurrent sentences. These updates help defense attorneys advocate for reduced sentences and fairer post-release supervision.

The epic tale of Ross Ulbricht and Silk Road is not yet over. Donald Trump pardoned Ross on day 1 of his presidency. But why? What are Trump’s plans for Ulbricht. Ron Chapman explores the libertarian ideals that fueled his federal charges, the FBI’s high-stakes bust, and the ongoing battle over technology, freedom, and regulation in the digital era. See how it redefined digital autonomy.

Uncover UNICOR’s (Federal Prison Industries) hidden practices—from forced inmate labor and no-bid contracts to its impact on American jobs. Learn how this government-run corporation raises serious ethical and constitutional concerns.

Author Ron Chapman delivers a sharp critique of Christmas, weaving Nietzschean philosophy with biting cultural commentary on how capitalism turned the sacred into a spectacle of consumption.

As Donald Trump inches toward a potential second act in the White House, he’s also the star of another ongoing drama: his seemingly endless legal battles. From courtrooms in New York to federal judges in Florida and Washington, the ex-president and president elect faces an array of cases that would make a less seasoned defendant buckle. Yet, here he is, unfazed, barreling forward. Legal analyst Ronald W. Chapman II appeared on NewsNation to discuss the inevitable dismissal of these cases:

Donald Trump’s plan to use the Foreign Enemies Act for deporting undocumented immigrants has revived questions about presidential power in immigration. Passed in 1798, the Act lets the president expel nationals from enemy states in wartime, but today’s robust immigration laws make such a move seem excessive. Critics highlight that past presidents managed immigration challenges without wartime powers, showing that current laws might be enough without risking Fourth Amendment rights or executive overreach.

It’s been over 30 years since the Menendez brothers turned their family’s Beverly Hills mansion into a crime scene that would captivate the nation. Lyle and Erik Menendez, two young men from privilege, make the irreversible decision to turn their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, into tragic headlines. Armed with shotguns, they enter the den where their parents sit watching TV, altering the course of their family and their lives forever. What followed was a media spectacle, first seen as an account of greed but evolving into a layered story of alleged trauma and abuse. Now, the brothers have filed a habeas corpus petition with new evidence, posing a crucial question, Could this legal maneuver change the Menendez brothers' fate?