Government opposes delaying death penalty decision for Zizian charged in border agent's shooting
Teresa Youngblut, of Washington state, is part of a cultlike group known as Zizians that has been connected to six killings in three states. She's accused of firing at agent David Maland during a traffic stop on Jan. 20, the day President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order lifting the moratorium on federal executions.
Attorney General Pam Bondi later cited Maland's death in directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in murder cases involving law enforcement officers unless they find significant mitigating circumstances. But in a motion filed earlier this month, Youngblut's lawyers argued the government has imposed a 'radically inadequate' and 'extraordinarily rushed' timeline for that determination.
Prosecutors have set a July 28 deadline for Youngblut to explain why the death penalty should not be sought. Even though she has yet to be charged with a crime eligible for such punishment, prosecutors said the investigation is ongoing and charges may be added or changed.
Youngblut's attorneys want to extend that deadline by at least six months, but in an objection filed Monday, prosecutors argued the judge has no authority to do so.
'To grant the defendant the relief requested in the motion would constitute an inunction prohibiting the United States from moving forward with an internal decision-making process of the Executive Branch and would intrude upon its independent prosecutorial discretion,' Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Dresser wrote.
Younglbut is charged with using a deadly weapon against law enforcement and discharging a firearm during an assault with a deadly weapon.
Youngblut's attorneys have asked the court to give her until at least Jan. 30, 2026, to submit her mitigating evidence to a committee of lawyers that advises the government on capital cases and to prohibit prosecutors from making a decision about the death penalty until after the material has been reviewed.
The defense argues the schedule 'promises to turn Ms. Youngblut's submission into a near-pointless formality.' Prosecutors countered that Youngblut has no right 'beyond the Executive Branch's invitation' to participate in the government's internal capital review.
At the time of the shooting, authorities had been watching Youngblut and her companion, Felix Bauckholt, for several days after a Vermont hotel employee reported seeing them carrying guns and wearing black tactical gear. She's accused of opening fire on border agents who pulled the car over on Interstate 91. An agent fired back, killing Bauckholt and wounding Youngblut.
The pair were among the followers of Jack LaSota, a transgender woman also known as Ziz whose online writing about veganism, gender identity and artificial intelligence attracted young, highly intelligent computer scientists who shared anarchist beliefs. Members of the group have been tied to the death of one of their own during an attack on a California landlord in 2022, the landlord's subsequent killing earlier this year, and the deaths of a Pennsylvania couple in between.
LaSota and two others face weapons and drug charges in Maryland, where they were arrested in February, while LaSota faces additional federal charges of being an armed fugitive. Maximilian Snyder, who is charged with killing the landlord in California, had applied for a marriage license with Youngblut. His attorney has declined to comment.
Michelle Zajko, whose parents were killed in Pennsylvania, was arrested with LaSota in Maryland, and has been charged with providing weapons to Youngblut in Vermont.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe reacts with mix of relief and concern to US trade deal
By Philip Blenkinsop and Sudip Kar-Gupta BRUSSELS (Reuters) -European governments and companies reacted with both relief and concern on Monday to the framework trade deal struck with U.S. President Donald Trump, acknowledging what was seen as an unbalanced deal but one that avoided a deeper trade war. The agreement, announced on Sunday between two economies that account for almost a third of global trade, will see the U.S. impose a 15% import tariff on most EU goods - half the threatened rate but much more than what Europeans hoped for. Many of the specifics of the deal were not immediately known, however. "As we await full details of the new EU–U.S. trade agreement, one thing is clear: this is a moment of relief but not of celebration," Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever wrote on X. "Tariffs will increase in several areas and some key questions remain unresolved." Trump said the deal, including an investment pledge topping the $550 billion deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of U.S. exporters. It will bring clarity for European makers of cars, planes and chemicals. But the EU had initially hoped for a zero-for-zero tariff deal. And the 15% baseline tariff, while an improvement on the threatened rate of 30%, compares to an average U.S. import tariff rate of around 2.5% last year before Trump's return to the White House. European Commission chief Von der Leyen, describing Trump as a tough negotiator, told reporters on Sunday that it was "the best we could get". European stocks opened up on Monday, with the STOXX 600 at a four-month high and all other major bourses also in the green. Tech and healthcare stocks led the way. "The 15% rate is better than the market was fearing," said Jefferies economist Mohit Kumar. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. MORE CLARITY, BUT 'NOT THE END OF THE STORY' French government ministers said on Monday that the deal had some merits - such as exemptions they hoped to see for some key French business sectors such as spirits - but was nevertheless not balanced. Industry minister Marc Ferracci stressed more talks - potentially lasting weeks or months - would be needed before the deal could be formally concluded. "This is not the end of the story," he told RTL radio. European companies, meanwhile, were left wondering whether to cheer or lament the accord. "Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm," said Wolfgang Große Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association VCI. "Further escalation has been avoided. Nevertheless, the price is high for both sides. European exports are losing competitiveness. U.S. customers are paying the tariffs," he said. Stellantis shares were up 3.5% and car parts maker Valeo jumped 4.7% while German pharma group Merck KGaA rose 2.9%, in a sign of relief for those sectors. Among the many questions that remain to be answered, however, is how the EU's promise to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. and steeply increase energy purchases can be turned into reality. It was not immediately clear if specific pledges of increased investments were made or whether the details still must be hammered out. And while the EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases over the next three years, including oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear fuel, the U.S. will struggle to produce enough to meet that demand. While U.S. LNG production capacity is due to almost double over the next four years it will still not be enough to ramp up supplies to Europe, and oil production is expected to be lower than previously forecast this year. Despite the lingering unknowns, analysts stressed the deal still helped decrease uncertainty. Oil prices rose on Monday, as did the euro. "Now that there is more clarity, you would think that not only in the United States, but around the globe, there will be a little bit more willingness to look at investment, to look at expansions, and to look at where the opportunities are," said Rodrigo Catril, senior currency strategist at National Australia Bank. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dollar stablecoins threaten Europe's monetary autonomy, ECB blog argues
FRANKFURT (Reuters) -The dollar's early dominance of stablecoins gives the U.S. an advantage that could ultimately push up borrowing costs for Europe, reduce the ECB's autonomy and increase geopolitical dependency on the U.S., an ECB blog post argued on Monday. Stablecoins, crypto assets pegged to a currency such as the dollar, have gained popularity in recent years and got a big boost earlier this month when U.S. President Donald Trump signed a law to create a regulatory regime, aimed at cementing the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. "Such dominance of the U.S. dollar would provide the United States with strategic and economic advantages, allowing it to finance its debt more cheaply while exerting global influence," ECB adviser Jürgen Schaaf said in a post that does not necessarily reflect the ECB's own views. "For Europe, this would mean higher financing costs relative to the United States, reduced monetary policy autonomy and geopolitical dependency," he added. If dollar-based stablecoins become widely used in the euro area, for payments, savings or settlement, the ECB's control over monetary conditions could be weakened, Schaaf argued. Dollar-pegged stablecoins issued by Tether and Circle have dominated the global market and the share of euro-denominated stablecoins remains marginal, with market capitalisation of less than 350 million euros, the blog post said. Europe should thus act quickly, creating the digital version of its euro currency, a project, that is being held up by legislative delays, and should foster the creation of more euro-based stablecoins. The EU should also foster the use of distributed ledger technology to speed up cheap cross-border payments, the blog argued. "Finally, stronger global coordination on stablecoin regulation is pivotal," the blog said. "If we forgo a common approach, we risk fuelling instability, regulatory arbitrage and global U.S. dollar dominance." Sign in to access your portfolio
Fast Company
29 minutes ago
- Fast Company
With FEMA support disappearing, what should cities do to combat natural disasters?
When the Trump administration canceled the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, it pulled the plug on grant funds from hundreds of communities working to prevent catastrophes. BRIC wasn't flashy or perfect, but it was essential. Its competitive, complex process favored large, well-resourced cities. Smaller, more vulnerable places often couldn't keep up with the paperwork or wait out the delays. The program was bureaucratic, underfunded, and sometimes slow. But it did something that few else were designed to do: it gave localities from across the country access to federal dollars to proactively reinforce electrical grids, guard water lines, and prepare for floods, fires, and rising seas. In other words, it gave them a fighting chance to withstand increasingly destructive disasters. With more than 95% of Americans living in counties that have experienced extreme weather since 2011, the benefits were bound to be widespread. And fiscally prudent, too. Every $1 spent on disaster prevention saves $13 in recovery costs, according to a 2024 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That's not waste—that's smart policy to shore up schools, homes, and neighborhoods and safeguard lives. So, what now? We build anyway. A New Era of Public-Private Partnership Urban academic institutions like ours are uniquely positioned to provide applied research, technical expertise, and programmatic support that can help municipalities continue making progress. Universities can serve as innovation labs, testing emerging technologies before jurisdictions invest in full-scale deployment. Indeed, we need a new era of public-private partnership—not just with academic institutions, but collaborations where localities, businesses, and philanthropy also come together to do what government can't and shouldn't do alone: build vital facilities to withstand nature's increasingly powerful storms and floods. At Cornell Tech, we've spent the last two and a half years doing exactly that. Through the Local Infrastructure Hub —a national nerve center galvanized by Bloomberg Philanthropies with support from other funders (Ballmer Group, Emerson Collective, Ford Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, and Waverley Street Foundation), specialists, and policy leaders—we are helping city halls strengthen systems and integrate technology-based tools that bolster infrastructure plans, pro bono. Low-cost solutions Perhaps most promising, from where I sit, is the role of artificial intelligence in revolutionizing local resilience. Even amid funding uncertainty, municipalities can deploy low-cost solutions to streamline processes, identify problems, and look ahead. Consider New York University's Urban Systems Lab and its development of ClimateIQ. It's a free, open-source tool that uses artificial intelligence to map neighborhood-level risks from floods and heat, helping local officials make faster, smarter decisions to prepare for severe weather events. Likewise, digital twins —virtual replicas of physical infrastructure—allow planners to model impacts and interventions before committing precious capital to projects. Consider the benefits for municipal leaders in coastal towns susceptible to hurricanes and tropical storms. Instead of sketching evacuation routes and emergency responses on a paper map, they can use a digital twin to simulate what would happen if a bridge collapsed or a road flooded during a crisis. They can see how traffic might respond and adjust their plans proactively or in real time. That's exactly the kind of thinking behind a partnership between the city of Austin and the University of Texas. They deployed digital twin technology to respond to fast-moving grass fires, especially on the city's east side where dry land and high asthma rates overlap. The system uses drones and weather data to map smoke in real time, then warns schools and senior centers downwind. It started with 2D maps, but when the data moved into a 3D model, it changed everything—people could actually see the risk and take action. It's not just about shiny software; it's about leveraging the strengths of each collaborator, building trust among key players, and using real data to protect people. In Jacksonville, the University of Florida is piloting a digital twin project with the intent of scaling it statewide to model everything from wastewater treatment flows to outdoor areas especially prone to flooding. It will give officials an evidence-backed view of the future. In Chattanooga, a coalition that includes the University of Tennessee, Audi, Qualcomm, and others are using digital twins and cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology to make roads safer. These are the kinds of cross-sector efforts that city halls everywhere should be replicating. Powerful tools To be sure, digital twins and artificial intelligence aren't silver bullets. But they are powerful tools. AI-driven systems can help cities analyze traffic flows, monitor water quality, and identify structural weaknesses in buildings—before disasters strike. With input from academics, assistance from entrepreneurs, and consortiums like the Local Infrastructure Hub—which has already helped 2,400-plus municipalities unlock national investment to design safer roadways, protect groundwater, mitigate floods, and more—local governments can implement these strategies today. That's the model: targeted resources, expert guidance, and innovative ideas delivered by an ecosystem that spans sectors and connects officials to fellow peers. Insurmountable losses But we need more. We need nonprofits to expand their support. We need businesses to invest not only in smart cities, but resilient ones. We need researchers to step off campus and onto America's main streets. And we need mayors to continue to lean into their frontline role as defenders against wildfires, windstorms, and other natural disasters—and reimagine the capabilities they need to lead on preparedness and mitigation. This isn't abstract. It's about whether a community is just one crisis away from insurmountable losses to the local economy, public and private property, and people's hopes for a dependably safe and sustainable way of life. A North Carolina state report on Hurricane Helene's impact in 2024 said: 'In addition to the devastating loss of life, the storm destroyed thousands of homes and damaged tens of thousands more. Millions of North Carolinians lost access to critical services like water and sewer, electricity, telecommunications, and healthcare facilities. Thousands of miles of roads and bridges were damaged. . . . The region's economy has suffered a severe blow, threatening livelihoods and the long-term viability of communities.' Let's stop waiting for Washington to fix what localities are ready to solve. Let's partner across sectors to keep our communities safe, secure, and prepared. Strong nations need strong cities. And strong cities don't wait—they build.
