Edward Andrew “Coach” Weinhaus

Edward Andrew “Coach” Weinhaus

Edward “Coach” Weinhaus
Other names	Coach Weinhaus
Disciplinary and criminal matters	Illinois ARDC disciplinary complaint; Maryland harassment charges and arrest warrant; separate stalking charges
Other court records	Highland Park High School football-game removal lawsuit; Seventh Circuit sanctions; Scannicchio litigation; Children of the Court / Judiciocracy v. ARDC; UCLA appointment litigation
Connected entities and outlets	Judiciocracy; ALABnews; Children of the Court; LegalSolved; FOIASolved; COGS; Control New MLSS; Prairie State Wire; BlockShopper; Journatic; LocalLabs

Edward Andrew Weinhaus, also known as Edward “Coach” Weinhaus, is the respondent in Illinois attorney-disciplinary charges that he knowingly made false statements, or statements with reckless disregard for truth or falsity, about Judges Thaddeus Wilson and Regina Scannicchio and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.^[1]

Weinhaus is also an admirer of Tommy Robinson, the British far-right extremist, anti-Black racist and anti-Muslim bigot who founded the English Defence League.^[19][34] At Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally, he suggested replacing the far-right label with “very right.”^[35] In a LinkedIn message, he praised fellow Robinson supporters as “the patriots” and chanted Robinson’s name.^[16]

Weinhaus was removed from a Highland Park High School football game after a female student accused him of being “creepy” and following her. The incident escalated to security and police intervention: the Head of Security and three Highland Park police officers confronted Weinhaus, and he was told to leave or face arrest for trespassing. His federal lawsuit over that removal was dismissed with prejudice.^[11] He has also been criminally charged in Maryland with electronic communication harassment and harassment/course of conduct.^[12] Judge Diego Vaca issued an arrest warrant for Weinhaus on June 10, 2026.^[14] Stalking charges were filed in a separate Maryland case.^[15]

The court record includes a Seventh Circuit sanctions order, a failed federal lawsuit against Judge Regina Scannicchio and the Illinois Judges Association, a denied Supreme Court petition, and a failed federal lawsuit by Children of the Court and Judiciocracy against Illinois attorney-disciplinary officials.^[4][6][7][8]

The same record connects Weinhaus to judge-focused and attorney-discipline websites and public-record publishing entities, including Judiciocracy, ALABnews, LegalSolved, Control New MLSS, and Children of the Court.^[1] His publishing history is connected to the Brian Timpone / Metric Media / LGIS Pink Slime ecosystem, including Prairie State Wire, BlockShopper, Journatic, and LocalLabs.^[2]

Weinhaus’ Admiration for White Supremacist Tommy Robinson

Weinhaus’ admiration for Robinson is explicit in his LinkedIn message. Praising those who continued to support Robinson despite criticism, he wrote: “Tommy is often lambasted for his views! And boy does that cause the meek to back away. But not the patriots!” He closed with the chant “PS OYYYY TOMMY TOMMY !”^[16]

In an interview with Andrew Eborn at the Unite the Kingdom rally in London on May 16, 2026, Weinhaus suggested reframing the far-right label: “Far right is probably better replaced with very right as opposed to very wrong.”^[35]

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is a British far-right extremist, anti-Black racist and anti-Muslim bigot who founded the English Defence League in 2009.^[19][34] He previously belonged to the British National Party, which restricted membership to white people. In a 2020 interview, he acknowledged joining the party in 2004 and said he had broken with it after Black friends were refused entry to a meeting.^[17][19]

Mortgage-fraud conviction

On 23 January 2014, Robinson was sentenced at St Albans Crown Court to eighteen months in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of mortgage fraud.^[37] Judge Andrew Bright QC described him as a “fixer” who introduced others to a fraudulent mortgage broker. The broker supplied false payslips and income details for mortgage applications.^[38]

Racism, anti-Black and anti-Muslim activism

In February 2019, The Independent reported footage of Robinson using an anti-South Asian racial slur to describe a taxi driver and singing about punching and kicking while calling himself the “king of the whole Islam race”. Robinson said the footage showed banter among friends of different ethnicities and that clips from separate occasions had been combined.^[18]

A May 2026 Byline Times investigation examined more than 140 posts from Robinson’s X account between January 2024 and May 2026. It documented his use of “native” for white people, “invader” for non-white populations, and repeated associations of Africans and Somalis with crime. Robinson has complained on social media about “the mindset of some black people.” The investigation described this pattern as coded white supremacist and anti-Black racism, while noting Robinson’s public denials that he was racist or anti-Muslim.^[19]

In August 2025, Robinson shared a video of Black grandfather Olajuwon Ayeni playing in a Redcar park with his white granddaughters. Cleveland’s Police and Crime Commissioner reported that the racist harassment intensified after Robinson shared the family footage with his 1.4 million followers. Ayeni and his wife said two men confronted them in the street and threatened to “slash you up.” The couple became afraid to leave their home, and Ayeni’s management company suspended business dealings. Robinson left the video online despite the family’s requests for its removal.^[20][21]

Defamation and intimidation

In July 2021, the High Court ordered Robinson to pay £100,000 in damages for libelling Jamal Hijazi, a Muslim schoolboy who had come to Britain as a Syrian refugee. On 25 October 2018, an older pupil grabbed the fifteen-year-old Hijazi by the throat, forced him to the ground and poured water over his face, threatening, “I’ll drown you.” His arm was in a cast. Another pupil filmed the assault.^[22] After footage of the assault circulated, Robinson falsely portrayed Hijazi as a violent aggressor. Mr Justice Nicklin found that Robinson’s language was “calculated to inflame the situation” and that the resulting abuse drove Hijazi from school and forced his family to leave their home.^[22] In October 2024, Robinson admitted ten breaches of the injunction against repeating the allegations, including publication of his film Silenced, and was sentenced to eighteen months in prison.^[23]

Robinson also used a private investigator to locate journalist Lizzie Dearden’s home and went there uninvited, shouting abuse and making false allegations about her partner. In October 2023, a court upheld a five-year stalking protection order imposed in 2021. Judge Gregory Perrins described the visit as “a calculated attempt to bully, intimidate and frighten” Dearden in retaliation for her reporting or to prevent its publication.^[24]

Weinhaus Claims He Could Do Three Years in Prison ‘in My Sleep’

In the June 4, 2026 ARDC correspondence, Weinhaus wrote: “Frankly, I think I could do three years in Maryland state prison in my sleep.”^[25] The claim contrasted with the documented outcome of imprisonment for Robinson, the figure he praised. Robinson’s ten admitted breaches of the injunction against repeating false allegations about Jamal Hijazi had resulted in an eighteen-month contempt sentence, less three days already spent in custody.^[23]

Robinson’s challenge to his prison conditions failed when the High Court refused permission for judicial review on March 21, 2025.^[32] His appeal against the contempt committal was dismissed on April 16. He then applied to reduce his sentence. In witness statements considered on May 20, he acknowledged that he should have appealed the injunction instead of breaching it, described steps taken to remove prohibited material, and promised future compliance. Mr Justice Johnson remitted the four-month coercive portion, while recording that Robinson had not expressed remorse and remained bound by the injunction.^[30]

Robinson left prison on May 27, 2025, after about seven months in custody.^[31] His release followed failed legal challenges and a commitment to obey the order he had defied. Ultimately, Weinhaus’ hero Robinson secured a shorter term by abandoning his defiance and prostrating himself before the court.^[25][30]

Illinois attorney-disciplinary complaint

In 2025, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filed disciplinary charges against Weinhaus in In re Edward Andrew Weinhaus, Matter No. 2025PR00026.^[1]

The complaint charges a single count titled “Knowingly Making False Statements with Reckless Disregard as to Their Truth or Falsity Concerning the Qualifications or Integrity of Judges Thaddeus Wilson and Regina Scannicchio.” It charges violations of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) and 8.4(c).^[1]

The ARDC complaint states that Weinhaus created and served as registered agent for Missouri entities including LegalSolved, Control New MLSS, and Judiciocracy. It states that Judiciocracy consisted of publications including ALABnews, that Weinhaus served as Judiciocracy’s Chief Executive Officer, and that he reviewed all ALABnews content before publication.^[1]

The complaint charges that Weinhaus caused Judge Thaddeus Wilson’s picture to be placed on a Children of the Court “Team” page with the title “Nationwide Enforcer” and language stating that Judge Wilson’s order created a national organization and made him responsible for enforcing Children of the Court funding. The complaint charges that those statements were false because Judge Wilson was not on the organization’s team, did not create Children of the Court, had no ongoing responsibility over its funding or operation, and had no authority to direct Judge Scannicchio’s assignments.^[1]

The complaint also charges that an ALABnews article falsely stated that Judge Wilson “immediately ordered an organization be started” to keep Judge Scannicchio away from cases involving children. The ARDC complaint charges that Judge Wilson did not start Children of the Court, did not direct it to act against Judge Scannicchio, was not involved in a “slam” against her, and had no authority over the assignment of cases to Judge Scannicchio in the Domestic Relations Division.^[1]

The complaint charges misconduct under Rule 8.2(a) for false or reckless statements concerning judges and under Rule 8.4(c) for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.^[1]

Highland Park High School football-game removal and dismissal

In 2025, Weinhaus, Children of the Court, and Judiciocracy sued Township High School District 113, the City of Highland Park, school officials, and police officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case arose from Weinhaus’ removal from a Highland Park High School Homecoming football game.^[11]

Weinhaus bought a $6 ticket to the October 2025 Homecoming game and attended individually and as a representative of Children of the Court and Judiciocracy. His children also attended, but Weinhaus did not sit with them when he arrived. During the second quarter, a female student accused Weinhaus of being “creepy” and reported him to Dean of Students Don McCord. McCord asked Weinhaus to leave; Weinhaus refused; McCord then told him not to sit in the stands, and Weinhaus complied. The student continued making complaints to security.^[11]

By the third quarter, much of the crowd had left, including Weinhaus’ children. The situation escalated to security and police intervention. McCord returned with Head of Security Lane Linder and three Highland Park police officers. McCord demanded that Weinhaus leave the game or be arrested for trespassing. McCord stated that Weinhaus’ children had left and that a female student was uncomfortable because Weinhaus was “following her.” Weinhaus said he was trying to say hello to his children. McCord escorted him out and told him he could return to future HPHS events.^[11]

The court dismissed the First Amendment claims. Children of the Court and Judiciocracy had not pleaded their own protected First Amendment activity. Weinhaus’ asserted injury was too minimal to deter a person of ordinary firmness because he was escorted out after his children had already left and was told he could return to future school events.^[11]

The court dismissed the due-process claims because members of the public do not have a constitutional right to access school property, and the temporary inability to sit with his children during part of the game was not severe enough to violate substantive due process. The court also dismissed the Monell and deliberate-indifference theories because there was no underlying constitutional violation. The amended complaint was the plaintiffs’ second attempt to respond to dismissal motions and still failed to state a claim, so the case was dismissed with prejudice.^[11]

The plaintiffs appealed on July 27, 2026. The appeal was docketed in the Seventh Circuit as No. 26-2556, with Weinhaus listed as Edward A. Weinhaus, “Coach.” The appellate docket records Adam Florek’s appearance for Weinhaus, Children of the Court and Judiciocracy.^[26]

Maryland stalking charges and arrest warrant

Maryland court records identify harassment charges against Weinhaus under Case No. D-06-CR-26-004636 and a later matter under Case No. D-06-CR-26-005694.^[12] The latter case was filed on June 10, 2026 and records alleged conduct on June 9.^[14]

The original Maryland docket listed two criminal charges: electronic communication harassment under Maryland Criminal Law § 3-805(b)(1), and harassment by course of conduct under Maryland Criminal Law § 3-803. The docket reflects that the District Court found probable cause for both criminal offenses. Weinhaus faces over three years imprisonment.^[12]

Judge Diego Vaca issued an arrest warrant for Edward Andrew Weinhaus on June 10, 2026, in State of Maryland v. Edward Andrew Weinhaus, Case No. D-06-CR-26-005694, in the District Court for Montgomery County at Silver Spring. ^[14]

Separate stalking charges were filed against Weinhaus in Maryland Case No. D-06-CR-26-003665.^[15]

Lawsuits against judges and judicial institutions

Weinhaus’ court record includes repeated attempts to move disputes involving family court, judicial discipline, state institutions, and school officials into federal civil-rights or constitutional litigation. The adverse rulings used jurisdiction, standing, abstention, immunity, Rule 12 pleading standards, and Rule 38 sanctions.

Domestic-relations appeal and Seventh Circuit sanctions

In 2019, Weinhaus challenged dismissal of a federal suit he filed against a former spouse, members of her family, and the State of Illinois. The suit attacked provisions of a state-court custody judgment requiring him to exercise parenting time outside Illinois.^[5]

The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal and decided the case without oral argument because the appeal was frivolous and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. The court held that the domestic-relations exception and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the suit. It rejected his claimed “end-runs” around the domestic-relations exception and held that his alleged injury came from the state-court custody judgment itself.^[5]

The Seventh Circuit granted the appellees’ sanctions motion. In a later order, the court stated that Weinhaus’ appeal satisfied the Rule 38 sanctions standard. It awarded no additional federal appellate fees because a state-court order had already required him to pay $23,500 in attorney’s fees and because Weinhaus represented that he would waive any appeal of that state fee award. The Seventh Circuit directed the clerk to forward the July and September 2019 orders to the State Bar of California.^[6]

Lawsuit against Judge Regina Scannicchio and the Illinois Judges Association

Weinhaus later sued Judge Regina Scannicchio and the Illinois Judges Association after Judge Scannicchio entered an order requiring him to pay $25,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to a former spouse based on his litigiousness during divorce proceedings.^[7]

The federal complaint invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted due-process and equal-protection violations. Weinhaus claimed that Judge Scannicchio conspired with judges in the Illinois Judges Association to cause dismissal of his state-court appeal. The district court dismissed the case under Rooker-Feldman and gave him a chance to amend. The amended complaint still failed.^[7]

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because it broadly asserted conspiracy and interference but did not support those claims with factual conduct within Weinhaus’ personal knowledge. The court held that conclusory labels were insufficient and that the complaint contained no factual allegations supporting a reasonable inference that the defendants caused the state appellate dismissal.^[7]

Weinhaus then filed a Supreme Court petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition was docketed as No. 25-725, identified the Seventh Circuit case number as 24-2473, and was denied on February 23, 2026.^[8]

Children of the Court and Judiciocracy v. ARDC

After the ARDC announced disciplinary charges against Weinhaus, Children of the Court and Judiciocracy sued the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, ARDC Administrator Lea S. Guitierrez, and ARDC Senior Legal Counsel Tammy Evans in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.^[4]

The case was assigned to Judge April M. Perry. The plaintiffs sought declarations and injunctions aimed at stopping the ARDC from pursuing officers and directors for speech attributed to the plaintiff entities. Judge Perry granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.^[4]

The court dismissed the case for lack of standing. It held that the legally protected interests at issue belonged to Weinhaus, not to Children of the Court or Judiciocracy. The court stated that the ARDC had not directly regulated the entities’ speech and had no power over non-lawyer entities. The asserted harm came from Weinhaus’ own decision to stop doing certain work for the entities, not from an ARDC directive to those entities.^[4]

The court also rejected redressability. It noted that the requested relief would not require Weinhaus to resume work for the entities and that the court had no authority to control who Weinhaus volunteered for or how he performed his duties. Judge Perry wrote: “Whatever else one could say about such a business model, it is not the fault of Defendants.”^[4]

The court further held that abstention would apply even if standing existed. Attorney discipline is traditionally reserved to the states, and the requested federal relief would interfere with Illinois’ attorney-disciplinary system. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ bad-faith theory, stating that the allegations were conclusory, unsupported by factual content, and “frankly implausible.”^[4]

The complaint was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. The court stated that, even if standing existed, abstention principles would apply, and allowed amendment only if counsel could correct the serious deficiencies identified in the opinion consistent with Rule 11 obligations.^[4]

Children of the Court and Judiciocracy appealed. The Seventh Circuit docketed the appeal on June 12, 2026 as No. 26-2265; Adam Florek entered an appearance for the two entities.^[27]

September 2026 suit against Quinn and Gutierrez

On September 18, 2026, Weinhaus, COGS, Children of the Court and Judiciocracy filed another federal action naming Cook County Judge Jill Rose Quinn and Lea S. Gutierrez as defendants. The case was docketed in the Northern District of Illinois as No. 1:26-cv-11455 and assigned to Judge Martha M. Pacold. The docket identifies it as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.^[28]

End of UCLA Anderson appointment and lawsuit

UCLA Anderson School of Management identified Weinhaus as a lecturer who joined UCLA Anderson in the summer of 2016. In litigation against the Regents of the University of California, Weinhaus stated that he worked as a UCLA lecturer from August 1, 2016 through December 31, 2022, and that UCLA Anderson’s decision not to appoint him as a Continuing Lecturer ended his UCLA employment.^[9][10]

The case arose from UCLA Anderson’s decision not to appoint him as a Continuing Lecturer. Weinhaus stated that UCLA conducted an excellence review in 2022 to determine whether he would receive a Continuing Lecturer appointment; that a three-person ad hoc committee recommended the appointment by a 3-0 vote; that a later faculty review committee voted against the appointment; and that Dean Tony Bernardo issued a final decision in February 2023 declining to appoint him.^[10]

In a June 20, 2025 ruling, Judge John F. Walter dismissed Weinhaus’ misrepresentation and fraudulent-inducement claims without leave to amend, holding that California Government Code § 818.8 immunizes public entities from liability for employee misrepresentations, whether negligent or intentional. The court rejected Weinhaus’ argument that the statutory immunity did not apply because the dispute did not involve a commercial transaction.^[10]

On May 12, 2026, Judge Walter dismissed the entire action. The order vacated all dates, including the trial date, allowed either party to reopen the action by July 13, 2026, and provided that dismissal would thereafter be with prejudice absent a further court order.^[36]

Fringe-site network

Judiciocracy and ALABnews

The ARDC complaint describes Judiciocracy as a media company consisting of publications including ALABnews. It charges that Weinhaus served as Judiciocracy’s CEO and reviewed all ALABnews content before publication.^[1]

The ARDC complaint places the Judiciocracy / ALABnews network at the center of the disciplinary case: one challenged item was a Children of the Court webpage placing Judge Wilson on the organization’s “Team” page; the other was an ALABnews article tying Judge Wilson to an asserted effort to keep Judge Scannicchio away from cases involving children. The ARDC charges both sets of statements as false or reckless and as conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.^[1]

Pink Slime ecosystem

In a Columbia Journalism Review article about public-record publishing networks, Weinhaus was named as a lawyer for Metric and a cofounder of BlockShopper and Journatic, later known as LocalLabs. Discussing public records, he stated: “If it’s public, it’s yours.”^[2]

The Brian Timpone Wikipedia page identifies Timpone as a former journalist and conservative news businessman operating a network of nearly 1,300 local-news websites. Its “News publishing” section describes Timpone-linked companies as posting press releases and lightly copied content as news articles and lists Local Government Information Services, Metric Media, Locality Labs, Journatic, LocalLabs, and BlockShopper among companies tied to that network.^[13]

Columbia Journalism Review reported that Journatic became the subject of journalism-ethics controversy after This American Life aired a segment concerning fake bylines, outsourced local-work, and aliases used in content connected to Journatic and BlockShopper.^[3]

Prairie State Wire is part of the same local-site ecosystem. Columbia Journalism Review described Prairie State Wire as a Metric paper, and the Brian Timpone Wikipedia page places Local Government Information Services, Metric Media, Locality Labs, Journatic, LocalLabs, and BlockShopper in Timpone’s publishing network.^[2][13]

Associated entities

Selected proceedings

References

1. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Complaint, In re Edward Andrew Weinhaus, Matter No. 2025PR00026.
2. Columbia Journalism Review, “How ‘Pink Slime’ Publishers Are Weaponizing FOIA.”
3. Columbia Journalism Review article concerning Journatic and fake-bylines controversy.
4. Children of the Court and Judiciocracy, LLC v. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, No. 1:25-cv-03387, Opinion and Order, Dkt. 57 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2025).
5. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, domestic-relations appeal, No. 18-3185, opinion PDF dated July 16, 2019.
6. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, domestic-relations appeal, No. 18-3185, sanctions-order PDF dated September 23, 2019.
7. Edward Weinhaus v. Regina Scannicchio, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 24-2473, opinion PDF dated June 18, 2025.
8. Supreme Court docket, Edward Weinhaus v. Regina A. Scannicchio, Judge, Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al., No. 25-725.
9. UCLA Anderson School of Management, faculty profile for Edward “Coach” Weinhaus.
10. Edward “Coach” Weinhaus v. Regents of the University of California, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-00262, order dated June 20, 2025.
11. Weinhaus v. Board of Education of Township High School District 113 et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:25-cv-14662, memorandum opinion and order dated June 25, 2026.
12. Maryland criminal docket, State of Maryland v. Edward Andrew Weinhaus, originally docketed as Case No. D-06-CR-26-004636; later proceeding under Case No. D-06-CR-26-005694.
13. Wikipedia, “Brian Timpone.”
14. Maryland Judiciary criminal-case record, State of Maryland v. Edward Andrew Weinhaus, Case No. D-06-CR-26-005694, recording the arrest warrant issued June 10, 2026.
15. State’s Attorney for Montgomery County, notice concerning a District Court charging document, Case No. D-06-CR-26-003665.
16. Edward Andrew Weinhaus, LinkedIn message praising Tommy Robinson.
17. Huw Spanner, High Profiles, interview with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson), conducted 11 September 2020.
18. Lizzie Dearden, The Independent, report on footage of Robinson using a racial slur and threatening language about Muslims, 13 February 2019.
19. Nafeez Ahmed, Byline Times, “How Tommy Robinson Disguises White Supremacism In the Coded Language of Anti-Islam Politics,” 15 May 2026.
20. Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner, “Family living in fear after innocent park video is hijacked by far-right trolls.”
21. The Guardian, “Family in fear after Tommy Robinson shares video of black man with white granddaughters,” 20 August 2025.
22. High Court of Justice, Hijazi v. Yaxley-Lennon, [2021] EWHC 2008 (QB), judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin, 22 July 2021.
23. High Court of Justice, HM Solicitor General v. Yaxley-Lennon, [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), judgment of Mr Justice Johnson, 28 October 2024.
24. Tristan Kirk, The Standard, “Tommy Robinson dubbed a ‘bully’ in failed bid to overturn stalking order,” 18 October 2023.
25. Edward Andrew Weinhaus, June 4, 2026 ARDC correspondence: Maryland state-prison statement (screenshot; primary source).
26. Edward Weinhaus et al. v. Board of Education of Township High School District 113 et al., Seventh Circuit No. 26-2556, appeal filed July 27, 2026 (public docket reproduced by Justia).
27. Children of the Court et al. v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission et al., Seventh Circuit No. 26-2265, appeal filed June 12, 2026 (public docket reproduced by Justia).
28. Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy et al. v. Quinn et al., N.D. Illinois No. 1:26-cv-11455, complaint filed September 18, 2026 (public docket reproduced by Justia).
29. Brands v. Shelby County, Illinois, and Shelby County Dive Team, Shelby County Circuit Court No. 2024CH6, complaint filed December 23, 2024, pp. 1–12 (redacted primary court filing).
30. HM Solicitor General v. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, [2025] EWHC 1237 (KB), May 20, 2025, paras. 3, 5–7 and 13–15 (sentence-remittal judgment).
31. Margaret Davis and Bill Bowkett, “Bearded Tommy Robinson released from prison after contempt of court sentence reduced,” The Standard, May 27, 2025.
32. Yaxley-Lennon v. Secretary of State for Justice, [2025] EWHC 695 (Admin), March 21, 2025, paras. 1 and 59 (judgment refusing permission for judicial review of prison conditions).
33. Kirk Allen and John Kraft, “Shelby County State’s Attorney Has Outside Law Firm Handling FOIA Case; They Missed A Few Things,” Illinois Leaks, February 22, 2025.
34. Counter Extremism Project, “Tommy Robinson.”
35. Andrew Eborn, interview with Edward “Coach” Weinhaus at the Unite the Kingdom rally, London, May 16, 2026. Octopus TV – The Andrew Eborn Show, published May 21, 2026.
36. Edward “Coach” Weinhaus v. Regents of the University of California, No. 2:25-cv-00262, Order of Dismissal, Dkt. 78 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2026).
37. Sky News, “Tommy Robinson: EDL Founder Jailed For Fraud,” 23 January 2014.
38. Ryan Fowler, “EDL leader jailed for mortgage fraud,” Mortgage Introducer, 24 January 2014.