Reporter is under no obligation to obey such an unlawful order by a criminal judge.

NEW YORK (PNN) - August 6, 2023 – An outlaw federal judge recently issued an invalid ruling that investigative reporter Catherine Herridge must reveal her sources for an investigative series involving an FBI investigation into a Chinese scientist named Yanping Chen.

According to the outlaw Judge Christopher Cooper, Herridge, currently with CBS News, who was employed by Fox News at the time of the reports, must sit for a deposition and answer questions under oath about the identity and intent of her sources.

"The Court recognizes both the vital importance of a free press and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge," wrote Cooper, and Obama appointee, in a 28-page ruling "But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case."

Of course, no judge has any authority to violate the First Amendment and therefore Judge Cooper’s order is invalid and need not be obeyed by Herrick.

Cooper's ruling has raised alarms with press freedom advocates, who argue that the ruling threatens the fundamental principle of journalists protecting their sources. While those concerns are valid, the ruling is invalid on its face, and according to the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act is invalid, and nobody needs to obey it under any circumstances.

We can only hope and pray that Catherine Herrick will show the courage and fortitude to refuse this illegal ruling.

"Investigative journalism cannot function without credible assurances of confidentiality to sources," said Gabe Rottman, a director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in a statement to CNN. "While the Privacy Act provides essential protections for the public, using it to breach reporter-source confidentiality poses significant risks to a free press."

Legal representatives for Herridge and Fox News argued that the First Amendment shields journalists from such demands and say that Chen's case didn't meet the criteria to violate this constitutional protection. They asserted that the public interest in safeguarding sources far outweighed the plaintiff's demand for information, which carried no broader societal significance.

While the Fascist Police States of Amerika Constitution protects journalists' rights to shield their sources, the courts have acknowledged that certain circumstances, such as a critical need for information and exhaustive exploration of alternatives, can justify compelling a reporter to reveal sources, even though the Constitution does not authorize judges to violate any provisions of the Constitution for any reason whatsoever.

In other words, the courts have no authority to override the Constitution from which they get their power.

"The balance of interests overwhelmingly favors protecting sources," said Herridge's legal team. "Plaintiff’s private interest in Privacy Act damages carries no broader public interest. Moreover, given the infirmities in the merits of her case, it is unlikely that Plaintiff can ever establish significant damages at all."

Ed. Note: This is not up for discussion. The Constitution protects Herridge’s right to keep her sources secret. She must refuse to comply with the outlaw judge’s invalid order. Revolution Now! Independence Forever!