COLORADO FUNERAL HOME OWNER WHO STASHED NEARLY 190 DECAYING BODIES SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON

New York Post

 

Colorado funeral home owner who stashed nearly 190 decaying bodies sentenced to 20 years in prison

By Associated Press

Published June 28, 2025, 12:55 a.m. ET

 

A Colorado funeral home owner who stashed nearly 190 dead bodies in a decrepit building and sent grieving families fake ashes received the maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison on Friday, for cheating customers and defrauding the federal government out of nearly $900,000 in COVID-19 aid.

 

Jon Hallford, owner of Return to Nature Funeral Home, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in federal court last year.

 

Separately, Hallford pleaded guilty to 191 counts of corpse abuse in state court and will be sentenced in August.

 

At Friday’s hearing, federal prosecutors sought a 15-year sentence and Hallford’s attorney asked for 10 years.

 

Judge Nina Wang said that although the case focused on a single fraud charge, the circumstances and scale of Hallford’s crime and the emotional damage to families warranted the longer sentence.

 

“This is not an ordinary fraud case,” she said.

 

In court before the sentencing, Hallford told the judge that he opened Return to Nature to make a positive impact in people’s lives, “then everything got completely out of control, especially me.”

 

“I am so deeply sorry for my actions,” he said. “I still hate myself for what I’ve done.”

 

Hallford and his wife, Carie Hallford, were accused of storing the bodies between 2019 and 2023 and sending families fake ashes.

 

Investigators described finding the bodies in 2023 stacked atop each other throughout a squat, bug-infested building in Penrose, a small town about a two-hour drive south of Denver.

 

The morbid discovery revealed to many families that their loved ones weren’t cremated and that the ashes they had spread or cherished were fake.

 

In two cases, the wrong body was buried, according to court documents.

 

Many families said it undid their grieving processes.

 

Some relatives had nightmares, others have struggled with guilt, and at least one wondered about their loved one’s soul.

 

Among the victims who spoke during Friday’s sentencing was a boy named Colton Sperry.

 

With his head poking just above the lectern, he told the judge about his grandmother, who Sperry said was a second mother to him and died in 2019.

 

Her body languished inside the Return to Nature building for four years until the discovery, which plunged Sperry into depression.

 

He said he told his parents at the time, “If I die too, I could meet my grandma in heaven and talk to her again.”

 

His parents brought him to the hospital for a mental health check, which led to therapy and an emotional support dog.

 

“I miss my grandma so much,” he told the judge through tears.

 

Federal prosecutors accused both Hallfords of pandemic aid fraud, siphoning the money and spending it and customer’s payments on a GMC Yukon and Infiniti worth over $120,000 combined, along with $31,000 in cryptocurrency, luxury items from stores like Gucci and Tiffany & Co., and even laser body sculpting.

 

Derrick Johnson told the judge that he traveled 3,000 miles to testify over how his mother was “thrown into a festering sea of death.”

 

“I lie awake wondering, was she naked? Was she stacked on top of others like lumber?” said Johnson.

 

“While the bodies rotted in secret, (the Hallfords) lived, they laughed and they dined,” he added. “My mom’s cremation money likely helped pay for a cocktail, a day at the spa, a first class flight.”

 

Jon Hallford’s attorney, Laura H. Suelau, asked for a lower sentence of 10 years in the hearing Friday, saying that Hallford “knows he was wrong, he admitted he was wrong” and hasn’t offered an excuse. His sentencing in the state case is scheduled in August.

 

Asking for a 15-year sentence for Hallford, Assistant US Attorney Tim Neff described the scene inside the building.

 

Investigators couldn’t move into some rooms because the bodies were piled so high and in various states of decay.

 

FBI agents had to put boards down so they could walk above the fluid, which was later pumped out.

 

Carie Hallford is scheduled to go to trial in the federal case in September, the same month as her next hearing in the state case in which she’s also charged with 191 counts of corpse abuse.

MICROSOFT SAYS GOODBYE TO THE WINDOWS BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH

NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

 

Microsoft says goodbye to the Windows blue screen of death

By Samantha Subin, CNBC • Published June 26, 2025 • Updated on June 26, 2025 at 11:09 pm

 

It's a bittersweet day for Windows users.

 

Microsoft is scrapping its iconic "blue screen of death," known for appearing during unexpected restarts on Windows computers. The company revealed a new black iteration in a blog post on Thursday, saying that it is "streamlining the unexpected restart experience."

 

The new black unexpected restart screen is slated to launch this summer on Windows 11 24H2 devices, the company said. Microsoft touted the updates as an "easier" and "faster" way to recover from restarts.

 

The software giant's blue screen of death dates back to the early 1990s, according to longtime Microsoft developer Raymond Chen.

 

Microsoft also said it plans to update the user interface to match the Windows 11 design and cut downtime during restarts to two seconds for the majority of users.

 

"This change is part of a larger continued effort to reduce disruption in the event of an unexpected restart," Microsoft wrote.

 

The iconic blue screen was seemingly everywhere in July 2024 after a faulty update from CrowdStrike crashed computer systems around the world.

TODDLER GETS STD BY MAN ALSO ACCUSED OF ABUSING 13 YEAR OLD

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

 

Toddler gets STD by man also accused of abusing 13-year-old, Texas officials say

By Mike Stunson

June 26, 2025 7:46 AM

 

A man accused of giving a sexually transmitted disease to a 3-year-old girl will now spend decades in prison, Texas officials said.

 

The Amarillo Police Department began investigating the case in January 2020 when the 3-year-old foster child showed symptoms of having an STD, according to a June 24 news release from the 47th District Attorney’s Office.

 

Authorities said Enrique Elizalde, now 27, was identified as the suspect, as the toddler previously lived with him.

 

In an interview with a detective, Elizalde said he had sexually touched the child when she lived with him, officials said.

 

A second victim, a 13-year-old relative of Elizalde, later said she had also been sexually abused by Elizalde, the district attorney’s office said.

 

Elizalde was recently found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, according to the news release. He was ordered to serve 25 years in prison without parole.

 

“Verdicts like this are a reminder of how seriously our community takes the obligation to protect our youngest and most vulnerable children,” District Attorney Jason Herring said in a statement. “Our office is proud to have prosecuted this case and grateful for the jury’s verdict.”

 

Amarillo is in the Texas panhandle and is about a 260-mile drive west from Oklahoma City.

PASTOR'S CRUCIFIXION MURDER SUSPECT SAYS HE PLANNED TO KILL 14 MORE

Fox News

 

Pastor's crucifixion murder suspect says on video he planned to kill 14 more

By Peter D'Abrosca , Stepheny Price Fox News

Published June 26, 2025 4:05pm EDT

 

The man accused of brutally crucifying a rural Arizona pastor has not only admitted to the alleged crime, but said that he planned to kill more than a dozen other Christian leaders.

 

Adam Sheafe, 51, told FOX 10 in an interview that he murdered Pastor Bill Schonemann, 76, head of the New River Bible Chapel in New River, Arizona.

 

On April 28, Schonemann was found dead in his bed with his arms spread wide and pinned to the wall behind him. The bizarre display left the community reeling.

 

Sheafe's plan was to crucify 14 more Christian leaders of no particular denomination, he told FOX 10, ascribing his motive to a belief that Christian churches were leading their congregants astray by teaching them to follow Jesus, whom he says is a false God.

 

He titled his mission "Operation First Commandment."

 

Sheafe was captured by police near the Chapel of the Holy Cross in Sedona, Arizona, where he planned to kill two priests, he said.

 

"The day I was going to execute that priest, I tried getting into the back of his car. There was like a little lady on a bike that got in my way, and I was just going to get in the back seat and tell him to drive to his house," Sheafe said.

 

He later defiantly refused to apologize for the alleged killing.

 

In an interview with 12News, Sheafe explained further how he planned Schonemann's killing.

 

"I saw that he had a Wednesday evening Bible study, so I sat there and waited for them to arrive, so that I could locate which one was the priest, and then I just followed him," Sheafe said. "And then I returned on Sunday to execute and crucify him to this wall." 

 

He also said he wanted to be executed.

 

"Put me on death row, set the execution date for right now," Sheafe said. "The victims want it. The victim's families want it. I want it, and the taxpayers want it."

 

Sheafe has been charged with first-degree murder in Maricopa County, but remains in the custody of the Coconino County Jail.

 

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office told Fox News Digital that the case is under review, and that generally, any first-degree murder convict is subject to the death penalty.

 

It is unclear whether he has an attorney, but Fox News Digital reached out to the public defender's office.

SOTOMAYOR SAYS PUBLIC EDUCATION IS DOOMED WITHOUT MANDITORY HOMOSEXUAL AND TRANS STORY HOUR

The Hill

 

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

 

Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour

by Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor - 06/28/25 10:30 AM ET

 

The end is nigh.

 

That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material.

 

The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old.

 

The children are required to read or listen to stories like “Prince & Knight” about two male knights who marry each other, and “Love Violet” about two young girls falling in love. Another, “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy.

 

Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, “That comment is hurtful!”

 

Even if a student merely asks, “What’s transgender?,” teachers are expected to say, “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.”

 

Teachers were specifically told to “disrupt” thinking or values opposing transgender views.

 

Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw.

 

The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values.

 

The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared “another victory for right-wing culture warriors,” even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents.

 

However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices.

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there “will be chaos for this nation’s public schools” and both education and children will “suffer” if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the “chilling effect” of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas.

 

The majority pushed back against “the deliberately blinkered view” of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that “the damage to America’s public education system will be profound” and “threatens the very essence of public education.”

 

The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S.

 

Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools.

 

Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: “If parents want to ‘have a say’ in their child’s education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.”

 

Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: “The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.”

 

These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children.

 

Today, many are indeed following Jackson’s advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism.

 

Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve “equity” and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

 

This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities.

 

It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children.

 

What the majority calls “the deliberately blinkered view” of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures.

 

The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over “the essence of public education.” However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation.

 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

MAN CONFRONTS WOMAN WITH DOG IN NO PETS COFFEE SHOP

New York Post

 

Man confronts woman with dog inside ‘no pets’ coffee shop — sparking heated debate

By Peter Burke , Fox News

Published June 27, 2025, 12:24 p.m. ET

 

Originally Published by: Fox News

 

A coffee-shop patron who confronted another customer about having a dog inside the store said he was accused of acting improperly for questioning the woman about it.

 

A Reddit user wrote about his recent coffee-shop experience on a popular subreddit page.

 

“As soon as I open the door I’m hit with a dog looking at me at hip level sitting on a chair in this small shop,” wrote the man, who said he was 33 years old. “The dog is indoors and the door had a clear ‘no pets’ sign. I watched for a second. This clearly wasn’t a service animal, as she was letting it interact with several other guests.”

 

That’s when the man said he decided to approach the woman about it.

 

“I asked her why she ignored the ‘no pets’ sign? She ignores me,” the man wrote.

 

“I asked her, ‘Did you miss the no pets sign?’ She immediately says, ‘I think you should stop harassing me’ … This lady played the victim and called me an a–hole.”

 

The man said that another customer “stepped up for her” and then confronted him — asking him why it’s an issue and telling him, “Don’t be an a–hole and drop it.”

 

“I wave the guy off, tell him I care, and I don’t like dogs,” he said. “I say, ‘It’s not hard to not bring your dog to a coffee shop that doesn’t allow dogs.'”

 

The man writing on Reddit said he then complained to an employee at the stop, “who didn’t seem interested in enforcing anything.”

 

Many commenters agreed with the man but felt he handled the situation poorly.

 

“I love dogs. I love cafés. I hate people who bring their dogs to cafés.”

 

“The way you asked her why repeatedly was weird – she’s not going to have an answer or respond well to that – but you weren’t wrong for calling her out for having a dog in a restaurant that clearly doesn’t allow them,” one person wrote.

 

“I’d personally have asked for the manager and pushed them to do something. I say this as a huge animal person: It’s outrageous how many pet owners feel entitled to ignore rules because they think their pet is ‘special.’ I love dogs, but I don’t want to find dog hair in my tea.”

 

Another person commented, “Annoying that the business would have ‘no pets’ policies posted and not enforce them, though.”

 

Someone else wrote, “I love dogs. I love cafés. I hate people who bring their dogs to cafés.”

 

Yet another person remarked that dogs “don’t belong in coffee shops sitting on chairs meant for people, especially in shops that also serve food, as many coffee shops do.”

 

“You could have quietly brought it up to someone at the register or find the manager.”

 

Etiquette expert Diane Gottsman, founder and owner of the Protocol School of Texas in San Antonio, suggested that this sort of issue is best left for management to handle.

 

“Unless the dog is vicious and you have to immediately move a child or yourself out of the way, remarking that you are in potential danger, allow the owner or manager of the establishment to handle the situation,” Gottsman told Fox News Digital.

 

Other Redditors agreed that it wasn’t necessary for the man to get involved.

 

“See, it’s not your ‘civil duty’ to protect a company or spout the rules,” one commenter wrote. “You could have quietly brought it up to someone at the register or find the manager.”

 

“What possible positive outcome could transpire by confronting the person?”

 

The commenter also said, “The lady also sucks because clearly she thinks the rules aren’t meant for her.”