Jump to content

Foosters

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    7014
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Foosters

  1. 13 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

    The D8 vapes that I have all feel really bad when compared to putting flower in a Pax. I use gummies 95% of the time now, but the unregulated vapes felt pretty scammy honestly. 

    well the unregulated ones which garbage put into them is a different issue, but even with those that are well-tested and regulated, I'm still concerned about inhaling a heated oil

  2. 1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

    But vape liquids mostly produce water vapor, with nicotine or THC and flavoring.

    Is that right? Because the THC stuff is a pretty thick oil, and I'm just imagining my lungs looking kinda like my oven range hood after a couple of months of cooking...

  3. Actual non-gotcha question for @Sawbonz

    As someone who occasionally vapes THC, my understanding was that it is believed to be safer than leaf combustion (cigarette or joint) but that most of the health concerns come from the unknowns that are present due to lack of studies? Is that fair?

    I prefer edibles and have a dry-herb vape that I'm far more comfortable using than the oil, although it is not near as convenient.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. Quote

    SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles amounted to costly political theater, saddling taxpayers with a nearly $120-million bill.

    Newsom’s office said the newly revealed price tag was tallied from estimates provided by the California National Guard about costs incurred since June, when Trump sent more than 4,200 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. That included $71 million for food and other basic necessities, $37 million in payroll, $4 million in logistic supplies, $3.5 million in travel and $1.5 million in demobilization costs, Newsom’s office said.

    Most of the soldiers were sent home in August, although 300 remain in Los Angeles.

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-04/120-million-price-tag-guard-deployment

  5. 44 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

    Ho hum ... another day, another distraction from the Epstein files.  Our President is a deranged lunatic.

    image.thumb.jpeg.6ac8358666249f86d6610410015b1d0d.jpeg

    @Thetexashammer out there crying about the free speech rights of literal Nazis in Germany, and silent on this stuff.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 6
  6. For those conservatives who still believe that the law should be upheld (lol)

    Quote

    Indeed, Task Force 51 troops’ conduct clearly qualifies as Posse Comitatus Act violations under the tests that courts use to apply the Act. Defendants’ presence to bolster  DHS and DEA operations and shows of force exercises regulatory, proscriptive, and compulsory power on the surrounding public, and their participation in operations in numbers that match or outnumber law enforcement agents pervade the activities of those civilian agents

    This was intentional—Defendants instigated a months-long deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles for the purpose of establishing a military presence there and enforcing federal law. Such conduct is a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, these violations were part of a top-down, systemic effort by Defendants to use military troops to execute various sectors of federal law (the drug laws and the immigration laws at least) across hundreds of miles and over the course of several months—and counting. The instructions to train Task Force 51 on the purported constitutional exception and thereby excuse unlawful military conduct came “all the way from the top” of the Department of Defense. And as Major General Sherman testified at trial, federal law enforcement agencies “always wanted military there, and we had plenty of capacity to do that.” 

    Accordingly, Secretary Hegseth himself ordered troops to MacArthur Park as a “show of presence” and to “demonstrat[e] federal reach and presence.” Troops drove over a hundred miles to Mecca, where they significantly outnumbered federal law enforcement agents, to support a drug enforcement operation. Troops also drove nearly a hundred miles in a different direction to Carpinteria to set up traffic control points so that federal law enforcement agents could more efficiently execute their search warrant of a cannabis farm. That sets this case apart from others where courts have so far addressed the Posse Comitatus Act. Those cases involve military actions that are both passive and isolated in nature. See, e.g., Yunis, 924 F.2d at 1094 (Navy “housing, transporting, and caring for [a criminal defendant] while he was in the custody of the FBI” not a Posse Comitatus Act violation); Kahn, 35 F.3d at 432 (Navy provision of ships and backup support during a single search of a ship transporting illegal drugs not a Posse Comitatus Act violation); Hartley, 796 F.2d at 115 (Air Force communication of information regarding an unidentified aircraft entering the country not a Posse Comitatus Act violation); Bacon, 851 F.2d at 1313 (participation by a single army officer in a drug investigation not “aggravated or repeated,” and thus not a Posse Comitatus Act violation).

    Where military conduct is more coordinated and systemic, by contrast, courts have found Posse Comitatus Act violations. E.g., Dreyer, 804 F.3d at 1275–76 (NCIS investigation was “systemic” and thus violated Posse Comitatus Act); see also Bissonette, 776 F.2d at 1385 (ten-week-long occupation at Wounded Knee violated the Posse Comitatus Act). Yet another departure from those prior cases is Defendants’ complete sidelining of state and local authorities here. Even though multiple federal agencies and Task Force 51 rehearsed Operation Excalibur several times, they provided LAPD and LASD with a mere two hours’ notice of the operation. Likewise, federal agencies notified local law enforcement of cannabis farm raids only at the time of the raids, not beforehand. This is not typical. In those Posse Comitatus Act cases where state and local law enforcement had jurisdiction (i.e., not cases like Kahn, which involved events in international waters), federal troops generally worked alongside state and local officials. See, e.g., Bacon, 851 F.2d at 1313 (Army investigator worked jointly with local sheriff’s office); Hartley, 796 F.2d at 113 (Customs and other non-military officials performed search based on not fall under such an exception.

    Troops do not serve a protective function when they act as a force multiplier at a “show of presence” (as in MacArthur Park), when they outnumber federal personnel by 100 at a remote location with a low risk of resistance (as in Mecca), or when they are deployed merely to speed up federal operations (as in Carpinteria).  Defendants’ lack of cooperation with their state and local counterparts raises red flags. It also highlights the lack of any showing by Defendants that state and local officials were unable or unwilling to execute the laws before Defendants deployed troops to engage in typical law enforcement functions.

    Moreover, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act willfully. Defendants knowingly contradicted their own training materials, which listed twelve functions that the Posse Comitatus Act bars the military from performing. They did so while refusing to meaningfully coordinate with state and local officials. And they “coach[ed]” federal law enforcement agencies as to what language to use when submitting requests for assistance in an attempt to circumvent the Act. These actions demonstrate that Defendants knew that they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority. Whether they believed that some constitutional or other exception applied does not matter; “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 195 (1998).25 Defendants’ systemic use of Task Force 51 troops to execute domestic law in and around Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450934/gov.uscourts.cand.450934.176.0_1.pdf

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...