-
Posts
38647 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by TwiceHorn
-
Yes! And another name involving "coach" I believe.
-
I guess this means we have to stop bitching and retrogrouching about social medial and GET ON BOARD. Goddammit.
-
There was a crazy Trumpy guy in Ohio, I believe, whose wife left him for someone she met in rehab.
-
Under the EO, that interpretation is prospective only, as of a certain date. However, if SCOTUS buys their argument, there won't be an "effective date." And Barron won't be a citizen. And neither will be Donny Jr., Ricky and Vanky.
-
According to the arrest warrant, apparently the judge did talk to them in the hallway, rather than the courtroom. So, I recollected that wrong. Nonetheless, the point stands that judges, and probably mostly the Chief Judge, are entitled to set rules or protocols for things like arrests occurring on courtroom floors, while the presiding judge of a courtroom is pretty much entitled to exclude offices or forbid arrests in a courtroom. She could simply say, "I don't want arrests occurring in my courtroom, and probably not even on my floor, but that's ultimately the Chief Judge's call, not mine, so that's why I sent them to the Chief Judge." And the "cops" would probably admit that they are often deferential to courthouse staff, courtroom personnel, and judges on such matters. But, it's not directly relevant to the offense, except maybe as proof of an overall intention to interfere with the arrest. Possibly the most telling part of the prosecution is that this is a misdemeanor offense. And there's probably some DOJ guidelines on prosecuting judges and a judge might well have official immunity for courtroom decisions and actions, just like they have absolute immunity for deliberative judicial actions.
-
They were talking to the trial judge, who referred them to the Chief Judge. If they wanted to just loiter in public spaces outside the courtroom, they could have without ever approaching the judge. Regardless, different jurisdictions attempt to be respectful of each other and their rules for things like serving process, and the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is entitled to establish such rules. Regardless of how that went down, that is absolutely not harboring or concealing a fugitive. It could be delaying or interfering with officers, but that isn't addressed by the statute. Directing him through a nonpublic exit to public areas might be.
-
The part about the chief judge is no big deal. There are legitimate issues about whether a court should permit another jurisdiction or private party to serve process or warrants IN A COURTROOM. The judge controls the courtroom and pretty much everything that goes on there, subject to any local rules or practices that emanate from the Chief Judge. Plus, that is not concealing or harboring the witness. It may be interfering with the officers, but that's not what the statute addresses. It boils down to the private exit.
-
Seems like the key question is going to be whether shuffling a defendant to a private courtroom exit, that still exists to public hallways and elevators, is "harboring or concealing." There's possibly a question whether an immigration warrant satisfies the language of the statute, which itself seems pretty broad: The government must establish that a Federal warrant was issued for the arrest of the fugitive. In United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840, 848 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 (1985), the Fourth Circuit stated that the government should prove this element by introducing the warrant itself into evidence. The warrant must, of course, be issued "under the provisions of any law of the United States." It has been held that an arrest warrant issued by a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court is one issued under a "law of the United States" within the terms of Section 1071. See United States v. Boettcher, 588 F.2d 89 (4th Cir. 1978). Incidentally, it's a misdemeanor unless it's a felony criminal warrant.
-
It also has almost nothing to do with immigration warrants or judicial criminal arrest warrants. Yes, immigration warrants have very little force. But what the judge did, although commendable in some senses, comes pretty close to running afoul of the criminal law, objectively, before you ever consider the Trump administration's policies. This guy would have been deported to Mexico post-haste by the Obama administration, which still holds the record, and probably would have been detained using a similar warrant.
-
How do grocery contracts work? What's their term? Also, more broadly, how are tariff increases typically handled in commercial contracts? My guess would be the buyer is responsible for all applicable taxes applied by the destination country.
-
This alone probably cemented hundreds of thousands, if not millions of goombah votes from Staten Island, North Jersey, and similar places.
-
This Martin guy might be the biggest dumb asshole in the Trump universe. Definitely giving Navarro a run for the money.
-
When Gasparino appeared to shove him? Or was that at another point in the game?
-
So, I missed the GaspoGash altercation and just saw the replay. Was Gash standing in the baseline?
-
Dammit, I have had espn site open for half an hour and it still says waiting to start.
-
Yeah, they're aggro and bitey.
-
Well, here's the thing. A warrant that doesn't permit entry into private property really isn't much of a warrant. It's sort of a list of people that you can apprehend, in public, for alleged immigration "offenses." So it's not conferring any great power on anyone. If there were no warrants of this type, immigration officials would seem only to be able to arrest those they witnessed committing immigration violations. They're kind of obnoxious, but we really couldn't have much immigration control without them.
-
The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread
TwiceHorn replied to Horn Dog's topic in Cloak Room
Yeah vaporware is essential to absurd valuation of tech stocks. -
And, I guess if you go back historically, it explains why Kings College (Columbia) capitulated.
-
It is. But so many seem so cowed by the administration. The good news is that even though the P2025 crowd is in full effect in their malevolent agenda, the competence in execution may actually be worse than Trump I.
-
Papers, please. Surly thread of deportation cruelty dominance
TwiceHorn replied to Captainant's topic in Daily Texan
And, find me a lily-white person, who hasn't come to the defense of non-white people, that's being deported, and maybe I'll consider whether it's about non-whites. -
Like I said above, 1505 is the same obstruction statute Trump was charged with for 1/6. Recall that that was appealed to SCOTUS, who curtailed its reach primarily to obstruction relating to destruction or alteration of evidentiary documents: “that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding.” Remember how Smith began to focus on the false elector scheme and its document aspects? So, pretty non-viable against Dugan I think. 1071 may be a stickier wicket. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1831-harboring-18-usc-1071-third-element-concealing I had originally thought that they charged her with the Immigration Act obstruction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324 But as the lawfare article notes, state officials are virtually immune from that provision. *NB this is a discussion of the merits of the government's case. It does not imply approval or legitimacy of the government's prosecutorial decision (henceforth, ,this shall be known as the Captainant/Huckleberry/Wildcat09 disclaimer). ETA: Wisconsin does have a malicious prosecution tort, here is a jury instruction on it. https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/civil/2600.pdf Unfortunately, it requires that the indictment lack probable cause, which may be tough to prove here.
-
So, this was kind of interesting. Reportage on the most recent hearing in the Perkins Coie case. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-reporter-s-notes-of-the-april-23-perkins-coie-hearing Recall that the government was enjoined from enforcing the EO against Perkins. Usually the next step would be to formalize that TRO into a preliminary injunction pending trial. In this case, Perkins moved for summary judgment and the government moved to dismiss the complaint. I haven't read the document, but it appears the motion to dismiss was based entirely on some notion that the court was without power to adjudicate this executive action. The government's attorney was one Richard Lawson, a former Florida DAG (dya like dags?) and Bondi cuck, now a US DAG. It's a name I think you'll be hearing a lot of in court cases. He didn't seem to be much of an asshole (compared to Drew Ensign), but was curiously uninformed about the administration's motivations and actual execution of the EO against Perkins. The problem for him is that is exactly the kind of evidence one needs to avoid summary judgment. So, that Judge Howell was going to rule against the government seemed a foregone conclusion. A central question to Howell seemed to be that if she ruled that the EO was invalid, was an injunction even necessary against its enforcement. So, a couple of the key takes: the government didn't try very hard to defend the indefensible. It seems that a lot of their defense is a very Trumpian, "I have the power to do this and you can't stop me" without much analysis or citation of precedent. In other words, some pretty low-quality advocacy. The other thing Lawson tried to argue is that "this isn't as bad as it looks," that is, interpretations of starkly worded portions of the order represent a more "traditional" exercise of executive power. Stuff like "security clearances are always subject to review and revocation," so the security clearance part is just business as usual. And the exclusion from government buildings and services really means exclusion from SCIFs, not courthouses and government transaction websites like EDGAR, or uspto.gov. But without evidence of any of that, the order pretty much speaks for itself and its intemperate tone dooms it to invalidity. One fun note, Howell dinged Lawson repeatedly on how the settlements with other firms basically address none of the alleged national security concerns of the order, instead settling just for free legal services for Trump causes. So, like a lot of shit Trump, the bully quietly backs down once his bullshit is called. Also, I saw a paywalled article that a lot of corporate IP departments are expressing dismay at the capitulating firms, ie not gonna hire em anymore.
-
So, yeah, about international trade. There are some things that we just cannot produce on our own: coffee, vanilla, enough rare earth metals, etc. I can think of very little, except maybe a few defense products, where we are the world's sole supplier, or nearly so. If we a) want to be able to buy foreign products on reasonable terms and b) have good markets for our own goods, we should probably not try to be economic isolationists and be assholes about it. This is all just so damn stupid.
- 2583 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
I had hoped that the criminal justice system would convict Trump, like everyone. And believe that it would have had it come to its natural conclusion. In retrospect, none of us, law dogs especially, should have had any belief that it would come to its natural conclusion, meaning appeals concluded and convictions finally affirmed, in four years, or even five. Or probably even six. Of course, that shouldn't have even been an issue except for about 80 million stupid Americans.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!