Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38685
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. And, I guess if you go back historically, it explains why Kings College (Columbia) capitulated.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Noice. Shutout would have been nicer, but wth.
  9. Yeah, except that's not what I said. I said the Twitter take, like most twitter takes, was shit. Because Twitter is shit. I don't really care for counterfactuals from either side. In that respect, we have to be better.
  10. Here's the thing. Full search and arrest warrants in compliance with the 4th Amendment are signed by a judge/magistrate on a showing of probable cause that a crime was committed (both types of warrant), and for search what premises are to be searched, for what type of evidence, and how the premises and evidence are connected to the crime. Both include the ability to enter personal property for the search or arrest. Administrative warrants are for less-than-criminal proceedings, of which immigration is one. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-criminal proceedings, per se. They do authorize officers to make arrests in public places, but in a nod to the 4th Amendment, don't permit entry on private property without consent. They're not the same as a criminal search or arrest warrant. But then again they have no application in criminal matters. And immigration is not a criminal matter in most cases. But yeah, since they cant' come on private property, you can tell them to fuck off if they knock on your door. The lawfare article I cited goes through the case law that state officials have no duty to assist federal officials and that extends so far that states can make laws forbidding state officials from cooperating or assisting. Ironically, Dugan is charged with 18 USC 1505, the Trump 1/6 statute, which the Supreme Court ruled pretty much applies only to documentary/evidentiary obstruction, narrowing the case against Trump, and making it non-viable against Dugan. The other statute is harboring a fugitive, which probably means something more overt than what she did. She probably would have been better off to order the agents not to come in her courtroom. Ultimately what she did didn't hamper his arrest much.
  11. Which is what I said. They are effective to authorize ICE officers to make arrests. I think there's some confusion about search vs. arrest warrants.
  12. That's a Twitter opinion. Such a warrant is fully effective, but doesn't allow officers to enter private property without consent. Nor do they permit or require non-federal officers to execute them.
  13. How's your 401k homeshank?
  14. Kind of interesting. One of the articles I read said that a judge was indicted by DOJ for something similar, but the charges were dismissed once the judge agreed to submit herself to the state's judicial conduct commission. I'd be interested to see how that turns out.
  15. Any prosecutorial body, state or federal, theoretically could bring charges against the AG. Federally, that's rather impracticable, because the AG ultimately controls charging decisions if the chain of command is followed. The conflict of interest there would demand a Special Counsel and even then. But the AG is going to have a lot of immunity for things resembling the official duties of the office, like charging people.
  16. Never said it wasn't. But the first question you have to ask when criminal charges are brought is: can the defendant be convicted. Because if an indictment alleges an offense on which someone can legitimately be convicted, most other shit goes out the window. Now, given the incompetence of the Trump administration, a deep dive into documents and statements might actually prove a political motive and selective prosecution, but those aren't notoriously successful motions to dismiss because intention is usually very difficult to prove and very easy to pretextualize. Also note that this wasn't, apparently, because Judge Dugan had ruled against the government in immigration cases. She's a Wisconsin county-level judge who wouldn't rule on most anything approaching an immigration case. It was because of specific actions she took with respect to a specific party before her court. Nonetheless, it appears that the charges will not stick.
  17. Most government officials have some form of immunity from suit in their personal capacity. The AG is sued in official capacity probably every damn day.
  18. That's another one he didn't write. Demand of the hour. Fuck you.
  19. Well, what would you prefer me to do? Rant and scream about something completely ineffectual? Or provide useful information that explains why the charges won't actually stick. Of course it's intimidation and it's bullshit. But at least this class of victims has the knowledge and likely wherewithal to challenge this. It is conceivable, but probably unlikely, that a federal judge enjoins ICE from attempting to enforce these statutes against state officials, who cannot be commandeered to enforce federal immigration law. I told you people that you'd come to love due process of law once the tables turned.
  20. Nonetheless, when these actually wrongful, weaponized indictments are brought, the same tools Trump used and abused will be employed to great effect by these defendants. Something I predicted more than a year ago. It sucks the double dog dick that these people can beat the rap but not the ride, but at least there's a remedy.
  21. Yeah, it's intimidation. Once the indictment is dismissed, suit should be brought for malicious prosecution.
  22. I will say that these obstruction of immigration charges likely won't hold up, as noted above and elsewhere. And, yeah, the judge should be permitted to test that by motion to dismiss the indictment. That whole due process thing that people were so pissed off about. Cooze.
  23. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how to interpret exactly what he said. He's a middle aged white dude, small-medium business owner, Fort Worth suburb. Probably Trumpy. His comment could be interpreted as I'm one of the orange mongoloid's loyal soldiers fighting it out against Jynna and our other enemies. Or, I'm getting fucked in a trade war that we and I didn't want and didn't start.
  24. So, I have multiple clients that I am quite sure are being fucked over by this massively. I am a bit afraid to ask, though. Part of it is I don't want to know, and I fear too that many of them are members of the Leopards Eating Faces party. But today I wrote a client reminding of some things he needs to send me and he said "I've been busy fighting a trade war."
  25. Ironically, the low-information "free shit army" that people, including me, used to decry on these very boards now constitutes the base.
×
×
  • Create New...