No, it’s clearly the fault of the guy that got shot. That’s why he’s been criminally charged.

(/s but not on the criminal charges. Those are real.)

He has a drug conviction from way back that he was not exonerated of, unlike the murder. The drug charge by itself is a legal ground for deportation.

These emergency motions go to a single justice first. That justice then forwards the matter to the full court (usually).

In this case, Amy Coney Barrett ordered a quick opposition response to the government’s motion, but she didn’t put down an administrative stay right away, like in some of these other cases. This means that the NG deployment is still blocked while ACB collects the paperwork and presents it to the full court.

I think it’s more likely they struggled really hard to find any flattering angle, and this is the best they came up with.

UPDATE: As the deadline expired today, the prosecution dropped this motion which discloses that they searched an attorney’s phone with a warrant.

Because the stuff on this phone is a landmine of attorney-client privilege, they contend, there must be a complicated and lengthy clean room-style process to sort the privileged stuff from non-privileged.

Comey disagrees and wants to challenge the search warrant first.

I strongly suspect they didn’t actually turn over much of anything today, but we shall see.

In many jurisdictions, courts will allow prosecutors to “remedy” slipups to some degree by delaying the trial date, allowing the defense the same time they would have had to prepare, or at least an adequate time.

It definitely seems like that is not going to happen in this district.

There’s a bunch of complicated case law about missed disclosures and late disclosures.

I care about the guy now. Because I care about the rule of law. I want real trials in my country, where defendants confront the evidence against them fairly. Not show trials and Col. Cathcart “we can’t tell you who Person 3 is” bullshit.

Military deployments in Portland and Chicago are currently blocked by court order. What we’re currently seeing on the streets is civilian law enforcement with cosplay uniforms.

The numbers of troops called up in Portland and Chicago are low, less than 500 each. This isn’t enough to do any meaningful military occupation. At most it’s to show off, like in the Assault on MacArthur Park.

These reasons are why the public will not condone “self defense violence”. The “invasion” has simply not reached a stage where it’s warranted.

Of you post a preprint to arxiv, and submit the same paper to a journal, you don’t generally cite the preprint in the journal submission, and it’s not considered plagiarism either.

That’s why they’re called “preprints.”

This seems like a similar situation, except the “preprint” went up on some form of personal blog, and the “journal” was a class submission.

The Virginia Senate is getting on about states’ rights again. They issued UVA an ultimatum: if UVA accepts the Trump compact, they lose all state funding.

“White House” gave the big rant, not Trump. I wonder what Trump’s doing that could possibly be more important than this? My money’s on illness.

Almost certainly not, for a couple of reasons:

1. This is a civil case. Can’t directly arrest someone within a civil case.

2. To charge criminal contempt, the judge has to refer the case to the prosecutor. But oh my! Look who the prosecutor is (Pam Bondi). Do you expect those dipshits to actually prosecute contempt on this?

There’s a pathway to civil contempt in this case, to remedy ongoing non compliance. Civil contempt can send people to jail until they choose to comply, but there are no criminal charges. No charges = no prosecutor.

However, I don’t expect open or flagrant violations, just some busted deadlines getting the guys out of state. I also expect an immediate appeal and at least 50-50 odds of an emergency stay is this order from the appeals court.

Comey’s attorney told the judge he has plans to bring 4 separate motions to dismiss the case, on 4 separate grounds.

• selective and vindictive prosecution
• Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed as the US attorney, so she has no authority to charge the case.
• Abuse of grand jury, i.e. the indictment is invalid because the Halligan violated the very loose rules that exist when presenting the case to the grand jury.
• outrageous government conduct. Who knows what that is.

I was surprised he didn’t move to dismiss right there at the arraignment for failure to state an offense.

The prosecutors said they have a bunch of classified evidence they have to sort through. The judge did not like that. There’s no reason for anything to be classified in this case. Comey’s alleged lie was in public to Congress on CSPAN. And he was talking about unclassified stuff.

So this classified documents stuff seems to be a delaying tactic, because these guys have no idea what they’re going to do with discovery. And I’ve heard that eastern district of VA is called the “rocket docket” because the judges like to move fast. They don’t like delays.

Back in the Roman empire, they didn’t have any punctuation marks or spaces between words. Reading was a lot harder. It was normal to read very slowly, compared to nowadays. And always out loud, sounding out the words, even in private.

This response is based on the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

If Israel is conducting a lawful blockade, then they can intercept neutrals who have expressed intent to run the blockade. It doesn’t matter whether the events happen in Israel’s territorial waters, international waters, or the territorial waters of Israel’s enemy.

A blockade is an act of war, and war doesn’t respect territories, and it’s not always respectful to neutrals.

Now, there is a decent argument that this particular blockade is unlawful for a different reason: it is a collective punishment of Gazan civilians. Collective punishment of civilian populations as a whole was made illegal after WWII.

Secondly, the blockade is unlawful if its only purpose is to starve the enemy population of food (102). Israel must be getting some proportionate military advantage out of this blockade besides the starvation for it to be lawful.

And finally, regardless of whether the blockade is legal, Israel has to let the humanitarian supplies pass through (103-104). And I’m not sure they did that. They will say that they let these things through on the (heavily regulated) land route, but the book here doesn’t say that land route is a substitute. Also, they are not using an impartial Protective Power to distribute the aid. This is why they offered to reroute the flotilla’s supplies on to the land channel.

Note: the rule is they have to let the supplies through, not the people or vessels. If they’re running a legitimate blockade, they can capture neutral vessels that are running it, and they can capture the neutrals on board and subject them to legal process, or maybe even intern them for the duration of conflict

The charge is aggravated second degree harassment with hate crime enhancement.

The complaint is that the defendant took pictures of the vandalism of the NYT building, where red paint was splashed on the building along with messages protesting NYT’s coverage of Gaza. Think along the lines of, “you’re complicit. Etc etc.”

The defendant didn’t do any vandalising, just “harassed” whom? The NYT? By posting photos or messages to a social media account.

The hate crime part is presumably charged as some kind of antisemitism angle.

Overall this seems like a pretty slam dunk first amendment deal, but I didn’t get all the facts. In order to stand up against the 1A, the harassment case has to look more like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” than it does now.

Congress has to pass a budget bill to reopen the government, and the President has to sign it into law. If that bill says that the workers are entitled to back pay, then they are entitled to back pay.

BUT this time her own children are facing the premium hikes. That makes everything totally, completely different.

Just for context, almost every federal court is a branch of a state court.

This is not true at all.

Federal courts are part of the judicial branch, not the executive branch. So they don’t shut down when the executive branch “shuts down”, because the shutdown laws don’t apply to them. As a practical matter federal courts can keep running for a while using saved up court fee revenue. They will eventually run out of that money and gave some tough choices about what to do.

Ah, you misunderstand. Venezuela is both a stable country that these 300k people can return to and a narco-state run by Tren de Aragua that regularly sends drug shipments into the Caribbean Sea on ordinary fishing boats.

You just have to develop a knack for holding onto both of these ideas at the same time.