#judge wants an affidavit from me

[thenighttrain]

i’m having such a busy day at work omg OF ALL DAYS why does it have to be today 😭😭😭😭😭😭

[spicyschemmenti]

NEEDING A BREAK ➫ alex cabot

pairing: alex cabot x sassy bimbo!fem!reader

synopsis: a high-profile case has alex more stressed than usual and you take it upon yourself to do what you do best: drive her insane until she finally admits she needs a break

warnings: unprofessional behaviour/banter, heavy flirting, teasing, suggestive comments, and physical closeness, reader is alex’s assistant, creating a dynamic where professional boundaries are blurred

word count: 2.7k

author's note: lmk if you wanna be added to future posts of this pairing!

The click of your six-inch Louboutin heels against the cold tile floors of Alex’s office is a sharp contrast to the scratch of her pen against paper, the only other sound filling the otherwise silent room. You don’t even need to announce your presence as she always knows when you’re there, but she keeps her head down anyway, pretending to be engrossed in whatever ridiculously complicated legal document is spread across her desk.

From what you can see over her shoulder, it’s a deposition transcript, something dense and wordy, full of legal jargon that would bore most people to tears. But not you. You understand every word. Not that Alex ever gives you credit for it.

Her glasses have slid down the bridge of her nose, blonde hair slightly mussed from the countless times she’s raked her fingers through it in frustration. The lines of exhaustion are starting to set in around her eyes, and if you had to guess, she’s been sitting at that desk for at least six hours straight without so much as a sip of water or a single second to breathe.

You prop yourself against the doorway, tilting your head as you take in the sight of Manhattan’s most intimidating ADA looking way too overworked for her own good. With a dramatic sigh, you push off the frame and strut forward, the pink latex mini-dress hugging your curves in all the right places.

The color practically screams Barbie, especially with the way it glistens under the office lights, paired with your glossy nude lips and the French tips that have just the right amount of sparkle. It’s not exactly office attire, but when have you ever cared about that?

You plant a manicured hand on your hip, tapping one perfectly filed nail against your thigh. “Alright, boss. Enough.”

Alex, still pretending she hasn’t noticed you, merely hums, flipping another page of the deposition. “Not now.”

Oh, she’s adorable. Like that’s ever stopped you.

You roll your eyes, stepping closer until you’re practically looming over her desk, catching a proper glimpse of the papers in front of her. Oh, it’s that case, the one with the Wall Street CEO who thinks his money can buy his way out of a human trafficking charge.

The guy’s lawyer, some smug Columbia-educated asshole with a penchant for twisting witness testimonies, had just filed a motion to suppress key evidence, and judging by the way Alex is ruthlessly highlighting passages in the affidavit, she’s gearing up for a legal battle of epic proportions.

Still, she’s exhausted. And you? Well, you’re annoying when you want to be.

Alex finally sighs, removing her glasses with that exasperated little motion you love so much, pinching the bridge of her nose like she’s already regretting entertaining you. “I have deadlines, and unlike you, I don’t have the luxury of ignoring them.”

You gasp, offended. Hand to your chest, lips parted dramatically. “Are you implying that I don’t work hard?”

Alex doesn’t answer, which is probably for the best because you’re not about to let her win this one.

Without hesitation, you snatch the file right out of her hands, watching in delight as her mouth parts in pure disbelief.

“Excuse me?” Her voice is low, controlled, and just a little dangerous.

You flash her a smug smile. “Boss, you need a break.”

Alex reaches for the papers, but you hold them above your head, your six-inch stilettos giving you just enough height to keep them out of her reach. Her jaw clenches, that sharp blue gaze narrowing like she’s considering whether or not she could legally kill you right now and get away with it.

“Give. Those. Back.”

You shake your head, blonde curls bouncing slightly. “Mmm… no, I don’t think I will.”

And because you never know when to quit, you take it one step further. With all the grace and confidence in the world, you drop down into her lap, swinging your legs over the arm of her chair like it’s the most natural thing in the world.

Alex freezes.

Like, fully stops breathing for a solid five seconds. You feel it—feel the sharp inhale, the tension that coils in her muscles, the way her hands tighten into fists against the arms of the chair because she refuses to put them anywhere near you. Which is a shame, really.

Her voice, when she finally finds it, is strained. “You have five seconds to move.”

You hum, tapping your nails against her silk blouse, letting them trace lazy circles just over the first button. “Or what? You’ll arrest me?”

Alex swallows hard, her tongue darting out to wet her lips just for a second, but you notice.

You always notice.

She exhales sharply, pinching the bridge of her nose for the second time in the last five minutes. “I hate you.”

You grin, leaning in until your lips are just inches from her ear. “No, you don’t.”

There’s a long pause, filled only by the distant hum of the city outside. For a moment, you swear she might actually snap, might finally give in to whatever tension has been simmering between the two of you for the past several months, might grab your waist and yank you closer like she wants to. But instead, she sighs, leaning back just slightly, eyes flicking to yours with something unreadable — something that makes your stomach flip.

“Fine.” Her voice is quieter now. “Ten minutes.”

You beam, victorious.

Still, you don’t move.

And neither does she.

After a long moment, she raises a brow, her hands still firmly gripping the arms of her chair. “Are you going to get off of me now?”

You tilt your head, pretending to consider it. “Hmm. I dunno. I think I’m quite comfy.”

Alex exhales slowly, like she’s actively resisting the urge to throttle you. But beneath the frustration, there’s something else—something dangerous and slow-burning that makes your grin widen.

She tilts her head slightly, her voice dropping just a fraction. “You’re playing a very risky game.”

And oh, do you love it when she talks like that.

So you just smirk, settling in just a little closer, letting your fingers trail up the lapel of her blazer with an infuriating slowness.

“Oh, boss,” you murmur, voice saccharine sweet. “I always win.”

Alex’s jaw is tight, her perfectly-manicured nails digging into the armrests of her chair like she’s trying to physically restrain herself from reacting. You can see the conflict in her eyes, the push and pull of annoyance, attraction, and exasperation swirling together in a way that has her this close to snapping. But because she’s Alex Cabot, because she’s made of pure ice and self-control, she doesn’t do anything.

She just stares at you.

You stare right back, lips curled into a smirk as you lean in just a little more, fingers still tracing along the edge of her blazer, pink acrylics standing out against the dark fabric. She could push you off. She could order you to move, threaten you with termination, or even physically remove you herself. But she doesn’t.

Because she likes this.

Because she likes you.

But Alex isn’t going to admit that. Not now. Not ever.

So, after a long pause, she simply exhales sharply, her head tilting slightly as she studies you with that sharp, assessing gaze that makes defense attorneys crumble in the courtroom.

"If you're going to waste my time, at least be useful."

You gasp, hand flying to your chest in mock offense. "Boss, I am always useful."

Alex doesn’t dignify that with a response, but the slight twitch at the corner of her mouth betrays her amusement.

Still perched in her lap like you own the place, you lazily reach over and grab the file you’d stolen from her earlier, flipping through the deposition notes as if they were a tabloid magazine. “Ugh. Men are so predictable.” You scan the text with ease, your painted nails skimming over key sections, cherry-picking the ones that actually matter.

Alex arches a brow, arms folding across her chest. “Oh? Enlighten me.”

You flick your eyes up to hers, a cocky grin playing at your lips. “First of all, Mr. Rich-As-Fuck-And-Twice-As-Stupid over here is lying his ass off. He contradicts himself three times between page two and page six. The defense is hoping you won’t catch it.” You flash Alex a knowing look. “Spoiler alert: you already have. But they don’t know that yet.”

Alex’s lips press together, but you see the satisfaction in her expression.

You continue, kicking one leg playfully in the air, your heels catching the light. “Second, they’re trying to suppress the security footage because the CEO’s mistress is in the background. They’re gonna argue it’s ‘prejudicial’ to show the jury because it could make him look immoral.” You roll your eyes. “As if being a cheating, greasy old man is somehow worse than human trafficking.”

Alex lets out a quiet scoff, but she still doesn’t interrupt you.

You smirk, tapping the page. “But here’s where they fucked up. They claim their client wasn’t even at the hotel that night, right?”

Alex nods slowly, eyes narrowing. “Yes…”

You beam. “Then why did his lawyers just submit a motion to suppress footage of him being there?”

Silence.

Alex’s gaze snaps down to the document in your hands, then back to you.

Then, she smiles.

Not her usual, tight-lipped, polite courtroom smile. No, this is something different. This is something genuine, something fond.

And fuck, if that doesn’t do something to your heart.

She exhales, shaking her head slightly. “You are… infuriating.”

You grin, flipping your hair dramatically over one shoulder. “And yet, you love me.”

Alex doesn’t answer. She just watches you for a moment, studying you like you’re some kind of enigma she hasn’t quite figured out yet.

And then—very slowly, very deliberately—she rests a hand on your thigh.

Not in a sexual way, not in a way that immediately suggests anything inappropriate, but in a way that tells you she’s not pushing you away.

She’s letting you stay.

Her fingers are warm against the sleek material of your dress, and for the first time all night, you’re the one who freezes.

Alex tilts her head slightly, voice lower now. “You done yet?”

You swallow, blinking once before regaining your composure. “I mean, I could keep going, but I don’t wanna show off too much. You might start feeling insecure.”

Alex lets out a soft, amused scoff, shaking her head.

She still doesn’t move her hand.

And neither do you.

Instead, you just smirk, flipping the file closed with one hand while the other casually traces up Alex’s arm, your nails lightly skimming against her skin.

“Admit it, boss,” you murmur, tilting your head. “You’d be lost without me.”

Alex’s fingers are warm against your thigh, resting there like it’s the most natural thing in the world, like she didn’t just spend the last five minutes pretending she wasn’t one wrong move away from snapping.

And the worst part? She knows what she’s doing. She knows exactly how much space is between the two of you (barely any), she knows exactly how her palm feels against the sleek, latex material of your dress (smooth and dangerous), and she knows exactly what kind of effect she has on you.

But two can play this game.

Your smirk doesn’t waver, but it does shift—just slightly, turning into something more smug, more challenging, more I dare you to keep this up, boss.

You lean in, slow and deliberate, just enough to close that tiny bit of distance between you, your lips hovering close to her ear, close enough that if she just turned her head half an inch, you could...

But she doesn’t.

Of course she doesn’t.

Because Alex Cabot is nothing if not disciplined, and she would rather die than let you see her crack first.

So instead, she does what she always does. She exhales through her nose, slow and controlled, like she’s beyond exhausted by you, like she can’t believe she lets you do this to her every single damn day.

Her fingers twitch against your thigh for half a second before she finally moves her hand, dragging it away from you like she hadn’t just been resting it there like she belonged.

You watch as she leans back in her chair, rolling her shoulders before running a hand through her perfectly styled blonde hair, messing it up just enough that it makes her look a little less put together, a little more like someone who’s been dealing with your bullshit for way too long.

"You finished?" she asks, tilting her head slightly, voice dry as ever.

You let out a little hum, tilting your own head right back. "Depends. You admitting that I just did your job better than you, or are we still pretending like you didn't just get your ass saved by your favorite assistant?"

Alex scoffs. Full on, outright scoffs, like she cannot believe the words that just left your mouth, like she's so done with you, but she’s not, not really. Because if she was? She wouldn’t let you get away with it. She wouldn't let you stay like this, sprawled across her lap, your hands casually playing with the lapel of her blazer like you own her, like you can do whatever you want and she’ll just sit there and take it.

And the thing is? She does.

She always does.

"You are a menace," she mutters, shaking her head as she reaches for the file you so rudely snatched from her earlier, flipping through the pages like she’s actually going to go over the notes, like she’s not just double-checking them because she doesn’t want to admit that you were right.

You flash her a sickeningly sweet smile, one that’s all lip gloss and trouble, and tap your nails against her desk. "And yet, you haven't fired me. Wonder why that is."

Alex doesn’t look at you, doesn’t react, but you see the way her lips press together, the way her jaw tightens just a little, the way she turns one page too fast like she’s trying so hard to ignore you.

And god, it’s so cute.

"If you were any other employee," she finally says, tone calm, measured, the way it always is when she's trying not to let you get under her skin, "you would’ve been escorted out of this office a long time ago."

You just smile, propping your chin on your hand. "But I'm not any other employee, am I?"

Alex pauses.

It's only for half a second, barely long enough to register, but you notice it.

Because you always notice.

She lets out a slow, quiet breath, then finally glances at you. And there’s something in her expression, something heavy, something unspoken, something that makes your stomach flip way too fast for your own good.

But then, just as quickly as it came, it’s gone.

And she’s back to rolling her eyes, shaking her head like you’re nothing but a headache in six-inch heels.

"Go file those case notes," she says, waving a dismissive hand toward the stack of paperwork sitting at the corner of her desk. "And for god’s sake, get off of me before someone walks in."

You pout, dragging your nails lightly against her blazer as you finally—reluctantly—move off of her lap, making a show of stretching like you were so comfortable there, like it was so inconvenient for you to leave.

Alex doesn’t react.

Not really.

But you see the way she exhales, the way she rolls her shoulders again, the way she doesn’t immediately meet your gaze when you stand up.

Interesting.

You make your way over to the desk, your hips swaying just a little more than usual as you pick up the stack of case files, flipping through them lazily.

"You know," you say, tapping a manicured nail against one of the pages, "if you'd just let me handle these from the start, you wouldn't be so stressed all the time. Maybe then you wouldn't have to pretend you don't enjoy me sitting in your lap."

Alex doesn’t look at you, doesn’t even glance up from her work, but you see the way she stiffens, the way her hand briefly tightens around her pen.

And god, if that isn’t the best part of your day.

[carriesthewind]

Good evening everyone! As I said in an answer to a previous ask, there wasn't a public call-in line to listen to the Show Cause Hearing in Mata v Avianca (the ChatGBT lawyer case) today.

However, while we are waiting for a transcript of the hearing (because there was a court reporter! yay!) and a written decision by the judge, we did get this absolutely anxiety-inducing live tweet of the hearing:

(Caveat: this thread was not an official transcript of the hearing and should not be taken as such. It is possible the actual events and statements made in the hearing differ significantly from this report - i.e., take this with a grain of salt and reserve final judgement for the actual transcript.)

I'll put the full thread with some (light) commentary below the cut.* But the overall impression I am left with is that the judge seems to feel this pair of attorneys are treating their duty of candor toward the tribunal with the same seriousness with which they are treating their duty of competence to their clients. (And in this case, that's a very bad thing.)

*The full thread except for a soon-to-follow part 2 because I ran out of space for images again.

(All of the following screenshots are from the above tweet thread by Inner City Press @ innercitypress on twitter, made on June 8, 2023.)

Normally I would overlook that "you, personally," but in this case, you really get the feeling that the judge is concerned that LoDuca might just start talking about what Schwartz did again.

Establishing LoDuca's base of knowledge - he should know how to look up cases and check if they are real; he should know what a real case looks like.

The March 1 submission was the plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss, where they first cited the fake cases.

How bad this answer is depends, I think, on LoDuca's wording here. Best case scenario, his statement about Schwartz was a specific statement about what inquiry was reasonable for him to do under the circumstances (which - for that first filing - I think is actually a reasonable argument. You don't expect your colleague to just make up cases). Worst case, this reads like him trying to wiggle out of his obligations. I will withhold judgement until I see the official transcript.

Rule 11, by the way, refers to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11(b) states:

(If you remember the Order to Show Cause, we are dealing with a Rule 11(b)(2) issue here. Rule 11(c) allows the court to impose sanctions for violations of Rule 11(b))

Oh no, bad answer. (If anyone reading this is good at photoshop, I cannot express how badly I want a version of the "this sign can't stop me because I can't read" meme with the sign being the quote from defendant's reply where they say, "The undersigned has not been able to locate this case by caption or citation, nor any case bearing any resemblance to it.")

Oh that is not a good way of characterizing those orders. (Those were the orders, remember, where the Court said, "By April 18, 2022, Peter LoDuca, counsel of record for plaintiff, shall file an affidavit annexing copies of the following cases cited in his submission to this Court: as set forth herein. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 41 (b), Fed. R. Civ. P.")

I would simply perish on the spot.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention in my original attempted summary of "Varghese" - the first paragraph states that it is a wrongful death suit by the widow of the passenger. Then the second paragraph states that the passenger was denied boarding on a flight due to overbooking and thus missed his connecting flight and therefore incurred additional expenses. The case was such nonsense that I legitimately forgot about that inconsistency by the time I got to the end.

Your honor I plead "2 stupid 2 sanction."

(I believe the "different fonts" is in reference to the April 25 affidavit, in which the case names - and some of the surrounding text - are in a different font from most of the text in the affidavit. It seems like this is because they may have been copied straight from ChatGPT. See e.g., #3 below. It's hard to tell just based on this twitter thread, though.)

A short and simple answer! You did it!

"I have all the answers I need" is not a good sentence in this context.

Very genuinely: shorter is better here. At least I don't think he hurt himself with that statement.

Judge Castel: How do you conduct legal research?

Schwartz: I research cases.

Judge Castel: Do you read them?

Schwartz: Well, I may have once upon a time, but after hearing you ask that question in this context, I have decided to retire from the practice of law forever and also possibly sink into the ground and die. Also, by answering "yes," here, I just realized that I'm either admitting that I read the cases I submitted and therefore must have known they were fake, or else I just possibly committed perjury. Oh shit oh fuck.

Oh god I'm cringing myself into a pretzel just reading this.

Hey, by the way? You can actually use google (esp. google scholar) to do legal research. (It's not a good tool and you will miss things, but it will do in a pinch.) But. Um. If you know that...why didn't you double check your cases at very least on google when you were told they seemed to be made up?

So, once again, I am going to withhold judgement until I see the actual transcript. That said, if Schwartz did say this, I would like to compare it briefly to a part of the chat transcript he provided to the court. Here is the first question asked about the Montreal Convention in the provided transcript:

"analysis"

Oh god. I can't even provide commentary on this one. I hope this is worse than the actual transcript will prove to be. I'm reading through my fingers like I'm watching a horror movie.

"Misperception" (or "misconception") doesn't work once you have evidence that should cause you to doubt - like not being able to find a case that was supposedly published in the Federal fucking Reporter.

This is overshooting "2 stupid 2 sanction" into "too stupid to function."* You either looked for "Varghese" or you didn't. If you looked for "Varghese," it is not credible that you continued to have a good faith assumption that ChatGPT couldn't lie. If you didn't look up "Varghese," you just lied to the Court under oath.

*Just to be clear: for an ordinary person, this would be a very understandable lack of knowledge issue. A lawyer has no excuse not to know this.

Judge Castel: Mr. Schwartz, I think you have the fucking audacity to try to lie to me to my face in my fucking courtroom.

Honestly at this point I'm surprised he could still talk. I think screaming, "I'm melting, I'm melting!" as he vanished into steam, leaving his crumpled suit behind, would be an appropriate response.

NO.

Oh no, oh honey.

Ok. Two options here (again, assuming he actually fucking said "They said they couldn't find them," in response to the Court asking, "When Avianca said you cited non existent cases?"):

Schwartz is once again trying to purposefully downplay what the defendant's reply brief actually said and dodge responsibility.

Schwartz honestly, truly believes that when the defendant filed a reply containing the line, "The undersigned has not been able to locate this case by caption or citation, nor any case bearing any resemblance to it," they were just asking for assistance with their legal research?!??!

I honestly don't know which is worse.

Oh no....

Oh man, I haven't gone over it here yet, but I think that "I looked up the judge" is a panicked attempt at bringing up a talking point the Professional Responsibility Lawyers raised in their memorandum of law. (Again, I'm giving this reading of his response with the caveat that it is based only on this thread, not the official transcript, which might read very differently and contain different/more info.) The Professional Responsibility attorneys noted in a footnote that two of the judges listed in the "opinion," including the "author," were actual 11th circuit judges, and the other is an actual 5th circuit judge. My read of this footnote was as an extra little detail tossed in by the Professional Responsibility attorneys to try to dress up their argument that the "opinions" had various "indicia of authenticity."

But here's the problem. If Schwartz is telling the truth - if he was reading carefully and critically enough that he bothered to look up the judge (why would you do that if you didn't think the case might be fake?!) there is no way he could have missed that the case was gibberish. Again, if this is really what he said at the hearing, he either lied in the hearing, or he must have know the "opinions" were bogus when he gave them to LoDuca to file.

"Did it cross your mind" - if the court actually said this, oh my god.

Hey, that's the point that I made in my original post(s)!

This whole thing about the "+h" to "th" with the notary date is from the recent affidavits filed on 6/6/23, you can read them about them if you want, I'll be honest, I don't really care as much about the notary stuff so I'm going to skip it for the moment.

....and I've run out of space for images again. Part II to follow shortly!

[mangionebabymama]

2.21.25 NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT TRANSCRIPT

“Please note that to avoid inadvertently running afoul of any court rules regarding the sharing of transcripts, we will only be sharing Ms. Friedman Agnifilo’s statements made in court and her interactions with the judge, rather than a complete transcript. ‘Proceeding continues’ means the proceeding continued, but is not reproduced in its entirety here.” - from luigimangioneinfo.com

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Good afternoon, your Honor. My name is Karen Friedman Agnifilo for Luigi Mangione. I'm joined by Jacob Kaplan. I would ask that your Honor please allow my client to be unshackled for this court appearance, please.

THE COURT: Go ahead you can uncuff him.

(A pause in the proceeding.)

THE COURT: All right. Unless you need him to sign something, they'll allow him to do it after; otherwise, for security reasons, they want to keep him cuffed.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: I'd like to make a record regarding that.

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: You'd let me know is this an appropriate time to do that?

THE COURT: Sure, but there's no jury here, so.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: I understand, your Honor. But this is a highly publicized and covered and photographed court proceeding with strong public interest, and when my client comes to court, because he's in federal custody, they bring him, they walk him in leg shackles, arm shackles. They have him sitting here, and there is no presumption of innocence.

I'd also like to let you know that I go visit him regularly at MDC where we sit in a room, he's completely unshackled. He is a model prisoner at MDC. There has not been an issue. He has not given the police one single problem. There is no reason for him to be this way in court with all these officers here standing here.

THE COURT: I understand that, but for security reasons and for the security people here, they would prefer him to remain cuffed. Okay. Good afternoon everyone. So, update on discovery.

[proceeding continues]

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: We object to a motion schedule at this time, your Honor.

THE COURT: It appears you have enough. Listen, if you don't get the affidavits for the warrants, and I don't know exactly what they're going to be redacting from the grand jury minutes, but if we're just talking about identities, that would be enough for you to do your motions.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Well, we're talking about there are three separate prosecutions that are happening about one event, and there's a Pennsylvania matter, there's a federal matter, there's a New York matter, all three of which will involve discovery.

We just today have been handed sounds like a lot more discovery, but frankly, we haven't gotten the bulk of the discovery. We haven't gotten a single DD5. We haven't gotten any police paperwork.

I understand and appreciate Mr. Kaplan's remarks that we are going to be getting that in two weeks, but we have yet to receive any of that. We have yet to receive copies of --

THE COURT: You got some of that today. You got that today.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: No, we do not have that today, your Honor.That's what he said. He anticipates that they will provide in two weeks. They're in the process of doing that.

[proceeding continues]

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Your Honor, we also object to setting a motion schedule while we are in the process of speaking to the federal authorities about they're still deciding whether or not to seek the death penalty against Mr. Mangione. Obviously, that's an extremely serious matter that we're in the process of providing mitigation for the Feds for that purpose, and that is where our focus is.

That is one of the reasons why this discovery is so critical and why we need all of it before we can even begin to anticipate exactly what we are going to be putting in our motions.

As I alluded to in our court appearance that we had previous to this appearance, your Honor, one of the issues here is that the two theories of prosecution are opposite and inconsistent with one another, and by defending ourselves in state court, we are potentially providing fodder for the federal court appearance case and vice versa. And so it really is critical in this case that we receive literally everything, especially all of the information and the police work that was done here.

And one more thing I just want to say about Altoona, Pennsylvania, your Honor, if I may. From the limited information that we have, I have some police paperwork from Altoona already that I received from Mr. Mangione's Pennsylvania counsel as well as there was one body-worn camera despite there being about a dozen police officers in the McDonald's when Luigi was arrested. We have one body-worn camera that was provided by the Manhattan DA's office that shows an angle.

I think there's a very, very serious search issue in this matter, and there might be evidence that is suppressed in this case, which brings me to another related issue that I'd like to discuss, your Honor, if I may.

And I really appreciate you allowing me to make a record, but because there is a serious search and seizure issue here, and because we think that our client's constitutional rights were violated in Pennsylvania, we want to be able to have the opportunity to litigate that. However, we have been afforded -- his right to a fair trial is continuously being impacted.

And I want to just bring to your Honor's attention my shock, frankly, that the chief of detectives of the NYPD along with the New York City mayor had time to sit down with HBO and put hair and makeup on and provide information about the arrest, the prosecution, their theory about the case, and evidence about Mr. Mangione that we have not even received.

This journal that they're calling his manifesto, we have never have been provided copies. They had actors playing Luigi on television -- it didn't sound anything like him, by the way.

THE COURT: All right.I'm going to cut you off, because that has nothing to do with you moving to have the grand jury minutes inspected for sufficiency, that's definitely going to be an issue in this case, or moving to controvert any of the warrants. You could always supplement your motions,

but it's got to start.

So you should have your motions in by April 9th. People to respond by May 14th. June 26th. We'll see if I can have a decision by then, but I hope to. And again, the sooner we order the hearings, the sooner you'll have your suppression hearing.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll see you on June 26th.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Your Honor, just one logistical request. Because of the different custody and court matters, we are unable to meet with Luigi before or after alone, and we would just request if we could just have a minute or two of privacy with him, or at least to have a little space so we can talk to him.

THE COURT: One second.

(A pause in the proceeding.)

THE COURT: You'd have to do it now. Right here.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Your Honor, if I may just make one more record. Because of this unusual circumstance of him being in federal custody but proceeding first on the state case, we do just want to make a record that I think Mr. Mangione is being treated differently than other defendants who would be prosecuted in this court who would be able to have access to his attorneys, who could sit here unshackled, who your Honor could make decisions --

THE COURT: You know, I don't have a problem remanding him right here so he's here in the city. I thought you guys, the People were working on trying to get him so we have custody in that the federal jurisdiction said we were going first, meaning New York.

MR. Z. KAPLAN: Your Honor, the agreement remains that we are to try this case first; however, there's no agreement up to this point to transfer custody from federal custody to state custody.

THE COURT: I mean, is there even an indictment?

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: In federal court? So they're holding him on a complaint.

MR. Z. KAPLAN: On the consent of the defense.

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: When they're hanging the death penalty over your head, you have no choice but to consent.

THE COURT: I get it. Okay. Can you come up for a second.

(Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench.)

MS. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: (Conferring with client.)

THE COURT: All right.

(Whereupon, the proceeding was adjourned to June 26, 2025.)

[hugefuckingtitsmassivepair]

An Undeserving Fate (Dave Strider X Fem! Reader): ARC 1 - CHAPTER 14

Click here to be taken to the master list

“Inmate [YOUR LAST NAME], get up. You’re going in front of the judge,” a male guard shouted, startling me out of my sleep.

Latula shot me a thumbs up as I climbed down from my bunk, heading towards the officer. Cold, metal shackles were slapped over my wrists and ankles. “Good luck, kiddo,” a disappearing voice echoed as the guard drug me the door.

His grip was rough, forcing me into an unsteady wobble as we walked. I felt like cattle heading to the slaughter, soon standing behind a line of 5 inmates who were heading down a long, narrow hallway. When we reached the end, we were shoved into barren cells outside a final metal door.

“WOODS, MARIA.”

A robotic voice sounded through the air, commanding inmates through the final passage one at a time.

“CULP, ISABELLA”

My nerves were on fire, racing through each cell of my body as I waited for my name to be called. I barely even knew what an arraignment entailed. I hadn’t spoken to any kind of lawyer and I was entirely lost on what to expect.

“(Y/N)”

The familiar sound of my own name in that same frigid, monotonous voice cratered my blood pressure. I was helpless to stop the process as they began yanking me towards the door. I knew fighting, kicking and screaming wasn’t going to make the charges go away but God, did I want to do it anyway.

Careless hands led me in front of a small, wooden desk. I wasn’t spared a single ounce of sympathy as guard shackled me in place. An older man in the center of the room cleared his throat, flipping through stacks of paper with a flat disinterest.

“Court is now in session for the arraignment of (Y/N), case 2025-CR-004872.” He paused, turning from the court reporter to look at me. “Miss (Y/N), this is your arraignment for the charges of Criminal Trespass, a class A misdemeanor and Criminal Mischief, a class C misdemeanor. Have you been informed of your rights?”

“Yes, your honor,” I whimpered, already starting to feel faint.

“Do you have legal counsel or do you wish to have one appointed to you?” The judge sounded almost half-asleep as he listed out the same questions he had to go through a thousand times a day.

“I wish to have one appointed.”

He nodded, continuing. “Very well. You will need to complete a financial affidavit to asses your eligibility for a public defender. If you are found to be eligible, one will contact you before your next hearing. As you have not been able to speak to an attorney, I will enter a not guilty plea on your behalf. Once you have had legal counsel, we can adjust it if you wish.”

My feet shifting awkwardly, hips moving in and out of twisted positions. I was doing my best to communicate that I was reasonable and polite with my body language, though I wasn’t quite sure how to pull that off. I was terrified that getting one appointed threatened the possibility of sitting in jail for another few weeks but I reasoned there wasn’t much of a choice.

“Miss (Y/N), it does not appear we have a prior record on you. Have you ever had an encounter with police or the judicial system before?” He inquired, placing his glasses down on the bench and truly looking at me for the first time that morning.

“No, your honor. I have never been involved with the law before.”

“Are you currently employed or attending school?”

“I’m a junior at Rice University,” I croaked. “I do work-study to pay for my student apartment but I am not employed other than that.”

“Good, good. That answers a few of my questions. Rice is a very good school. Are you preforming well in your studies?” He was starting to sound more pleased, offering the slightest hint that there might be hope after all.

“Yes, sir. I’m a year from graduating.”

“Do you have access to firearms or other weapons?” He pressed, raising an eyebrow.

I shook my head, eliciting a smile from the man in robes. “Good, let the record show the defendant has indicated her answer is no. Based on that information, I will be granting you an own-recognizance bond. This means you will sign an affidavit swearing to stay within Harris county and return for your next hearing. Once you have completed it, you will be released. Do you understand?”

The final sentence melted my brain. The remainder of the hearing began to blur as I processed the fact I would finally be able to go home. Nothing mattered to me more than getting back to my apartment and repressing this memory.

Before I knew it, a guard was hauling me back through the jail, marching me to retrieve my belongings. I was too relieved to pay mind to the marks the cuffs had left on my wrist or the stinging in my leg. I took note of the fact Latula and Vriska had scribbled their information onto the only belonging I had— a stack of staple papers. However, the moment it was in my hands, the guard was already dragging me to my next destination.

Once I’d finished the litany of paperwork and near-berating speeches about returning for my next hearing, the officers had simply abandoned me at the front of the jail with bags of my possessions. I wasn’t sure what I expected but I assumed I would, at the very least, receive a ride home.

The sky was foggy and humid, freshly fallen rain adorning every surface. I knew it would only be a couple minutes before it picked up again and I wasn’t prepared to walk. Pulling my shattered cellphone out of a plastic baggy, I clicked the button and prayed. My battery was sitting at 5%, nowhere near enough to give me directions home. I scanned through my limited contacts, hoping someone willing to save my ass would pop-out. I sighed as my finger hovered over a familiar name, choking on the only person who would care I’d been arrested. I had no choice but to press call.

“John? I’m sorry for what I did to you but I— I really need you right now. Can you come get me so we can talk?” I whined, my voice cracking as I began to cry.

John sounded elated, if not a little shocked. “Of course, I’ll send an Uber to you. Where are you at?”

“It’s a long story but I’m at the Harris County Jail,” I admitted, fighting back a tight knot in my chest.

“County jail?” His tone shifting with a touch of unease. “Are you okay? What happened?”

“My phone’s about to die. Can I explain it to you when I get there?”

“Yeah, of course,” he muttered, digital popping noises ringing through the phone. “Your ride will be there in 15 minutes.”

----

“(Y/N),” John sighed, wrapping an arm around me. “You’re limping. Come inside and tell me what happened.”

I leaned into his touch, still shuddering from the rainy weather. His apartment was warm and inviting, a near complete 180 from the place I’d just left. “I don’t know what happened. I was trying to help Dave get his stuff out of his apartment and the cops showed up. He told me to climb out the window and I was scared so I just listened. I guess I cut my leg or something and I got arrested and I don’t know what to do.”

John’s face tightened into scowl, but he caught himself and softened his expression. “I’m so sorry. You’re safe now,” he murmured, rubbing my back.

The thought of talking about our last encounter was overwhelming. Too much had happened for me to be prepared for that in the slightest. On the other hand, telling my family I’d gone to jail was significantly worse than this. On a hypothetical third hand, I really didn’t want to be alone right now. “I’m sorry for running out on you. There’s just been a lot going on,” I offered, keeping my gaze on the floor.

“We don’t need to talk about that right now. You just got out of jail, you should be focused on taking things easy.” Those were the exact words I needed to hear. There was nothing more in the world I wanted than to take things easy.

“Do you have a phone charger and a Tylenol or something? My phone’s dead and my leg hurts.”

John had scrambled up from the couch as soon as the words came out of my mouth. I was incredibly thankful for the amount of tact he’d managed to exercise in spite of the fact I’d just dramatically sprinted from him while he was confessing his feelings. He was incredibly kind to me, no matter how little I deserved it.

When he returned, his arms were filled with an assortment of items, many falling from his grasp as he waddled over. It appeared as if he’d fetched half his belongings. “Here— I have a blanket, a hoodie, some Tylenol, a phone cord and a block, a cup of tea—“ He began, dropping things into my lap as he listed them out. “And sorry, but Rose is on the phone. She really wants to talk to you,” he finished, shooting me an apologetic look.

Sighing, I grabbed his phone and placed it up to my ear. I hadn’t even been given a moment to prepare for the conversation before Rose’s voice was shouting through the speakers. “Where is David?”

“I don’t know. He’s probably still in county jail. I haven’t heard from him.”

Rose sighed through the speaker before taking a deep breath. “Are you okay?”

“No, not really,” I admitted, perhaps coming off a little harsher than I needed to. “I just got out of fucking jail.” We hadn’t even exchanged a full 4 sentences and I was already fed up with the conversation.

Interrupting her reply, I returned the phone to John. I let out a dramatic huff, bundling up in his blanket and taking a long, melancholic sip of tea. John seemed unsure of how to respond. He simply paused, staring at me a minute longer than necessary. His face was an uncertain mix of uncomfortable fear and concern. “I’m gonna go talk to Rose in the other room,” he enunciated, each word dipped in hesitant caution.

I didn’t even bother giving him a response. I was too emotionally ravaged over the place to be anything other than dramatic. It was finally safe to vent my pent up emotion and unfortunately, they stood in the path of destruction. Neither of them had done anything wrong but there was no one else to blame my rage on. At least, that was until a buzzing from my phone interrupted my pity-party.

turntechGodhead [TG] began pestering yourName [YN]

TG: just bonded out

TG: you out of jail?

YN: Yes, I am.

TG: thank god. you okay?

TG: you hurt your leg really bad

TG: i was worried.

YN: I’m fine, no thanks to you.

YN: I cannot believe you actually fucking managed to get me arrested.

TG: get you arrested? we would have been fine if you hadn’t cut yourself like a dumbass

YN: Maybe if you opened the window instead of breaking it, I wouldn’t have nearly died cutting myself.

YN: Either way, you’re the one who convinced me to go in the first place. I didn’t want anything to do with it.

TG: im so sorry i didnt account for your lack of intelligence when making an escape plan. you could have just said no. i didn’t force you to come with me.

YN: Fuck you, Strider.

yourName [YN] ceased pestering turntechGodhead [TG]

“Hey John,” my words dripping in a venomous rage. “Tell Rose that Dave is out of jail.”

[beardedmrbean]

Andre Boren said he hopes the eight-year prison sentence given to the DeLand teenager who sold his son a deadly dose of fentanyl will make young people think twice about dealing drugs.

Boren’s son, Landon, was a teenager himself and also from DeLand. He was 17 when he died in the summer of 2023, just weeks before he would have started his senior year at DeLand High School.

Daniel Arvizo was also 17 when he sold the fentanyl to Landon Boren, who died at home. Arvizo was sentenced to eight years in prison followed by seven years' probation as part of a plea agreement. According to a charging affidavit, Arvizo was also a student at DeLand High School.

Andre Boren said in an interview Tuesday that he was satisfied with the plea deal.

“I got most of what I wanted,” he said. ”He's going to prison for a while.”

He said many times prisoners serve their sentences, then violate probation and wind up back in prison.

Boren said maybe Arvizo will straighten out in prison. Maybe he won’t.

“I hopefully think that he will change,” Boren said. ”If he doesn’t, that’s on him. Whether or not he’ll change and be a good person or whether or not he’s going to change and be a better criminal.”

Arvizo, who turned 19 on Oct. 21, pleaded no contest to manslaughter in Landon Boren's death as part of the agreement during a hearing Oct. 30.

Arvizo also pleaded no contest to possession of fentanyl with intent to sale, possession of synthetic cannabinoid with intent to sell, sale of fentanyl within 1,000 feet of a place of worship, unlawful use of a two-way communication device, possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and driving with a suspended license.

Circuit Judge A. Kathleen McNeilly adjudicated Arvizo guilty and sentenced him according to the terms of the plea agreement reached between prosecutors and Arvizo’s defense attorney.

Once released from prison, Arvizo must pay $3,129.54 in $50 monthly payments in restitution for the cost of Landon Boren’s service and cremation.

Andre Boren said Arvizo did not make a statement during the sentencing.

Boren also said that the process moved quickly. He said he received a call from the prosecutor the day before the hearing that Arvizo might enter a plea.

Boren said he was concerned that if they went to trial, it would take only one person on the jury to feel sympathy for Arvizo and block a conviction.

He said Arvizo and his defense attorney had asked for a sentence of five years in prison followed by five years probation. But Boren said there was no way he would accept that. But he also knew that Arvizo was a juvenile when the crime was committed and did not have prior arrests.

“I knew from the get go that I wasn’t going to get him to go to prison for life,” he said.

Boren said he was looking at Arvizo reviewing the plea agreement before signing it.

“He was reading it, he was looking at it, I think something sank in that, you know, this is the beginning of a long, long period of time for me,” Boren said.

Boren said he declined to speak at the sentencing. But he said he would have liked for the sentencing to have taken place a week or two later, so other family members who did want to speak would have had the opportunity.

But he also said it was good it was done and over with.

“It's been 15 months since my kid died, and you know, it's just, it was time to take care of it,” Andre Boren said.

[snarpreplies]

Rating: Mixture ⚠️

The cake thing was part of it, but the brother didn't catch that specific phrase: he instead recognized "cool-headed logicians."

[Fitzgerald] recalls how a transposition of verbs in the manifesto written by the Unabomber helped lead to a closer identification of Ted Kaczynski in April 1996.

The latter used the phrase "You can't eat your cake and have it, too," instead of the usual form, which is "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." Like most people, Mr. Fitzgerald thought Kaczynski had made a mistake. But examination of other letters by him contained a similar feature, which, Mr. Fitzgerald says, "is actually a traditionally middle English way of using the term. He technically had it right and the rest of us had it wrong. It was one of the big clues that allowed us to make the rest of the comparison and submit a report to the judge who signed off on a search warrant."

There are a few problems with this account. First, by focusing strictly on forensic linguistics, the article glosses over the role of David Kaczynski, the brother of the Unabomber. It was David who first made the realization that the appearance of "you can't eat your cake and have it too" in the Unabomber manifesto might be an indication of the writer's true identity. [See Update #3 below.] Fitzgerald has elsewhere discussed how David Kaczynski's call to the FBI set the identification of the Unabomber in motion. Following David's hunch, Fitzgerald's team of agents and analysts made a more systematic comparison of the Manifesto with letters written by Ted Kaczynski to his brother and mother. The idiosyncratic use of the "cake" expression, among other stylistic evidence presented in the FBI's affidavit, was enough to convince a judge to issue a search warrant for Kaczynski's cabin in Montana. (See the abstract from a paper presented by Fitzgerald at the 2001 conference of the International Association of Forensic Linguistics.)

[...] Update #3: James R. Fitzgerald sent the following email:

I recently read your posting on "Language Log" regarding my interview with the Washington Times. I want to make a few clarifications.

Firstly, if David Kaczynski did know of his brother Ted's non-standardized usage of the proverb/idiom "you can't eat your cake and have it too," he never provided it to me or my colleagues on the Unabom Task Force in 1995 or 1996, or any other time. He was apparently aware of the term "cool-headed logicians," which was found in the Manifesto, and also known to have been used by Ted, as he told various investigators of its use. But, as valuable as he was to the FBI in providing his brother Ted's information to the Task Force, he never mentioned anything about the "cake" proverb/idiom. As I explained in chapter 14 of the book Profilers, I was the first one to recognize this unusual usage.

Secondly, years ago, upon doing some basic research re. this phrase, I dated the idiom to the Middle English period as, according to the Morris Dictionary of Words and Phrase Origins, it was first found in Heywood's "Proverbs" in 1546, but, "...it had been in circulation for centuries before that...." (1988: p 277). While the Modern English period is generally seen as beginning c. 1500, I felt it safe to say that its etymological roots are firmly planted in the Middle English period.

Zimmer, Benjamin. “Forensic Linguistics, the Unabomber, and the Etymological Fallacy.” Language Log, 14 Jan. 2006, itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002762.html.

we do need to revisit the wording of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" because i don't think it clearly enough conveys that it's more that you can't simultaneously retain a cake and also get to consume it (which would render you cakeless). for years i was like But why not....it's my cake....?

[tdbre-up]

THIS THAT FUCK THE FAME SHIT THAT TRILLION DOLLAR GAME SHIT THAT HERE TO FUCKIN' STAY SHIT THAT FUCK UP OUT MY WAY, BITCH AGING POPULATION ECONOMIC STAGFLATION POLITICIANS JIZZIN' MISINFORMATION - PUBLIC MASTURBATION ALL ACROSS THE NATION PEOPLE BEEN FIGHTIN' INFLATION LOOTIN' PLACES WEARING POOH SHIESTY MASKS OVER THEIR FACES THE MEDIA IS SHAMELESS FODDER FOR THE BRAINLESS BIRTHRATE BEEN DECLINING MARGARET SANGER WAS A RACIST AND LADY ADA LOVELACE IS STILL WATCHING YOU THROUGH THE MATRIX HOPIN' YOU GET GHOULED ON OZEMPIC AND GET A FACELIFT THIS THAT SHIT YOU SHOULDN'T SAY SHIT BUILT IT FROM THE GROUND UP - YOU AIN'T MADE IT, YOU JUST MAKESHIFT AND AT THE AFTER-PARTY GROUPIES ASK ME "CAN I TASTE IT?" 'CAUSE HER MAN AIN'T HAVE NO SWAGGER AND HE HAD TO COPY PASTE IT I BEEN GETTIN' MONEY - YOU JUST WASTE IT ON VACATIONS THEY COULDN'T SEE IT COMING - GUESS MY HATERS NEEDED LASIC I GOT 'EM SOAKIN' IN THEIR SEAT THE SECOND THAT THE BASS HIT EVERYWHERE I GO I SEE THE SAME HOS - BITCHES BASIC SHE SAID "I DON'T GET IT, CAN YOU PLEASE BE MORE PACIFIC?" PENEAL GLAND DONE BEEN BLOCKED SO LONG THAT IT'S CALCIFIC HER BBL'S AS BIG AS HER EGO - I NEED A LIFT KIT I POINT OUT ANY FLAW SHE ASKS ME WHY I GOTTA NIT PICK THIS SHIT'S BEEN GETTIN' RIDICULOUS FUCK A BITCH - THERE'S CERTIAN SHIT YOU JUST CAN'T GET AWAY WITH PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT AIN'T MY ONLY PREREQUISITE THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN FUCKIN' BITCHES AND LIVING EXQUISITE LET ME COOK - I'LL MAKE YOUR LAST RAP BEEF LOOK LIKE A PICNIC I'M THE HARDEST WHITE BOY SINCE SLIM SHADY SAID MY NAME IS NOTHING'S COMING OUT YOUR LIPS - IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF GIBBERISH Y'ALL A BUNCH OF PEASANTS - CALL ME LORD - SHOUT OUT SCOTT DISICK I PAID MY DUES - YOU'LL NEVER CATCH ME PAYING OFF NO SNITCHES JUDGE'S NECK IS CRAMPING UP - MY RAP SHEET LONG A LES MIS TRIAL'S BEEN ADJOURNED 'CAUSE OUT ON BAIL I WACKED THE PLAINTIFF EVEN IF I DID CONFESS, I FORGET WHERE HIS GRAVE IS REVENGE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD - THAT SHIT WAS DELICIOUS I DON'T SHIT WHERE I EAT - NO WITNESS, NO AFFIDAVITS HAD TO CUT THE LIQUOR - I GOT DIAGNOSED WITH A FIB IRREGULAR RHYTHM BUT I STILL DON'T MISS A BEAT, BITCH GOTTA GO IT SOBER WHEN I'M SCRATCHING OFF MY HIT LIST MORE HITS THAN THE BEATLES - JUST A DIFFERENT KIND OF POP SHIT GANGSTERS MOVE IN SILENCE - WHY YOU SOUND SO AFFECTATIOUS? AND WHY DO PEOPLE RANT AFTER THEY SAY "LET ME JUST SAY THIS?" I GOT MY WATCH FROM JACOB YOU RENTED YOURS WITH PAYSTUBS YOUR BITCH IS A NO LOOK DUB SHOUT OUT TO 42 DUGG I'M SMOKING ON THAT GOOD SHRUB YOU'RE TWEAKING OFF OF FAKE DRUGS AND HANGING OUT WITH FAKE THUGS YOUR BITCHES FLAKE LIKE DANDRUFF MY BITCHES FACE DOWN ASS UP MY DRIVEWAY FULL OF ROLLS TRUCKS IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS MY AUDEMEUR PIGUET DOES I'M FILLING UP THE TRUNK OF MY TESLA TRUCK WITH THIS BIG RUSH IF RAPPING IS AN OUTLET I'M A DOUBLE ENTENDRE PLUG IF THESE GUYS MOVIN' SLIMY I'MA POUR SOME SALT ON THESE SLUGS I TRY TO KEEP IT STOIC WHEN THEY'RE SHOWING ME THAT FAKE LOVE 'CAUSE BITCHES WILL DO ANYTHING TO SHOW THEIR EX THEY AIN'T STUCK AND RAPPERS WILL TELL ANYBODY "PUT ME ON I'M NEXT UP" AND DEALERS WILL COP REGGIE AND TELL ME THAT IT'S THE GOOD STUFF AND GANGSTERS WILL DO ANYTHING TO SHOW THE BLOCK THEY FORD TOUGH BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER BUT MUD IS THICKER THAN BLOOD SPEAK ON ONE OF MY GANG AND THAT SHIT MIGHT JUST GET YOU SLUMPT AND YOU'LL JUST END UP MISSING - AIN'T NO BODY GONNA GET DUMPED ALL MY SNIPERS SAVAGE - WOULD HAVE NEVER LET THEM TOUCH TRUMP IF I HAD A DIME FOR EVERY TIME I HAD TO THUMP CHUMPS I COULD PROBABLY BUY YOUR WHOLE CATALOG WITH THAT LUMP SUM PULL A SCOOTER BRAUN AND MAKE YOUR FANGIRLS THROW A TANTRUM BUY MYSELF SOME PROPERTY, A COUPLE WHIPS AND THEN SOME FLY A COUPLE MODELS OUT TO FONDLE ON MY SCROTUM CRACK A COUPLE BOTTLES OF ONDA AND HAVE THREESOME BUY SOME SPERMICIDE IN CASE THEY TRY TO STEAL A CONDOM NOW YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NOBODY WANTS ANY PROBLEMS? THE LAST TIME THAT A MOTHER FUCKER DID HE COULDN'T SOLVE ONE AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THAT HE SAID SHE SAID SHIT, SON FUCK ADDRESSING RUMORS - EVEN IF I HAD 'EM DEBUNKED Y'ALL WOULD STILL BE SPRE

[receiptarchive]

Vermont woman 'Dragongurl69' sentenced 11 years for attempted child enticement

WARREN COUNTY, N.Y. — A 33-year-old woman known as "Dragongurl69" was sentenced to over 11 years in prison for attempted child enticement.Scarlet Shadows, of West Rutland, Vermont, admitted to exchanging sexually explicit text messages with someone she believed was an 11-year-old girl, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In January 2022, Shadows traveled from Vermont to Warren County, New York, hoping to have sex with the child. Shadows brought an engagement ring, condoms and gifts for the child.

In addition to Shadow's 135-month sentence, a judge imposed a 15-year term of post-imprisonment supervised release, and Shadows will have to register as a sex offender when she's released from prison.

Republished with permission from www.reduxx.org An adult male who self-identified as a lesbian teenager was arrested on charges of attempting to entice a minor into sexual activity after being caught in a law enforcement sting targeting child predators, police say. Scarlet Shadows, also known by the screen name “Dragongurl69,” of West Rutland, Vermont, appeared in federal court on January 27, where the court heard that Shadows exchanged sexually explicit messages with undercover law enforcement officers for weeks before travelling from Vermont to Warren County with an engagement ring, condoms, and gifts for what he believed was an 11 year-old girl. According to The Rutland Herald, the charge against Shadows, 31, is based on an affidavit written by FBI Special Agent Jenelle Bringuel, who specializes in investigating the sex trafficking of minors. In the affidavit, Bringuel said an undercover officer pretending to be the guardian of an 11-year-old girl in foster care posted on a social networking site in December using terms “commonly associated with individuals seeking to find children for sexual purposes.” On December 26, the officer received a reply from a person using the name “Dragongurl69”, who law-enforcement officers believe is Shadows. The undercover agent then began exchanging messages with “Dragongurl69.” Shadows told the undercover agent that he was 31 but identified as a “middle,” which he described as identifying as a teenager, and said he didn’t want to “get arrested for sexual stuff with minors.” On January 15, Bringuel sent Shadows several photos of an undercover agent that had been digitally manipulated to make her resemble an 11-year-old girl, according to the affidavit. Later that same day, Shadows suggested having sexual contact with the child and “having her date me” and requested to speak with the child. Bringuel stated that she arranged to have a second undercover officer exchange text messages with Shadows while posing as the girl’s “mother.” Shadows texted the girl saying her mother “wants me to teach you sex stuff” and added, “But up to you to lol (sic.)” The next day, Shadows sent messages establishing his age as 31 and urging the “girl” to keep his communications and the relationship confidential. “We have to keep the relationship a secret. So to the public im gonna be your nanny but wen we are home we are girlfriends. Its just so we don’t get in trouble then when your not a minor we can express our love in public, Ok? (sic),” Shadows wrote according to the affidavit. On January 18, Shadows sent messages describing imagined sexual abuse of the girl, which he said would be “more than kissing.” Shadows arrived in New York on January 26, at which time he was arrested. During questioning, he claimed the sexual texts were nothing more than “roleplaying.” The Department of Justice release on Shadows’ arrest referred to him as a ‘woman’ and utilized ‘she/her’ pronouns to refer to him, something that has now been replicated in media reports. So far, no news outlets or government documents have noted that Shadows is a biological male who identifies as transgender. If convicted, Shadows faces a minimum of 10 years and up to life in prison, and will be required to register as a sex offender. Reduxx is a newly-launched, independent source of pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding news and commentary. We’re able to continue our work exposing predators, standing up for women, and reporting the truth thanks to the generous support of our readers.

[rijallaw]

A Fiance Visa Lawyer Answers Your Questions

Have you been looking to bring your foreign fiance into the United States and want to marry them, but also want to make sure that everything is on the “up and up?” If so, we can help. A Fiance Visa lawyer from the Rijal Law Firm can help you through the entire process, from the initial case evaluation through the moment you and your fiance can be together.

These are some of the more common questions that we’re asked by those interested in knowing more about this visa. If you have questions about this or really anything else related to immigration, just give us a call or message us through our site.

Are There Exceptions To The “My Fiance And I Had To Meet In Person In Last Two Years” Requirement? As you may know, one of the eligibility qualifications for the fiance visa is that you and your fiance had to have met in person, at least once, in the last two years before you filed the petition. Yes, there are exceptions.

However, they can be rather stringent. For example, one such allowed exception would be if meeting your fiancé in person would defy strict and well-established customs of your fiancé’s foreign culture or social practice, and all aspects of the traditional arrangements adhere to the custom or practice.

The other exception would be if meeting your fiancé in person would result in extreme hardship for you. You have to be able to show this. If you believe that you have a case, it’s worth reaching out to us.

What Documentation Can I Submit To Show That My Fiancé And I Intend To Marry Within 90 Days Of Their Admission To The U.S.? On Your Site, It Says “Evidence of Relationship” – What Can That Mean?

Every case is different. Your fiance visa petition will be different from someone else’s. We can help you to put together the best petition for your needs. For example, maybe some of your evidence is that which relates to your eventual wedding. This could include an affidavit or letter from the clergy/judge officiating the wedding, or maybe receipts for deposits made towards wedding facilities, clothing, food, flowers, photographs, etc.

Additionally, it could include sample invitations, emails or other correspondence with vendors managing wedding arrangements.

Those are just some examples. There are many others. We can craft the best petition for you.

Is It Possible For Me To Accompany My Fiance To Their Visa Interview? Perhaps, as some embassies/consulates permit it. It’s crucial to note that procedures differ from consulate to consulate and are subject to change. As with every other step of the process, we can put you in the best possible position for success.

A Fiance Visa Lawyer That’s Ready To Help You and your fiance deserve to be together. We can help. Over the years, we’ve assisted so many couples in navigating the immigration process to a successful, happy conclusion. To see how we can help you, schedule a free case evaluation through our site or by giving us a call.

[chubbycaucasianchristiancloseted]

This is 100% the Democrats own making

This is 100% the Democrats own making, they were so blinded by her promises to get Trump, they didn’t vet her. If this was a Republican we would have known about the corruption prior to the 2020 election. This case has a real possibility of falling apart and Democrat voters have only themselves to blame.

If Trump is reelected in Nov he will be the most well vetted politician in American history. He is not perfect by any means BUT every possible allegation against him is on the table.

This seems to be a common theme in Democrat offices. After getting elected you use your position to rack up the cash and then give it to family and lovers to wash it, then you take a cut back.

Direct Quotes:

The all-day hearing escalated steadily throughout the day, culminating with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis taking the witness stand for a combative brawl with defense attorneys that drew several rebukes from the judge.

There was talk of cash exchanging hands from Willis to Wade, where they store their money at home, CashApp usage, and their spending habits – all to get to the question of whether Willis benefitted financially from putting him on her staff.

The hearing will continue Friday with Willis still on the stand. The judge said he does not plan to issue a ruling on Friday.

The risks could not be greater, and Willis’ credibility is on the line.

Things quickly went off the rails. Willis didn’t act much like a traditional witness and was more like a prosecutor, arguing with the defense attorneys, raising objections, making legal arguments and even having exchanges with the judge. She even raised her voice at one point.

This led to a few rebukes from McAfee, who urged her and other attorneys in the courtroom to maintain “professionalism” and to not “talk over each other.” Willis repeatedly accused some of the defense attorneys of peddling lies – before and after the judge’s admonishment.

“You’ve lied in this. … I think you lied right here,” Willis said to attorney Ashleigh Merchant, pointing to copies of filings that raised accusations of self-dealing and nepotism.

On the stand, Wade stuck to his earlier claim – in a sworn affidavit submitted to the court – that his romantic relationship with Willis began in early 2022 and that they split travel and vacation expenses.

Bryant-Yeartie said she observed “hugging, kissing, close affection” between Willis and Wade prior to 2022

Wade and Willis have offered a simple explanation for why there’s essentially no paper trail to back up his claims they split expenses: Willis used cash.

Credit card statements submitted in Wade’s divorce proceedings show he paid for two flights for them in recent years, to San Francisco and Miami. They also took lavish trips to Belize, the Bahamas and some Caribbean cruises.

Trump lawyer Steven Sadow asked Willis about the breakup, eliciting an answer that revealed sexist remarks that Wade allegedly made to Willis in the past. She said, he “is used to women that, as he told me one time, ‘the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich.’” She explained that this was a part of their breakup – but it also was a defense to the self-dealing claims against her.

Nothing that happened Thursday undercut the factual allegations against Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, or the other GOP allies who are accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

State prosecutors want that judge to issue a $370 million fine against Trump, after finding that Trump and his company committed significant fraud against banks and insurers by lying about his net worth and assets. They also want Trump barred from doing business in New York.

[publicnotarynearme]

Oath Commissioner Near Me: Your Guide to Finding the Right One

Introduction

Are you in need of an Oath Commissioner near you? Look no further! Whether you need to notarize legal documents, witness signatures, or administer oaths and take affidavits, an Oath Commissioner is an essential professional to have on hand. This an authorized by the government to perform various legal services. Oath Commissioners are typically lawyers, judges, justices of the peace, and other government officials. This blog will guide you a process of finding the perfect Oath Commissioner near me.

Understanding the Role of an Oath Commissioner

An Oath Commissioner plays a crucial role in all the legal matters. They are the government authorized body to perform a various of legal services, such as documents notarization, witnessing signatures, and administering oaths. Their main duty is to ensure the authenticity and validity of legal documents and ensure that they all in under the law.

Oath Commissioners are responsible to maintaining the integrity of the legal system by providing their expertise and guidance to individuals in need. It's very important to understand the responsibilities of an oath commissioner when to select the best one specialist for your needs.

 There are several key factors to be consider when choosing an Oath Commissioner.

First and foremost, you must confirm that they have relevant experience and expertise. Locate an oath commissioner who is well-versed in the laws and their requirements.

Second, think about their adaptability and availability. An Oath Commissioner who can work with your schedule and promptly attend to your needs is what you want.

It's also crucial to consider where they are. Selecting a local Oath Commissioner can expedite the procedure and save time.

Finally, remember to ask them about their fees. While cost shouldn't be the primary deciding factor, it's crucial to pick an Oath Commissioner whose costs fit into your budget. You may choose the ideal oath commissioner for your purposes with confidence if you take these important aspects into account.

Tips for Finding a Reputable Oath Commissioner Near You

It may seem difficult to find a trustworthy oath commissioner in your area but fear not—we've got you covered! These are some excellent pointers to aid you on your quest.

Most importantly, to ask for recommendations from your friends, family, or colleagues who have recently consulted an Oath Commissioner. They will provide you a valuable advice and recommendations based on their personal experiences.

Secondly, you can use online resources and directories to find Oath Commissioners in your area. From the reviews and testimonials give you an idea of their reputation and reliability.

Thirdly, visit their place and ask questions according to your needs. Inquire about their experience, credentials, and fees. A trustworthy Oath Commissioner will be transparent and happy to provide all the necessary information.

Lastly, trust your instincts. If something doesn't feel right or if you have any doubts, it's better to keep looking for another Oath Commissioner near me who meets your expectations.

Conclusions

In summary when choosing an Oath Commissioner near you, it is important to check their qualifications and reputation. To make sure they are qualified to provide the necessary legal services, look for experts that possess the needed qualifications and licenses. Checking credentials and reputation helps ensure that you are choosing a trustworthy and competent Oath Commissioner who will meet your needs effectively. Red Seal Notary has a group of exceptionally skilled and knowledgeable attorneys, notaries public, commissioners of oaths, and legal assistant. Red Seal Notary has locations across Canada to make your search easy.

[carriesthewind]

Good evening! Just in time for the Court's order for sanctions to issue, I have finally finished writing my thoughts on the June 6 filings by the Professional Responsibility attorneys on behalf of LoDuca et al. There is a lot of content in these filings, so I’m not going to go line by line; I’m just going to hit on the points that interest me. As always, you can read the full filings on CourtListener.

Also, like Part 1 and 2, I will be hitting tumblr's images limit, so this is June 6: Part i of iv.

We start with the filing submitted by LoDuca’s attorney. Remember, according to the judge’s June 1 order, “The only point of response to the supplemental OSC of May 26 is whether he, in fact, physically appeared before Mr. Schwartz, a notary public, on April 25, 2023 and took an oath to tell the truth.” He doesn’t get to submit a further affidavit or facts about the March 1 opposition that cited the fake cases, or the April 25 submission of the fake opinions.

His attorney does her best, under the circumstances:

Attached to her filing is another affidavit by LoDuca.

You can tell right from the start that this was probably drafted by his attorney - go back and compare it to his previous affidavit (the only thing he appears to have actually written for this case). Not only do we have citations to appropriate rules, but it begins by very clearly delineating where we are in the case, and what this declaration is responding to.

(Just as sidenote for the non-lawyers – an attorney drafting a declaration for their client isn’t bad or weird. In fact, it is generally a good practice! When I say “drafting,” I don’t mean “making up facts;” I mean speaking to the client, getting the facts from them, and then working with them to put the facts on paper in a way that is both true and worded in a beneficial and legally-appropriate way.)

1) An apology! Finally! This is the first apology on the docket from anyone involved in this case. 

2) Citations to case law! Real case law! Making a comprehensible argument!

He goes on to say that Schwartz wrote the April 25 affidavit. LoDuca says he signed it in Schwartz’s presence, and Schwartz then notarized it. He then says,

Personally, I am not particularly interested in the notary nonsense. Instead, what I find most interesting here is that LoDuca states that he “read the substance of the affidavit.” (He also states that he read it again, in the line above this one.)

I find it interesting because LoDuca’s best argument, with regard to the April 25 submission of the fake opinions, is that he didn’t read them and that’s why he didn’t realize they were fake. That is still a very, very, bad argument, because it would mean that he submitted a filing to the court that he didn’t even read, but (at least in my opinion) it is better than having submitted fake opinions that he must have known were made up.

(I just want to pause here to emphasize that it is extremely bad to have filed an affidavit, under his signature, in response to a court order, declaring that he had attached true copies of opinions he had not even glanced at. That alone is probably sanctionable. The fact that it is the better option, in my opinion, than having submitted those “opinions” after reading them should tell you how bad it is to have submitted those “opinions” while being aware of their contents.)

Here’s the problem with that argument, though. First, it is bluntly not credible that he did not know something was very wrong with his citations after receiving the order from the court to annex the opinions. Not even reading the “opinions” he was submitting in that circumstance would reveal either a conscious attempt to avoid knowing what the “opinions” contained, or that he is genuinely so incompetent that he should not be allowed to practice law.

Second, he admits - asserts! - twice in this affidavit that he read the April 25 affidavit. And if he did that, once again, it is not credible that he did not realize something was very wrong. I talked about this in my first post, but in that affidavit, “LoDuca” claims that he was unable to locate multiple cases, in full or in part:

To quote my earlier post:

“First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful."

If he read this affidavit - which he said he did - it is not credible that he did not realize something was very, very wrong.

Alright, let’s go look at this word version:

I….hmmm. That’s weird. If you didn’t catch it, the incorrect January 25th date doesn’t say “25th,” like it does on affidavit that was filed. It says, “25+h.”

Now, this may just be some unfortunate technical error. I do not have any of the technological knowledge to determine if, or how, or why, the file could have corrupted in this way. In Schwartz’s affidavit, he states:

And here’s the metadata from Exhibit B:

If you are more familiar with the tech here, or if you have theories about what might have happened, I would invite you to go look at the filings yourself. For my part, this is the last time I’m going to discuss the notarization issue in this update. As I said earlier, I just I don’t find it nearly as interesting or important as compared to the submission of the fake opinions.

Moving on:

Another apology - again, finally - along with some admission of error and the need to change how he does things in the future. (If you don’t recall, in his previous filing, he never even came close to apologizing or admitting responsibility or error in any manner.)

So, I understand this argument, and to some extent, I agree with it. I mentioned in another post, but I think regardless of what sanctions the court orders, practically speaking, the notoriety and publicity from this incident will likely have the greatest long-term negative effect on his life and career. That said, I don’t think this argument works as a reason for sanctions not to be issued, for reasons I will address when we turn to the Memorandum of Law by the Professional Responsibility attorneys.

Before we do that, however, let’s look at Schwartz’s affidavit.

Oh man, there’s a lot to unpack here. And I think it is clear from the jump, that, like LoDuca’s affidavit, this was drafted by the Professional Responsibility attorneys.

First, again, an apology! Finally! Second, he (again, finally) admits that the cases were actually nonexistent, not which “this Court has found to be nonexistent.”

Third - well, he says he believed ChatGPT to be reliable and it wasn’t his intention to try to mislead the Court. We will see how credible we find those claims as we read on.

I almost laughed at “Mr. Mata had somehow filed the Complaint too late.” I wonder who filed the Complaint in this case without realizing that these claims were covered by a treaty with a different time bar than the state statute of limitations, and who filed the earlier complaint that he then later agreed to dismiss because he failed to navigate the claim through Avianca’s bankruptcy, Attorney Steven A. Schwartz?

I wonder if the signature block on the complaint would give us any clues to help us catch the person who “somehow” did this?

“Mr. Mata had somehow filed the Complaint too late” my ass. (Also, I will not accept any argument here that his use of this wording was to try to preserve the plaintiff’s claim and not concede the time bar argument. If you, as an attorney, include a description of the argument opposing counsel made, you don’t need to qualify it like this in order to not concede the argument. It would have been fine to say “Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that this case…., and that Mr. Mata claim was therefore time barred.” The only reason to word it like this is to try to cover his own ass.)

Oh god. Ok.

So for those of you who aren’t familiar, Fastcase is a common, low-cost legal database. For example, a lot of state bar associations will offer free access to Fastcase along with your membership in the bar. It’s not as good as Westlaw or Lexis, but it is also much cheaper. Schwartz is going to go on to say that because Fastcase didn’t provide him access to “the federal database,” that is why he turned to ChatGPT. 

There are a number of problems with this claim. But before I break down all of them, let’s look at the relevant portions of the third affidavit filed on June 6, which was written by a partner at the law firm, Thomas Corvino, as the representative of the Firm.

So, mostly the same information so far as in Schwartz’s affidavit. I will note that I don’t fault the firm for not having the funds to subscribe to Westlaw or Lexis; subscriptions to them are indeed expensive, and that is a problem. The problem is not having procedures in place for what to do if their attorneys need to do legal research that their Fastcase subscription doesn’t cover.

So, first problem! If I, as an attorney, realize I don’t have access to the case law I should have, and that I need to write a motion? My colleagues and boss would not find out when they received an Order to Show Cause by the Court. They would find out immediately, because I would tell them immediately and ask for assistance and advice. This, in my mind, points to a problem at the firm either of culture (a culture of not asking for assistance or of sloppy work) or discipline (of letting people get away with sloppy work).

That is a facially plausible description of what might have happened here; with no other information to contradict it, I will assume it is correct. It’s also not really relevant to the issues at hand, beyond establishing that Schwartz apparently did not have access to federal caselaw through his Firm account.

Because, here’s the problem with Schwartz’s narrative around Fastcase (putting aside all of the other major issues with “don’t cite cases you haven’t read” and “wait, so how did you look up the cases cited by the defendant – oh wait you didn’t, did you, of course you didn’t” and “you could have tried to use google scholar or even just google”): it doesn’t match up with the facts of what he actually gave LoDuca to submit to the Court.

See, according to the Firm’s affidavit, the Firm did not have access to federal caselaw through Fastcase until at least May 30 – after Schwartz wrote, and LoDuca submitted, the April 25 affidavit with the annexed “opinions.” Likewise, Schwartz says he was not able to search Fastcase’s federal database. However, think back to Part 1 of this post, when I went through the “opinions” Schwartz and LoDuca submitted to the Court. There were eight cases, but, if you remember, I (and the defendant) noted that two of those cases were real. Here are the citations for those two cases, as given by LoDuca et at.:

Ehrlich v. American Airlines Inc., 360 N.J. Super 360 (App. Div. 2003)

In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, LA 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987)

And here is the case cite for those opinions in the documents that were submitted to the court:

Now, let’s remember out discussion about the format of case citations from Part 1 of this post, and see the problem(s). First problem: they got the case citation for Ehrlich wrong. They said it was reported in the New Jersey Superior Court Reports, and attributed to the New Jersey Appellate Division - a state court. However, we can see that the was printed in the Federal Reporter and decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals* - so a federal court. (They also got the date of Air Crash Disaster incorrect, but that’s not important for the moment.) This error is another nail in the coffin of them pretending they had no idea that the chatbot was making up cases - you can’t not notice that state court case it cited is actually a federal case!

*A long aside here to explain what Circuit Courts to make it easier to follow this next part. Please feel free to skip if you already know this - it will go to the end of this post, so you can pick up with Part ii. (Also, please note this is a very simplified explanation – I am leaving stuff out and speaking very generally about how the system works.)

In the U.S., each state has its own courts and court system. In addition, there is a separate federal court system. (Which cases are heard in which courts, and why, is a separate discussion that’s not important for this discussion). This system has three layers (excluding the courts of specific limited jurisdiction – for example, the bankruptcy courts). The bottom layer is the trial court level – the district courts. As you can see from the map below, although the district courts are federal, not state courts, their geographical jurisdictions are contained within the boundaries of states. So, for example, the current case we are examining is in the Southern District of New York.

The second layer is the intermediate appellate layer – the U.S. Courts of Appeals. If the result in district court wasn’t in your favor, this is where you appeal your case. As you can see from the map, there are thirteen different federal courts of appeals. These are referred to as “Circuit Courts.” Each circuit (except the Federal Circuit) hears appeals from specific district courts. So, if an attorney wants to appeal a decision out of the Southern District of New York, they would appeal to the Second Circuit. The third and final layer is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which is what you appeal to if you lose at the circuit level.

Part of the way U.S. Courts work is that once a court makes a legal decision, that decision establishes precedent – that is, courts use previous decisions to guide their current decisions. Precedent can be binding or it can be persuasive. Binding authority are legal decisions that lower courts have to follow, and aren’t allowed to deviate from. Persuasive authority are legal decisions that courts don’t have to follow, but still carry authority and that a court may be persuaded to follow. The (published) decisions by higher courts – that is, appellate courts – are binding authority on the lower courts within their jurisdictions.

So, let's apply this the current case we are looking at, where a judge in the Southern District of New York is applying federal law. In making his legal determinations, he is bound to follow (published) decisions made by the Second Circuit and by SCOTUS. He may also be persuaded by decisions from other circuit courts and from district courts (especially district courts within the same circuit), but he does not have to follow those decisions. How persuasive those decisions are will depend upon any number of factors. You can see examples of this ranking of authority if you look at the screenshots from these filings that cite (real) legal cases. For example, in the second screenshot from LoDuca’s affidavit, you can see he cites multiple cases – first, a Second Circuit case (binding), then, a Fourth Circuit case (persuasive), and finally, a district court case from the same district (persuasive).

(By the way, if two or more circuit courts disagree on a particular legal issue, this is called a “circuit split.” One of the ways to get your case in front of SCOTUS is to show that there is a circuit split on a pertinent issue, because SCOTUS generally tries to resolve circuit splits so that federal law is applied as consistently as reasonably possible across the country.)

With this, I hope you can see why I’ve been sputtering so much about Schwartz’s apparent inability to find published court of appeals decisions! Any published decision by a circuit court is binding precedent on all the district courts in that circuit, and may be persuasive outside the circuit as well. After all, SCOTUS hears very few cases – often, the circuit court decision is the highest authority on a legal matter. Because of that, these cases are all very easy to find, because they have to be! It's not quite as ridiculous as him saying he couldn't find the text of a law, or a SCOTUS opinion, but it is (quite literally) the next step down.

And how do you tell if a case is a published court of appeals decision? You look at the case cite. Returning to the case cites for the two real decisions they submitted:

If you remember Part 1, after the name of the petitioner and respondent is the volume number and abbreviated name of the reporter where the case was published. In the above cases, you can see that the reporter is “F.3d” and “F.2d”. These are the abbreviations for different series of the Federal Reporter, which is where published federal circuit court opinions are published. If you see a case with “F.”, “F.2d”, “F.3d”, or “F.4d” in the case caption, it is a published circuit court opinion. You can tell which circuit court, because it is listed in the parenthetical before the year. so Ehrlich was a Second Circuit decision, and In re: Air Crash Disaster was a Fifth Circuit decision.

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit…oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s…that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[craigsumter-justice]

My Legal Battle with my Family and their Co-horts / Co-conspirators (157):

So, my family has exerted financial control over me and either caused me or attempted to cause me every possible financial problem you could ever imagine to prevent me from filing both criminal charges and lawsuits against them for all of the atrocities they are guilty of committing against me.

The attached image is a scan of an affidavit I wrote while under oath and was notarized to verify the oath and the date it was written. You can see that this was written and notarized on February 6th, 2017. In the affidavit I state how I had received a letter from my parents, Leonard and Gloria Sumter, on February 4th, 2017 in which they threatened to cause me financial problems and to stop sending me money once I got out of prison and to also make me homeless if I ever brought any legal actions against them or against anyone else in my family for the crimes and torts they had committed against me.

So, as I was going through the plethora of evidence I have (what is still here in my apartment) I was looking for the letter they sent me. It's gone. I had a file clearly labeled as letters my parents had sent me that were threatening.

Well, in November of 2018 I had to go to court for an alledged DUI. My parents were well aware of the hearing and hearing date and did not want to come to Atlanta or to the hearing. It was prior to this hearing that Tim Gehret agreed to get my wallet, keys and phone from my attorney in the event that I was arrested so that he could take care of some legal things (conveniently that had to do with my legal battle with my family).

Just prior to the hearing, the DA and my attorney worked out a deal where I would just go to a six (6) month outpatient rehab program. But the judge told me he wanted to have a second hearing two (2) weeks from this date during which time he wanted me to remain in jail. Well, all of the sudden my parents want to drive up and to attend the second hearing. This of course was for two (2) reasons: (a) They thought I would be going back to prison; and (b) they wanted to stay at my apartment so they could obviously destroy evidence I had against them. Why would they want to come and why would they want to stay at my apartment? They had a key because the lease is in my mother's name. These are people who already tried to murder me by trying to bring elicit my suicide as I have shown already in this blog and who had already had me assaulted and threatened by two additional men, one who had a knife and another who had a gun. It was during this stay at my apartment that my parents had to have destroyed the threatening letter I mention earlier in this post.

Now, this has me frightened and worried about what other evidence they may have destroyed. This makes me scared and stresses me out and afraid that I will have more seizures as they continually try to keep me from proving this. It honestly makes me fear for my life. I don't even realize yet what other evidence they may have destroyed that was / has been in my apartment as I do not inventory all of my evidence on a weekly basis. I have over a half of a terabyte of evidence. The reason they didn't destroy this or the other affidavits I had written is because they didn't know that I had written them.

In my next post I will show how they enacted a scheme to cause me financial problems; problems to my credit; and employment problems. And evidence that they knew of their plans to do this and while simultaneously protecting their credit rating as I mentioned, my apartment lease was and still in in my mother, Gloria Sumter's, name.

[foster-the-world]

Went well

The court hearing to get an enhanced rate went well I think. The DOE lawyer had no questions, evidence, etc. I had to read an affidavit that listed all the ways I’ve tried (and mostly failed) to get him services over the last three years. At one point I had to read a quote from his teacher saying “he’s a bright and happy boy.” It got me! I was choked up so the judge kindly gave a ten minute break. Came back and finished okay. The crying was a bit embarrassing but okay, I think. She said getting transcripts would take at least a month so agreed to give an answer without them on March 22nd. It wasn’t as painful as I thought it would be. I think it was because I was more prepared for it to be like a formal court hearing. Last time I thought I was going into something much less formal.

His teacher texted to say he was having a much better day. My friend thought maybe daylight savings time would cause him to go all haywire like that - even if he got plenty of sleep.

Thank goodness the girls parent teacher conference went perfectly. Both of them are class leaders. Both far ahead academically. Bees teacher said “I just love her. She’s an all around great kid.” This is Rebels second year with this teacher - she always gushes about her. She wants her working on multiplication. Grateful for small class size that allows for teachers to address kids individual levels. Her spelling is also very much a work in progress. We need to start working on that at home. Anyway, hearing nice things about your kid is nice. As my third kid was knocking over chairs on more then one occasion this week I know we don’t get the credit. Also very grateful for teachers who still love my chair thrower just like we do!

[beardedmrbean]

A North Carolina teenager broke down in tears in court after being charged as an adult for murder.

According to local media outlet WCCB, 16-year-old Sean Simpson was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the killing of 16-year-old Zaquavious Dawkins in Gastonia, North Carolina, on Jan. 26.

Appearing at Gaston County Courthouse on Jan. 29, Simpson was overcome with emotion as the judge read his charges and appointed him a capital defender. Simpson will be tried as an adult and is being held without bail, per WCCB.

According to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, an amendment to North Carolina's "Raise the Age" law came into effect on Dec. 1, 2024, and allows 16 and 17-year-olds to be tried as adults for felonies A through E, which includes murder.

Footage shared by WCCB showed Simpson crying and placing his head in his handcuffed hands. He then shouted, "I love you, Mama, I love you," as officers led him out of the courtroom.

WCCB reported that Dawkins was walking to a store on North Chester Street to buy items for his disabled mother when Simpson allegedly shot him.

"He gave me a kiss. He said, ‘I’ll be back.’ I said, ‘I love you too,' ” Dawkins' mother Tilise told local media outlet 7 News.

PEOPLE has contacted the Gaston Police Department for comment.

According to local media outlet the Gaston Gazette, a witness to the shooting told police that he and Simpson had fought the previous school year at Ashbrook High School.

A boy who had been walking with Dawkins from a Family Dollar store on Jan. 26 told detectives that a black Tesla drove past them and a boy in the back seat — who he identified as Simpson — shouted something out of the window.

Dawkins and his friend then began to run when the car returned again, but Simpson allegedly began shooting from the back of a vehicle, according to an affidavit submitted by officer J.R. Robinson, per the Gaston Gazette.

Dawkins was found covered in blood in a parking lot and had a gunshot wound to his right shoulder, per Robinson's affidavit. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for PEOPLE's free True Crime newsletter for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.

“He was sweet,” Dawkins' aunt Denise Wilson told WCCB last month. “He was kind. He would do anything for anybody. I mean, all you have to do is just say, ‘Tank, will you go do this? Yes, ma’am. Yes, sir.' "

“[You’re] out here doing big boy things, and this is what’s going to happen,” Wilson added to WCCB. “You got to suffer the consequences.”

Ashbrook High School also paid tribute to Dawkins in a Facebook post on Jan. 27.

"Remembering Zaquavious “Tank” Dawkins," they wrote alongside a photo of him. "The Green Wave family is heartbroken as we remember Zaquavious 'Tank' Dawkins, a truly special young man loved by so many."

"Tank was not only a scholar-athlete but also a kind and thoughtful soul who touched the lives of everyone around him," the statement continued. "Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and loved ones during this difficult time. Tank will forever be a part of the Green Wave."

They added, "Rest in peace, Tank. Your legacy will live on in our hearts."

Two days after Dawkins' death, Simpson was arrested at Gaston Adolescent Center, where he had been undergoing treatment, per the Gaston Gazette. According to the center's website, the center treats “children and adolescents that have significant emotional and behavioral difficulties.”