#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 😭😭😭😭😭😭

[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!

[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....?

[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.

[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.

[blogjanetmccullar]

Can Unmarried Father Take Child from Mother

Can an unmarried father take custody of a child? There are many ambiguities regarding the legal rights unmarried fathers have when it comes to removing a kid from their mother as the position of fathers in families around the world changes. While this is a complicated matter that depends on numerous variables and should be discussed with a family law expert, some fundamental knowledge will assist any future father understand how he may look at handling this difficult situation.

Contact me at: behance.net/janetmccullar2022

When Parents are Not Wed, Who gets Custody?

Check out the information on parents' rights in custody before reading "Can an unmarried father acquire custody?"

The custody and child support arrangements typically resemble those between married couples in situations where both parents are recognized legally. However, in most places, an unmarried mother automatically receives exclusive custody of her child after giving birth.

A father who has not formally acknowledged his paternity has no legal obligations to his child without a court case. Unmarried fathers do not automatically have the right to be recognized as the children's biological parents because there is no presumption of paternity. As a result, it is possible to forbid unmarried dads from having custody of and access to their own children.

This may initially appear to be an exceedingly prejudiced and unfair stance for fathers who are not married. This is because it prevents unmarried moms from requesting child support without establishing paternity in order for the father to be granted his rights.

Knowledge of The Father's Rights 

It is obvious that unmarried men do not automatically have the right to remove their children from their mother's custody. In general, an unmarried father can only take a kid away from the mother if he can demonstrate that doing so is in the child's best interests.

When trying to decide whether you can take your child away from their mother, different laws may apply depending on where you live.

How Can a Father Who Has Never Been Married Get Custody of His Child?

#1 Finding out who the father is

"Can an unmarried father take a child away from the mother?" or The father must file a petition in court to prove he is the father before he can ask for custody. You can do this by taking a DNA test or just signing an Affidavit of Paternity. Once the father is proven to be the child's father, he can ask for child support and visitation rights.

#2 Establishing Custody

Once paternity is proven and the father can show that he can keep his child safe and care for him, he can move on to trying to get custody.

This can be done either by making a deal with the mother or by going to court. In either case, the judge will decide based on what is best for the child.

In the end, unmarried fathers can get custody of their children, but they have to prove they are the fathers and show they are good parents.

If you are a father who is not married and you want rights to your child, you should talk to a lawyer who can help you through the whole process.

#3 Showing that you know how to be a good parent

If the parents can't agree on who will take care of their child, they can go to court and a judge will decide based on which parent can give the child a better life.

Because of this, unmarried fathers should be ready to show that they are good parents and can give their children a safe place to live.

Conclusion

It may be challenging for unmarried men to obtain custody of their child without proving paternity and their ability to be a good parent. Fathers must also take prompt action, if necessary, and obtain legal counsel so that they can be guided through every stage of the process in order to regain full access to their child's life.

[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!

[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.

[freelancearsonist]

You Have the Body

Matt Murdock x fem!Reader

Rated MA for basically porn without plot, exhibitionism/public sex (no one sees or is aware but it happens), improper use of legal terms, studying is just foreplay in this house

1,049 words

A/N: college!matt got me feeling some type of way so here you go pls enjoy 😂🫶

photo from @dropsofprecipitation

“You have to stay quiet.”

Such a typical lawyer he is, always negotiating terms.

What you wouldn’t give to wind him up until he snaps and does something completely spontaneous.

You consider pushing his buttons until he throws you up against the bookcase and has his way with you, but you think it’ll just be easier to agree to his terms.

Your voice is low and conspiratorial as you tell him, “you know I can’t stay quiet with you.”

“If you want me to touch you here, you’re gonna have to.”

There’s something about the grating quality of his voice when he whispers that goes straight to your cunt, and it’s infinitely unfair. It’s horrifically unjust, what he can do to you with just his words.

He’s a hell of a lawyer.

“Enough talk, Matty,” you hum—a lame attempt not to sound desperate that falls completely flat. Even if he didn’t have his senses, he’d be able to tell that you’re aching to get on with it. “Discussing rules isn’t helping me learn.”

Oh, that pushes a good button. You can tell from the throaty little growl he looses; from the way he turns in his seat to face you and he has to squirm to make the tent in his pants comfortable.

“Affidavit.”

You clear your throat before answering, “a written or printed statement made under oath.”

There’s a strategy to what he’s doing, starting with the easiest vocabulary terms. He’ll keep the hard ones until the end—until you’re squirming and sweating on the edge of orgasm and there’s no way you’ll get the answers right. Then he’ll draw his hand away until you can gather your thoughts, reward you with resumed touches once you start answering again.

“Bench trial.”

“A trial without a jury, in which the judge serves as the fact-finder.”

He rewards you with his warm hand sliding slowly up your thigh and under the short skirt that you wore specifically for this occasion. You’ve been planning this for a while, and you wanted little to no interruptions.

Which is why Matt finds you lacking panties under your little skirt—letting out a small noise halfway between a hum and a growl.

“Cause of action.”

He doesn’t wait for your answer before dragging his fingertips through your folds, and you have to bite back a moan when you tell him, “a legal claim.”

“Good girl,” he murmurs, and fuck if that doesn’t make your pussy clench around nothing. “De jure?”

“In law.” Your voice is barely more than a squeak, especially when he slips one deliciously thick finger into your waiting cunt.

“So wet,” he hums. It’s almost taunting, the way his gravelly voice wraps around the two words. “Ex parte.”

Your knuckles are starting to hurt from how tightly you’re gripping the arms of the shitty little library chair you’re sitting in (more like hovering in—your ass has barely touched the seat since Matt’s finger slid inside you).

And then you plummet back to Earth because his finger is suddenly gone.

“Only good girls get what they want,” he reminds you, and you’re tempted to just whine and beg until he gives in. But that won’t work here—even in the most secluded corner of the library, the risk of getting caught is still tremendously real. If you start making a scene, the game is over.

The only way to get what you want is to play by his rules.

“P-proceeding brought to court by only one party. Without any notice or challenge from the other side.”

“That’s my girl.” And then his fingers are back—two of them pressing into you and curling into your most sensitive spot—and you have to bite your fist to keep down the moan that threatens to spill from your mouth.

His thumb flicks over your clit at the same time that he asks, “habeas corpus?”, and you don’t hear a single syllable over the rush of blood in your ears as the knot in your stomach draws tighter.

He’s nicer about punishing you this time—he keeps his thumb rubbing your clit firmly as he draws his fingers out of you—but it’s still shattering. Especially when he smirks at your disdain and tells you that “if you’re not gonna answer, you’re not gonna come.”

He’s evil. He’s pure evil and you want to whine and beg but you know it won’t do you any good. The only way you’re getting what you want is if you play by the rules.

“You have the body,” you answer. It’s a double entendre without you even meaning for it to be—the legal definition, but also a vow that you’re his. That your pleasure lays in his hands, to mold and play with as he sees fit.

What a heady sense of power it gives him. Especially paired with the pained whimper you release as he picks up the pace on your clit and returns his fingers to your warm center.

“Damn right I do.” It’s nothing more than a growl, and it crashes through you like a bull in a china shop. It twists into your gut and makes a home there, replaying over and over until you’re spasming on his fingers and he has to use both hands to keep you still so you don’t draw too much attention to yourself as you come all over his fingers in a very public library.

You’re not sure if it’s hours or seconds before you come down from your high, but by the time you’re back in your body Matt’s tugged your skirt back into place and licked his fingers clean. He has his face buried in his textbook as if he didn’t just accidentally give you a pseudo-out-of-body experience, and it makes you want him all over again.

He doesn’t protest like you expect him to when you slam his textbook shut and start packing everything into your bag. There’s a smirk on his face that tells you he was expecting this—anticipating your need to unravel and bind around him.

He doesn’t look even the slightest bit perturbed by it as you drag him out of the library and in the direction of your dorm building.

THE END

Want to see more from me in the future? Follow @freelancearsonist-updates and turn on post notifications to be notified when I post new fics!

Want to support me? Please consider donating to or commissioning me through my Ko-Fi, I would really appreciate it! 💕​

[qqueenofhades]

Looking thru the news about the affidavit and the classified documents scandal…is Trump fucked now?? Because it sure looks that way to me but I don’t want to get my hopes up again….

anonymous asked: thoughts on the affidavit?

Okay, let's read through the 38-goddamn-pages of this sucker together. (Here is the link to download your own copy if you want to enjoy this special bonding moment as we toast marshmallows on the orange dumpster fire together.) My overall impression is: wow, if this was literally anyone else, they would be so fucked that they would never see daylight again and would probably be headed to Florence Supermax Prison for the rest of their life. Everyone of course worries that Trump will find some way to weasel out of it, but with my usual not-a-lawyer caveats, wowzers. I will also note that my analysis on this case has been accurate enough that I correctly predicted that Trump was under formal investigation for criminal espionage, even before that information was made public. So while that doesn't mean I'm again undoubtedly right in terms of saying WOW, SO MUCH TREASON, HE'S FUCKED, it is at least something to consider.

Let's begin with the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of this sucker:

The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records (page 1)

CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. There you have it, boys, girls, and others. This is hard-copy proof that the Department of Justice is indeed pursuing criminal charges against Trump in terms of his mishandling of classified information and/or disobedience of the Presidential Records Act. And this is entirely separate to all the other treason he did on January 6. Welp.

(Also, it gives you the street address of Mar-a-Lago -- 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480 -- if you want to mail Trump a box of flaming poop or something. Not, uh, that I endorse doing this. Likewise, they refer to him as "FPOTUS" or Former President of the United States, which has to drive him absolutely INSANE.)

The FBI's investigation has established that documents bearing classification markings, which appear to contain National Defense Information (NDI), were among the materials contained in the FIFTEEN BOXES and were stored at the PREMISES in an unauthorized location. [redacted] Further, there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES. (page 2)

I repeat: That is a whole lotta treason. The FBI agent filing this, whose name has obviously been removed to protect them from Trump's insane fans, describes themselves as receiving training

specific to counterintelligence and investigation. Based on my experience and training, I am familiar with efforts used to unlawfully collect, retain, and disseminate sensitive government information, including classified NDI. (page 2-3)

Oh shit son.

The first statute cited under "Statutory Authority and Definitions?" Aka the primary legal justification they're presenting to the judge in order to get them to sign off on the search?

Under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), "[w]hoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted" or attempts to do or causes the same "to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it" shall be fined or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (page 3-4)

OH SHIT SON! What is 18 U.S.C. § 793? That, my friends, is the Espionage Act. They are breaking out the big guns right away and talking about REASON TO BELIEVE THE INFORMATION COULD BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE ADVANTAGE OF ANY FOREIGN NATION, which carries a possible penalty of UP TO TEN YEARS IN JAIL.

Again, this is the FIRST thing they're putting in front of the judge. Where's my white cat. I need to stroke it and eat some popcorn.

They go on to list all the different types of classified information which they expect to find at the Cheeto Palace, including Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), HUMINT Control System (information about human intelligence assets), FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), NOFORN (Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals/Governments/Citizens) ORCON (Originator Controlled, likewise stringently subject to regulations about who gets to see it), and so on. Needless to say, that is a Big Time No No.

Next, I repeat, don't fuck around with librarians. The National Archives made the criminal referral to the FBI because:

The NARA Referral stated that according to NARA's White House Liaison Division Director, a preliminary review of the FIFTEEN BOXES indicated that they contained "newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and 'a lot of classified records.' Of most significant concern was that highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified. (page 8)

So in other words, he just... fucking threw this uber-classified stuff into random boxes with the rest of his crap and didn't even store or label them properly. Of course he did.

Redacted.... redacted... redacted....

From May 16-18, 2022, FBI agents conducted a preliminary review of the FIFTEEN BOXES provided to NARA and identified documents with classification markings in fourteen of the FIFTEEN BOXES. A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET. Further, the FBI agents observed markings reflecting the following compartments/dissemination controls: HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI. (page 17)

Please note that these were in the boxes that had already been given back to NARA. So Trump kept a further twelve boxes that were AT LEAST this sensitive, or worse.

On June 8, 2022, DOJ COUNSEL sent FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 a letter, which reiterated that the PREMISES are not authorized to store classified information and requested the preservation of the STORAGE ROOM and boxes that had been moved from the White House to the PREMISES. (page 22)

This was honestly way, way more polite than the motherfucker deserved. So yep, he straight-up ignored the DOJ and then was all Shocked Pikachu Face when they called his bluff.

Lots more redactions! Hoo boy, I wonder what is in here that is so bad they can't even show large parts of this warrant. Where did Trump store all his classified goodies, you ask? In his fucking bedroom closet. If this man wasn't so stupid, we might really be screwed.

Based upon this investigation, I believe that the STORAGE ROOM, FPOTUS's residential suite, Pine Hall, the "45 Office," and other spaces within the PREMISES are not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information or NDI. Similarly, based upon this investigation, I do not believe that any spaces within the PREMISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS 's Presidential Administration on January 20, 2021.

Translation: We know you've been breaking the law this entire time, you motherfucker, and we will be happy to backdate your charges!

Premature disclosure of the contents of this affidavit and related documents may have a significant and negative impact on the continuing investigation and may severely jeopardize its effectiveness by allowing criminal parties an opportunity to flee, destroy evidence (stored electronically and otherwise), change patterns of behavior, and notify criminal confederates. (page 32)

OH SHIT SON! PREMATURE DISCLOSURE IS BAD AND MUST BE AVOIDED BECAUSE IT MIGHT TIP OFF "CRIMINAL PARTIES" AND "CRIMINAL CONFEDERATES" AND GIVE THEM TIME TO DESTROY EVIDENCE! THIS IS THE WORDING THEY ARE USING, I REPEAT, AGAINST A FORMER PRESIDENT!

(They then go on to literally just destroy the entire letter from Trump's attorneys with all the BS talking points the Republicans have been using, by INCLUDING IT AS A REASON THEY NEED TO SEARCH THE PREMISES AND NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE. (page 34).

ATTACHMENT B: Property to be seized: All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519, including the following: (page 38)

CONSTITUTING EVIDENCE, CONTRABAND, FRUITS OF CRIME, OR OTHER ITEMS ILLEGALLY POSSESSED. You love to see it. Excuse me, I need a cigarette.

[REDACTED]

Okay. Back now. As I said, this is absolutely in Fuck Around And Find Out territory by... a lot, destroys all of Trump's talking points, shows that this is a criminal/counterintelligence/espionage investigation with intended criminal penalties including heavy fines AND up to ten years' imprisonment. Other people, i.e. the whistleblower Reality Winner, have been sentenced to five years in jail for stealing ONE classified document from Uncle Sam, and if the estimate of Trump stealing 300 is true, he should, by my calculations, be legally liable for.... 1500 years in the slammer. WELP.

[traegorn]

I dont think I even know who Vic Manogwhatever is lmao am I missing something or is my internet experience curation just working out well for me?

Vic Mignogna is a voice actor in anime dubs (or was). He was best known as the voice of Ed in Fullmetal Alchemist and Brolly in Dragon Ball Z.

He is also a well known sex pest and creep* in the convention scene.

Back in 2019 a bunch of his victims came forward and finally went on the record, including fellow voice actors Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi. Funimation announced they would no longer hire Mignogna for future projects, and most cons cancelled his appearances.

And that would have been it. He could have ridden this out -- bigger creeps have done that before. But a right wing YouTuber, best described as "Technically a Lawyer" decided to raise money for Vic to sue his accusers on GoFundMe and convinced Vic to do so.

So Vic did. He filed a defamation suit against Marchi, Rial, Rial's fiance (for some reason), and Funimation. And Vic hired the absolute worst lawyer (at the advice of the YouTuber -- guess who manages that YouTuber's trust fund...). All along the way, Vic's fans (using the hashtag "IStandWithVic") harassed anyone who would speak against their hero. They claimed the victims made things up, they tried to misdirect... kiwifarms was involved... you get the picture. And in the end, in late-2019, after the defendants gathered a dozen sworn affidavits from other victims of Mignogna, the judge threw out Vic's case via Texas's anti-SLAPP laws and ruled that Mignogna had to pay the defendants about a quarter of a million in legal fees.

All of this was bad, and you'd think it would have ended there. Vic filed a lawsuit guaranteed to make him toxic to employ (what employer wants to start contracting a voice actor who might sue them on the off chance they decide to replace him? And Sony/Funimation wasn't going to take him back), and now he owes a bunch of money over it.

But YouTuber "Technically a Lawyer" and company convince Vic to APPEAL the ruling. So he does.

And what happened this month, three years and one pandemic later, is that Vic lost his appeal. Not only that, but because he incurred more legal costs for the defendants... HE MAY HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH MORE MONEY.

And Vic's fans, who have been led down this road with promises that the case will turn around any day if they just donate a little bit more... they're big mad.

And it's amazing.

(*- The convention I work for literally blacklisted Mignogna like a decade before this all happened after some of our staff had uncomfortable encounters with him at another event. Con organizers have been talking about this long before anyone went on the record)

[sakuraoora]

Ayato VS Sara lawyer AU!

Characters included: Lawyer!Ayato, Lawyer!Sara, Kazuha is the criminal in this case, Raiden Shogun/Ei is the judge, Random Journalist. Tomo is mentioned throughout, and Yanfei and Kuki Shinobu are in the extras.

Warnings: Nothing but ✨crackhead energy✨ and mentions of tomo being dead

Notes: I'm channeling every bit of my very minimal knowledge that I got from mock trail into this rn.... also NO SHIPS!!

First court hearing for Kazuha. 10:00 A.M.

“Your Honor, rebellion is a… harsh word. My client pleads crackhead energy, or in other words, pleads not guilty.”

Outside the courthouse, 13:00 P.M.

“Why are you such a firm believer that Kazuha is not guilty, Mr. Kamisato?”

“Well, we support the fact that every individual should have a right to have their own belief. Mr. Kaedehara Kazuha is a perfectly good example of this. Why would someone who just wished the best for their friend get sentenced to jail? Why would someone get a bounty on their head because they want to make the land they live in better?”

“Thank you Mr. Kamisato, for your statement.”

Kazuha’s second court hearing. 9:30 A.M.

“Objection, Your Honor, this is hearsay. Mr. Kaedehara Kazuha doesn’t know what’s actually happening, and he doesn’t know what his dead friend or the Raiden Shogun looked like or felt at that moment.”

“Exception, Your Honor. Both present sense impression and excited utterance apply in this scenario. In that moment, Mr. Kaedehara Kazuha was overwhelmed with the emotions of grief and sadness because of his friend, Tomo’s death.”

“Objection overruled,” The judge, the Raiden Shogun herself, but wait, it was actually Raiden Ei, said. “Go on.”

EXTRA! Before the court hearings.

“DAMN IT!” Sara cursed. “How can I revise my offense with this affidavit…” She eyed the defense across the room, and Kazuha spotted her, giving her a wink. “And that stupid samurai that we’re trying to convict isn’t helping… at all…” She grumbled, while crossing out and rewriting parts of her script.

“Yanfei!” Ayato called from across the room. “We need to focus on how he didn’t do anything wrong… just… grabbed a dead vision and ran. He technically didn’t break any laws, riiight?”

Yanfei sighed. “I’m not really sure how things work here in Inazuma, Ayato! If you only gave me another day to completely read all the laws, I would be able to help more, but I only read the relevant laws!!”

“The relevant laws SHOULD BE ENOUGH!!!” Kuki argued. “I’ve bailed Itto out of jail enough to know that. Honestly, how the hell did you get convicted for rebellion, Kazuha?”

“I just joined the resistance to make Inazuma better! Is there anything wrong with trying to make your hometown better??” Kazuha said, exasperated.

“So you’re saying, you joined a rebellion. But before that, you stole a dead vision from your dead friend and because you stole that vision, you have a bounty of 100 million mora on your head? For taking a dead vision?” Yanfei asked.

“Well, yes, if you’re thinking about it that way!” Kazuha chirped.

“You know, this is worse than when I have to get Itto out of jail. So much worse.”

“Don’t worry guys,” Ayato interjected. “I got this.”

"I got this," he said. "Leave it to me," he said. Proceeds to literally call Kazuha a crackhead in the middle of the court hearing.