It’s got dual roots in the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Every prosecutor who’s bought into that framing, and painted every instance of distribution as a potential murder, has a share of this blood on their hands.

At least for the war crimes side of things, I think finally accepting ICC jurisdiction and turning Trump/Hegseth/etc over is the better way to do it—pardon has no relevance there, and it reestablishes the US as a legitimate part of the world community.

Notable that this doesn’t include any declarations from Halligan or anyone else, and attempts to rely solely on the foreperson’s statement.

Yeah, I thought most states already give their Supreme Courts discretion about whether to accept certified questions…

I know the court reporter takes a transcript of testimony and the grand jury’s colloquies with the prosecutor. I don’t believe they transcribe the actual deliberations and vote though. But I may be wrong about that.

To be fair, I think that’s always true? I don’t think that grand jury deliberations are recorded or transcribed. And typically only the foreperson signs the indictment to attest to the vote.

I don’t get how this doesn’t violate ethics rules. It says the non-lawyers are going to only own a stake in the separate “administrative services” entity. But then it says they’re going to share in the law firm’s revenue. Seems like a contradiction…

Resign.

I have really good memories of my dad reading the Redwall books to my brother and I. Also Tolkien.

What document is this from? Please include links to legal documents when posting excerpts.

…not clear to me why that wouldn’t likewise be a trespass and therefore a search.

The same logic should apply where a dog touches the car even if it doesn’t go “inside,” right? After all, Jones said it was a trespass to attach a GPS tracker to the outside (undercarriage) of a car. If the dog, e.g. puts its paws up on the door to sniff higher, or alerts by scratching the car…

I’m not sure that the litigation hold requires them to keep a record of purely oral communications, whereas a lot likely would have.

Nazis: “Arbeit macht frei.”

Utah: “Work-conditioned housing.”

I would go further and say that a completely unprompted “costumes optional” means that costumes are encouraged…

We can’t write an opinion because that would mean we are committed to certain reasoning, but also everyone knows the real reasons we’re issuing these unreasoned decisions and district courts act illegitimately when they don’t follow those secret reasons in different cases.

Unfortunately, Macs aren’t an option for my practice! (Far too much video discovery comes in proprietary formats with players that only run on Windows.)