Gregg Moore
LightNews LightNews
greggmoore.bsky.social
Gregg Moore
@greggmoore.bsky.social
920 followers 480 following 490 posts
Retired (actuary, then software architect). In favor of government that works for ordinary people.
Posts Replies Media Videos
greggmoore.bsky.social
And in her 11/14 Declaration she states rather emphatically that there was no interaction with the GJ that wasn't reflected in the transcript and in her description. This can't be true if a second package was prepared and presented to the GJ for their deliberation and vote.
There are no missing minutes, contrary to the suggestion raised by the court. 2. On September 25, 2025, I presented the case of the United States v. James B. Comey, Jr., to a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. I have reviewed the full transcript of the grand jury proceedings, and the transcript accurately reflects the entirety of the government’s presentation and presence in front of the grand jury. There was no 1 Case 1:25-cr-00272-MSN-WEF Document 187-1 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 2564 additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript. Below is a brief timeline of the events that day.
November 21, 2025 at 9:48 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
In this excerpt of her 11/20 Notice she quotes from the testimony of the foreperson saying that there was one vote on 3 counts, then a different package was prepared with just 2 counts (obviously requiring someone interacting with and presenting to the GJ, however minimally), and then a second vote.
This sworn testimony alone establishes that the grand jury voted on the two-count indictment. Further, the Foreperson explained the separation of the charges and the grand jury's action: THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be just one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on.
November 21, 2025 at 9:40 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
In this excerpt of her 11/14 Declaration she asserts there was one GJ deliberation and that “[t]his time represents the grand jury’s private deliberation which was done in secret with no one but the members of the grand jury present”. She says they voted just once, on the 3-count indictment.
Below is a brief timeline of the events that day. 3. On September 25, 2025, I appeared before the grand jury. After introducing myself and the case proposed for indictment, the case was presented through testimony. At the conclusion of the presentment, I provided a brief summation to the grand jury and then departed along with the court reporter. The process of presenting the indictment took place from approximately 02:18 PM to 04:28 PM. 4. Approximately two hours later, at 06:40 PM, I was notified by then-First Assistant United States Attorney Maggie Cleary that the grand jury had returned a true bill as to the presented Count Two and Count Three of the indictment and that the grand jury had not returned a true bill as to the presented Count One. I then proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment in front of the magistrate judge. 5. During the intermediary time, between concluding my presentation and being notified of the grand jury’s return, I had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury. This time represents the grand jury’s private deliberation which was done in secret with no one but the members of the grand jury present, consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d)(2).
November 21, 2025 at 9:39 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply, and here is the rule for recording and transcribing Grand Jury proceedings:
Rule 6 FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (d) Who May Be Present. (1) While the Grand Jury Is in Session. The following persons may be present while the grand jury is in session: attorneys for the government, the witness being questioned, interpreters when needed, and a court reporter or an operator of a record- ing device. (2) During Deliberations and Voting. No person other than the jurors, and any interpreter needed to assist a hearing-im- paired or speech-impaired juror, may be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting. (e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings. (1) Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the valid- ity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional fail- ure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the record- ing, the reporter’s notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.
November 21, 2025 at 4:48 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
In the Ninth Circuit it's 11 randomly selected judges plus the Chief Judge presiding.

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/news-media/m...
The Ninth Circuit is currently authorized 29 appellate judgeships. Active and senior judges hear appeals of decisions in cases that have been decided by U.S. district courts. An appellant, the party who appeals a district court’s decision, usually seeks reversal of that decision. Oral arguments are heard by a three-judge panel. Parties may file for petitions for a case to be heard or reheard en banc. An en banc panel in the Ninth Circuit consists of 11 randomly selected judges. The chief judge of the circuit presides over the hearing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal operates somewhat differently than other circuits. Most circuits hold en banc hearings with all judges in the court of appeals. Due to the large number of judges in the Ninth Circuit, en banc hearings are held with 11 judges.
October 23, 2025 at 1:39 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial.
September 2, 2025 at 8:34 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Uganda Travel Advisory Travel Advisory April 23, 2025Uganda - Level 3: Reconsider Travel Updated with information on upcoming national elections and the “If you decide to travel” section. Reconsider travel to Uganda due to crime, terrorism, and laws targeting persons on the basis of sexual orientation. Exercise increased caution due to potential security risks and the unpredictable nature of public demonstrations. This includes demonstrations by political groups leading up to the January to February 2026 elections. Read the entire Travel Advisory. Country Summary: There remains a threat of terrorist attacks in Uganda. Visit the U.S. Department of State's country reports on terrorism to learn more. Terrorist attacks have targeted: Religious venues Schools Government buildings Police stations Transportation hubs Areas visited by tourists.
August 25, 2025 at 4:47 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
How This Differs From Our Approach in Other Places Mississippi’s new law and the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) are very different. Bluesky follows the OSA in the UK. There, Bluesky is still accessible for everyone, age checks are required only for accessing certain content and features, and Bluesky does not know and does not track which UK users are under 18. Mississippi’s law, by contrast, would block everyone from accessing the site—teens and adults—unless they hand over sensitive information, and once they do, the law in Mississippi requires Bluesky to keep track of which users are children.
August 23, 2025 at 5:15 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
The unexplained order by SCOTUS on June 23 implies that they don't agree with *something* in the April 18 injunction that they stay. Maybe they don't like, for example, the 15-day opportunity to move to reopen.
Accordingly, the Court circumscribes its remedy and declines, at this time, to require the full extent of process Plaintiffs propose. Instead, the Court orders that, prior to removing any alien to a third country, i.e., any country not explicitly provided for on the alien’s order of removal, Defendants must: (1) provide written notice46 to the alien—and the alien’s immigration counsel, if any47—of the third country to which the alien may be removed, in a language the alien can understand; (2) provide meaningful opportunity for the alien to raise a fear of return for eligibility for CAT protections; (3) move to reopen the proceedings if the alien demonstrates “reasonable fear”;48 and (4) if the alien is not found to have demonstrated “reasonable fear,” provide meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, 49 for that alien to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal.
July 13, 2025 at 12:35 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Are you saying his answer below was stupid? What specifically would you have had him say, the exact words?
Zohran Mamdani: “That’s not language that I use. The language that I use, and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city, is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights. And ultimately, that’s what is the foundation of so much of my politics — the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people and that includes Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
July 2, 2025 at 7:22 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
The dissent (Sotomayor with Kagan and Jackson joining) argues that the same process is already legally required in those subsequent removal actions. They say the government's theory would "[render] the remaining statutory
scheme “‘void . . . or insignificant.’” and can't be construed in that way.
It is a “‘cardinal principle of statutory construction,’” moreover, that statutes should be construed so that “‘no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.’” TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001). Here the Government construes the statute’s lack of “a particular process for carrying out” third-country removals, Application for Stay of Injunction 13, as conveying near-unlimited power to the Executive, rendering the remaining statutory scheme “‘void . . . or insignificant.’” TRW, 534 U. S., at 31. To make this claim is to ignore the clear statutory command that notice and a hearing must be provided. See supra, at 15. The Government cannot show a likelihood of success on plaintiffs’ statutory and regulatory claims, nor can it defend the lawfulness of its no-notice removals.
June 27, 2025 at 7:00 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
I searched and found that there is a case addressing this ploy: MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK v. KRISTI NOEM.

They are currently asking the court to postpone the effective date of the Trump expansion of expedited removal. Here's their motion:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Image of excerpt from plaintiffs' motion, which consists of the following text: "Plaintiffs filed this action to challenge the Trump Administration’s expansion of expedited removal into the interior of the United States, warning of the severe due process violations that will result from the wholesale application of a process designed for apprehensions and removal at the border to people who have already entered and been living in the United States for up to two years. Recent events necessitate emergency relief: In the past weeks, the Trump Administration has utilized the Rule and Guidance on an unprecedented, national scale to sweep into expedited removal people who were already undergoing regular removal proceedings before an immigration judge (“IJ”). With no advance notice to the noncitizens, Defendants are moving for IJs to dismiss people’s removal proceedings; arresting and detaining people who have appeared for their court hearings as directed; and placing them in expedited removal proceedings, thereby denying them any meaningful opportunity to be heard before quickly removing them. This aggressive new implementation of the Rule and Guidance has sown fear in immigrant communities, as noncitizens who have been complying with their legal obligations now face the risk of arrest and summary deportation at their next court dates. "
June 18, 2025 at 11:51 AM
greggmoore.bsky.social
media1.tenor.com/m/ksQvYCHIbA...
Luke Skywalker dismissively dusts off his shoulder after massive barrage directed at him by the forces of Kylo Ren.
June 8, 2025 at 2:16 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
From the affidavit itself, after going through the jury door (and possibly briefly through some "private area"), Ruiz came into the public hallway where agent A and agent B were. Both the agents saw him there, followed him, and ultimately seized him.
"After leaving the Chief Judge’s vestibule and returning to the public hallway, DEA Agent A reported that Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were in the public hallway. DEA Agent B also observed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney in the hallway near Courtroom 615 and noted that Flores- Ruiz was looking around the hallway. From different vantage points, both agents observed Flores-Ruiz and his counsel walk briskly towards the elevator bank on the south end of the sixth floor."
April 26, 2025 at 12:40 AM
greggmoore.bsky.social
On Monday, President Donald Trump told us why Abrego Garcia is not back. Abrego Garcia cannot be brought back because his continued imprisonment there — and the success of its underlying claim that the U.S. doesn’t have the authority to bring him back — is key to the Trump administration’s lawless plans to create an outside-the-law prison system to hold anyone it dislikes, including U.S. citizens. “You know what I want them to do?” Trump told El Salvador President Nayib Bukele as the two walked into the Oval Office. “Homegrown criminals next.” Repeating it to the others in the room — including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Attorney General Pam Bondi — Trump said, “I said, ‘Homegrowns are next.’ The homegrowns.” adding that Bukele would need to “build about five more places.” Bukele responded, laughing, “We’ve got space.”
April 14, 2025 at 11:35 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Not true, SCOTUS ruled that the migrants must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. They expressly said that they didn't reach the arguments that the migrants will bring now that they are allowed to in habeas.

They didn't rule the administration can "continue to deport".
Relevant excerpt from Supreme Court ruling: "They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’, must be brought in habeas."
April 13, 2025 at 1:24 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Google video search for "wuhan lab live hosts"
March 30, 2025 at 8:42 PM
greggmoore.bsky.social
Excerpt below is from a declaration by his lawyer.

Are you saying that revoking his green card without his knowledge (as the agent claimed) was a legally justified act?

Or was there was some other legal justification for snatching him, something different than what the agent claimed?
"When I told Agent Hernandez that Mahmoud does not have a student visa becausehe is a green card holder and permanent resident in the U.S., he said DHS revoked the green card,too. I explained to Agent Hernandez that Mahmoud is entitled to due process as a green card holderbefore his green card can be revoked and he responded that Mahmoud would have the chance togo before an immigration judge. When I began to ask more questions about what grounds theywould have to put Mahmoud in immigration proceedings, Agent Hernandez started to grumble atme. I asked him to show me, Mahmoud, or his wife the warrant and he hung up on me."
March 11, 2025 at 12:21 AM
greggmoore.bsky.social
FURTHER ORDERED that from the date of this Court’s Order until the Court rules on a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff Cathy A. Harris shall continue to serve as Chairman of the MSPB. Defendants Secretary Scott Bessent […] are ENJOINED from removing Harris from her office or in any way treating her as having been removed, denying or obstructing Harris’s position, or otherwise recognizing any other person as a member of the MSPB in Harris’s position, pending further order of the Court; […]
February 19, 2025 at 1:11 AM