one of the many weird things here is that the government is saying (admitting?) that the foreperson's statement to the magistrate was not correct. the magistrate ordered the handwritten alteration of the no bill on the foreperson's word that the grand jury voted on the second indictment.

The magistrate gave this instruction after being told the grand jury had voted on the second indictment. Yesterday the government stated on the record that vote never happened. Also not 100% clear that the no bill doc is what the magistrate ordered to be annotated. Likely but inconsistencies.

Why do you say it is unquestionable that the grand jury approved two counts? Doesn't that depend upon the circumstances surrounding the handwritten annotation on the no bill such as when, by whom, etc? And aren't those circumstances presently unclear as far as the public reporting goes?

So is it conceivable that there will be an evidentiary hearing where the foreperson has to explain the handwriting on the no bill and what else happened?

How does a judge determine whether "that" is true? recall grand jurisdiction for testimony? can't imagine that. It's unclear from public reporting who annotated the no bill and when. Are uou are assuming the foreperson did it contemporaneously before any interaction with prosecutorial staff? Why?

In Halligan’s defense, this type of unethical behavior could be common among lawyers who defend insurance companies.

Belief that "race" is a biological property of humans that is associated with distribution of wealth, power and privilege according to phenotype.

“Charlie Kirk ran a Professor Watchlist the right way.”