I was just reading this post that tries to answer that exact question:
www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/a-complete...

Oh, I’m not disagreeing that Georgia RICO is used to overcharge cases and not just for true racketeering - it’s unusual among state RICO laws for being drafted that way. Just saying Willis in particular is notorious around here for that in a way other prosecutors aren’t.

It’s more that’s how things are done by Willis-she charges complicated, $$$ RICO cases even when sthg simpler & less splashy would be easier to prove & make stick. If she’d streamlined the election case from the start, she’d have convictions by now and never would’ve hired Wade in the first place.

Done! Go get that degree, Star!

(And do we really want precedent that would let a future foreperson deliberately change an outcome they disagreed with by reporting a “mistake” after the other grand jurors left?)

Also seeing a lot of assumptions the foreperson’s explanation conclusively proves what the GJ “meant” to do. What if she spoke imprecisely or they misunderstood her?

But notice the form was filled in with blue ink, and after the discussion with the magistrate judge, the “count 1 only” annotation was made in black ink.

These were for the comm’n that regulates power, so Ds focused on how often the comm’n has raised electricity rates, the need to invest in infrastructure/green energy, & the industry sources of opps’ campaign $. Ran as anti-incumbent, not anti-R; I think I only saw one mailer that referenced party ID

Yeah, it’s this one: bsky.app/profile/did:...

It’s not a binary choice. The options have not yet been narrowed down to two people. There’s still plenty of time to identify candidates who will be actually good on key issues.

Could be there are different interpretations!

11(b)(1) is the part about “not being presented for any improper purpose” such as harassment or needlessly increasing the costs of litigation. (b)(3) is about whether the factual contentions are supported.

They also deliberately designed the letters (in both form and content) to be confusing and misleading so as to set up litigation that otherwise wouldn’t have happened or would’ve been less costly, which strikes me as at least arguably violating 11(b)(1).

If you want an org’s emails, “I’m interested in receiving updates” contact forms still exist!

I am begging people to google “Stop Cop City RICO indictment.” You absolutely do not have to do anything illegal at a protest yourself for prosecutors to make your life miserable over what someone else did, so why put your name on a subpoena-able “yep, I was there!” list? Just show up unannounced!

Buying Grapenuts with my head held high

Right? I’m so delighted to have learned about this!

She came in third!
ijs.usfigureskating.org/leaderboard/...

Someone literally created a block list of them! bsky.app/profile/did:...