Petree09
LightNews LightNews
banner
petree09.bsky.social
Petree09
@petree09.bsky.social
1.5K followers 3.6K following 770 posts
Trial lawyer - biglaw turned boutique.
Fightin’ Texas Aggie.
Chunk up the Deuce for H-Town.
Posts Replies Media Videos
petree09.bsky.social
Happy thanksgiving from Chance the Kitten
Picture of black cat with its tongue sticking out and a toy between his paws. The cat is named Chance the Kitten
November 27, 2025 at 11:49 PM
petree09.bsky.social
A side benefit of the new Texas Business Courts for trial lawyers is getting to have more hearings in the fancy appellate courthouses
Picture of the 1910 Courthouse in Houston, TX, home to the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals.
October 16, 2025 at 3:57 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Starting a new chapter in my practice tomorrow but for today… listening to good music with my newborn
Album cover for Stevie Wonder’s Songs in the Key of Life
June 10, 2025 at 4:16 PM
petree09.bsky.social
lol
Bsky screenshot of Jerry post, reply requesting a “Jerry, no” button, another reply saying “Jerry…” and a response to that reply saying “no?”
May 29, 2025 at 4:08 AM
petree09.bsky.social
Dare Dream Do
#COYS
Tottenham Hotspur getting etched into trophy
May 21, 2025 at 10:18 PM
petree09.bsky.social
lol indeed
Excerpt from article that reads as follows: Both the White House and DOJ concluded that because the gift is not conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery, the sources said. Bondi's legal analysis also says it does not run afoul of the Constitution's prohibition on foreign gifts because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, the sources said.
May 11, 2025 at 1:08 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Case in point just now: my mans tried to jump through a closed window above my head, bounced off it, and landed on my arm spilling my coffee everywhere. Cats are great
Pic of small scratches from a murderball cat
April 5, 2025 at 2:22 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Don’t let him fool you he’s a menacing murderball
Pic of Chance the Kitten (black cat) lying in wait (passed out between my side and arm)
April 5, 2025 at 4:31 AM
petree09.bsky.social
Sometimes the timeline is too good
Two AMK skeets. The top he says “I very rarely utter serious profanities here, which is the funny part” and the bottom he says “GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK”
March 28, 2025 at 6:10 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Me seeing this while working to file a motion to compel today related to discovery objections received last night:
awkward face meme
March 19, 2025 at 5:52 PM
petree09.bsky.social
More fuel for @annabower.bsky.social's WITAOD movement
Excerpt from court memorandum opinion entering temporary injunction that states: On February 25, 2025, the White House announced that Amy Gleason is the Acting USDS Administrator, but that same day, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that "the President tasked Elon Musk to oversee the DOGE effort" while others "are helping run DOGE on a day-to-day basis." J.R. 616. When asked by the Court at the hearing on the Motion, Defendants' counsel was not able to identify who served as Acting USDS Administrator from January 20, 2025 until that date.
March 18, 2025 at 8:16 PM
petree09.bsky.social
FIRE's briefing in the lawsuit against Texas A&M over its unconstitutional drag ban is compelling and very well written. You're doing a great job!

But this shows y'all need an Aggie consultant @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social @jdzeman.bsky.social @jtmorristx.bsky.social
Excerpt from FIRE's reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction that reads as follows: The facts only further refute Defendants’ claim of being motivated by concerns over “lewd conduct.” Defendants have approved Draggieland for five years in a row without raising any concerns about “lewdness.” And the videos they cite fail to justify censorship in the name of preventing “lewdness.” Opp. 10. The first video they cite does not, as they claim, depict a performer “simulat[ing] grinding his crotch.” Opp. 10 (citing Defs’ Ex. I). And while it does depict a performer doing “the splits,” few would suggest cheerleaders doing splits on a Saturday afternoon at Kyle Field are engaged in prohibited “lewd” conduct. The second video they offer, of a “Catwoman” performance by Lily Adonis Fables, did not occur at Draggieland. Instead, that performer’s actual appearance at Draggieland 2022 featured a full-length gown.
March 17, 2025 at 8:46 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Ok ladies now let’s get in formation
Pic of Chance the Kitten and DJ Jazzy Jeff laying on the stairs
March 14, 2025 at 2:17 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Rockets win 🚀
Court side pic of Rockets / Magic game Court side pic of Rockets / Magic game
March 11, 2025 at 4:05 AM
petree09.bsky.social
Chance the Kitten got stuck like this while rebooting his software
Black cat with his tongue sticking out
March 7, 2025 at 4:04 PM
petree09.bsky.social
It's personally funny that even extremely dumb younger me in law school many years ago was able to see through this BS reading of Senator Howard's statement. And I was definitely no "respected" legal academic like Anton and Eastman.
Excerpt of law student note that reads as follows: Objectors to birthright citizenship for unauthorized immigrants additionally point to the language used by Senator Howard, particularly the wording of, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Some look at this statement as a list of those excluded, meaning that persons born to foreigners, as well as those born to aliens, as well as those born into families of ambassadors, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship purposes. These objectors believe that the birthright citizenship guarantee contained within the Fourteenth Amendment can be negated by an act of congress since they argue there is no constitutional right to jus soli citizenship for foreigners. The objectors that point to Senator Howard's remarks in the debate surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment ignore the context of the statement as well as the historical context surrounding the adoption of the amendment. The Senators involved in the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment had the common understanding that Howard's introductory statement was not a list of persons excluded from birthright citizenship, but rather described a single excluded class, the families of foreign diplomats that fell under the immunity exception.
March 3, 2025 at 9:43 PM
petree09.bsky.social
I mean this seriously when I ask if Emil Bove has some sort of brain damage? How in the fuck can he think writing this paragraph is helpful to him or persuasive for his position? Can he not see the problem with his analogy for his own position? And that he included that last sentence is . . . wtf???
Excerpt of letter from Emil Bove to Danielle Sassoon that reads as follows: You claim to find my reference to Viktor Bout to be “alarming,” but you have missed the fundamental point. Presidents frequently make policy decisions that the Justice Department is charged with implementing. In connection with the case against Bout, President Biden made a questionable decision to release the “Merchant of Death” from prison. Once the decision was made, it was the responsibility of the Department and your office to execute it. Regardless of anyone's personal views of the policy choice, an AUSA from your office filed a motion to assist in effectuating the decision. See ECF No. 130 , United States v. Bout, No. 08 Cr. 365 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2022). That was your job here, and the job of the AUSAs assigned to the case. You have all violated your oaths by failing to do it. In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President, and anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public's perception of our efforts.
February 13, 2025 at 11:07 PM
petree09.bsky.social
I checked and it’s the weirdest thing: it oscillates between Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of America depending on how closely you zoom in.

So from the close up American perspective - Gulf of America

From the zoomed out world perspective - Gulf of Mexico

Fun times
February 12, 2025 at 10:00 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Maybe it's just me but I don't think Judge Howell is a fan of the SCOTUS presidential immunity decision:
excerpt from FOIA order written by Judge Beryl Howell that reads as follows: In coming to this conclusion, which three dissenting Justices described as “mak[ing] a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law,” id. at 657 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting), the Court also created an evidentiary privilege, requiring that “acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office,” id. at 681. See also id. at 655 (Barrett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (dissenting from the majority’s finding of an evidentiary privilege because “[t]he Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable”). Regardless of the soundness of the majority’s decision, see id. at 683 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong.”), plaintiff has offered a variety of reasons why President Trump is presumptively or absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents while he was President,
February 10, 2025 at 9:30 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Question I haven't worked through completely:

DOJ argues that the 14th doesn't confer birthright citizenship to children of unlawful residents BUT Congress could.

Assume that's true. What justifies the EO's prospective-only basis? How are previously-born kids citizens but not future-born kids?
Excerpt of DOJ brief defending executive order attempting to repeal birthright citizenship that states as follows: “[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with . . . the conduct of foreign relations.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952). “Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility” of Congress or the President “to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 704 (2018) (citation omitted). The government’s reading of the Citizenship Clause respects that principle, while Plaintiffs’ reading violates it. The Citizenship Clause sets a constitutional floor, not a constitutional ceiling. Although Congress may not deny citizenship to those protected by the Clause, it may, through its power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” extend citizenship to those who lack a constitutional right to it. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688. The government’s reading would thus leave Congress with the ability to extend citizenship to the children of illegal aliens or of temporary visitors, just as it has extended citizenship to the children of members of Indian tribes.
February 4, 2025 at 8:04 PM
petree09.bsky.social
They did it! They really did it!

The DOJ made the "terror babies" argument that Louie Gohmert made years ago, which inspired my law school student paper.

*chefs kiss*
Excerpt from DOJ brief defending executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship that states as follows: Finally, Wong Kim Ark recognized an exception to birthright citizenship for “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 682. Here, the President has determined that the United States has experienced “an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration” in which “[m]illions of illegal aliens”—many of whom “present significant threats to national security and public safety”—have entered the country in violation of federal law. Invasion EO § 1; see also id. (explaining that “[o]thers are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities”). Plaintiffs’ maximalist reading of the Citizenship Clause would require extending birthright citizenship to the children of individuals who present such threats, including even unlawful enemy combatants who enter this country in an effort to create sleeper cells or other hostile networks.
February 4, 2025 at 7:50 PM
petree09.bsky.social
And I love the irony of the DOJ bemoaning a world where Congress could "turn the Citizenship Clause on and off" while defending the Executive's attempt to do just that.

I dunno . . . something something "Major Question" amirite?
Excerpt from DOJ brief defending executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship that states as follows: In fact, Plaintiffs’ reading cannot even explain the exception to birthright citizenship for “children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693. Although foreign leaders and diplomats have traditionally enjoyed immunity as a matter of common law, the Constitution allows Congress to abrogate that immunity or to make exceptions to it. See Verlinden BV v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486 (1983). And to the extent Plaintiffs argue that children of foreign leaders or diplomats are not subject to the United States’ jurisdiction because the U.S. chooses to extend immunity to them, their theory would allow Congress to turn the Citizenship Clause on and off at will by extending or retracting immunity.
February 4, 2025 at 7:35 PM
petree09.bsky.social
There is a lot of bad history and even worse reasoning in here, but this attempted logic from the DOJ's brief on birthright citizenship made me audibly LOL:
An excerpt of DOJ's brief defending the executive order attempting to repeal birthright citizenship that states as follows: That reading of the Citizenship Clause reflects its statutory background. Months before Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That Act served as “the initial blueprint” for the Amendment, Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389 (1982), and the Amendment in turn “provide[d] a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out” in the Act, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 775 (2010). The Act stated, as relevant here, that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act § 1, 14 Stat. 27 (emphasis added). There is no reason to read the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Amendment as broader than the phrase “not subject to any foreign power” in the Act—in no small part, because doing so would render the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. And, as telling, the Act’s citizenship language remained on the books until revised by the Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876, § 201(a), 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—suggesting that Congress regarded the Act’s “not subject to any foreign power” requirement as consistent with the Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement. The Act thus confirms that, to be subject . . .
February 4, 2025 at 7:30 PM
petree09.bsky.social
Assuming @nationalsecuritylaw.org has already seen this but just in case:
Excerpt from OMB legal memo that states as follows: Does the Deferred Resignation Email Comply with Privacy Rules? Yes. OPM was authorized to send the email announcing the deferred resignation program by its broad authority to oversee the federal workforce. OPM is authorized to store employee responses under existing systems of records, including systems encompassing personnel records and correspondence to and from the agency. And the deferred resignation offer explicitly provides that, by responding to the email, employees consent to their resignations being shared with their employing agencies. The Privacy Act of 1974 authorizes disclosure of personally identifiable information “with the prior written consent of [ ] the individual to whom the record pertains.” Employees’ resignations are stored on secure government systems at OPM. Although the E-Government Act of 2002 requires agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment when developing certain information technology systems, no such assessment was required here. Longstanding OMB and OPM guidance expressly provide that Privacy Impact Assessments are unnecessary when a system collects information exclusively from government employees, not from the public.
February 4, 2025 at 7:10 PM
petree09.bsky.social
I looked quickly at my saved version of the Congressional Globe and I can't find this supposed quote in the relevant section.

I admittedly didn't look at the entire record and could have missed it.

But am I hallucinating or is this a complete miscite or made up?
An excerpt from a very bad amicus brief in support of Trump's executive order supposedly ending birthright citizenship that reads as follows: Besides being wrong, Plaintiffs’ Citizenship Clause interpretation will continue to attract illegal immigration and birth tourism. As Chairman of the House Judiciary James Wilson (R-IA) recognized while drafting the Fourteenth Amendment, the Amendment was not to “establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.” James Wilson, March 1, 1866. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1St Sess. 39 (1866) 1117 (emphasis added). The costs surrounding these births harm the States in several ways. Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ claims, see, e.g., Dkt. 1, ¶ 5, President Trump’s executive order will reduce harm to the States. Indeed, given the dangers of crossing illegally into the United States, stopping the incentive to try to cross the border will likely save many would-be border crossers’ lives. When the Court considers the equities and the public interest, Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, these factors weigh against granting a preliminary injunction.
February 4, 2025 at 7:00 PM