sadele2
LightNews LightNews
sadele2.bsky.social
sadele2
@sadele2.bsky.social
1.4K followers 770 following 200 posts
"I dreamed I was a perfect smile"

Can someone please remind me where this phrase came from, who said it or wrote it, decades ago?

Old & a bit out of the way. Background in writing world, art world, book world, tv news & entertainment world.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by sadele2
propublica.org
8/ So why are children being left to languish in federal shelters?

Advocates for immigrant kids believe it's to pressure them to self-deport. Last week, lawyers obtained a document the government provides to kids in the shelter system:
Document in both English and Spanish. The English section (top) reads: You have been identified as an unaccompanied minor. This information is intended to provide clarity about the steps involved. You have the option to voluntarily return to your country of origin, and you can return to your country within 72 hours. If you choose to voluntarily return to your country, there will be no administrative consequence, and you will still have the opportunity to apply for a visa, through legal means in the future. If you choose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicate a fear of returning to your country, you can expect the following: -You will be detained in the custody of the United States Government, for a prolonged period of time. -If your sponsor in the United States does not have legal immigration status, they will be subject to arrest and removal from the United States. The sponsor may be subject to criminal prosecution for aiding your illegal entry. -If you cannot substantiate your claim of fear of returning to your country, you can be barred from legally applying for a visa. -If you turn 18 years of age while in U.S. Government custody, you will be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for removal (deportation) from the United States. This can result in being barred from applying for a visa in the future.
November 25, 2025 at 2:19 AM
Reposted by sadele2
propublica.org
7/ Once kids are in federal shelters, they're increasingly stuck there.

The average length of stay has grown from one month under Biden to nearly six months under Trump as the administration has increased vetting of sponsors. Lengthy stays are leading some children to lose hope.
November 25, 2025 at 2:13 AM
sadele2.bsky.social
Calling it “the album that took reggae worldwide,” Rolling Stone placed 'The Harder They Come'at No. 174 on its list of greatest albums of all time in 2020…

#JimmyCliff #Reggae

Gift link:
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/a...

www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/a...
With One Movie and Soundtrack, Jimmy Cliff Changed Reggae Forever
www.nytimes.com
November 24, 2025 at 11:55 PM
sadele2.bsky.social
As I understood if from MS NOW tv panel, Comey's case judge & the US Atty were in Virigina; because the problem was with the US Atty, a judge from another jurisdiction had to handle that.
November 24, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Reposted by sadele2
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Note also that Comey's lawyers have argued that DOJ is wrong as to 18 U.S.C. 3288's applicability here. From their reply: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
In any event, Section 3288 would not allow the government to reindict Mr. Comey if the indictment were dismissed. The grace period is triggered only if an "indictment is found," 18 U.S.C. § 3282; but here, the purported indictment was void ab initio. And the government cannot "grant itself a six-month extension of the statute of limitations... simply by filing a patently defective and meaningless charging document." United States v. Gatz, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2023). Moreover, Section 3288 states that "[t]his section does not permit the filing of a new indictment... where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment ... within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution." Id. (emphasis added). That proviso applies here. Using an illegal appointment to procure an indictment days before the statute of limitations expires thus depriving a person of repose—is precisely the type of "reason" that must "bar a new prosecution" under Section 3288. Indeed, Section 3288 expressly precludes reindictment when the first indictment was filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. To give that provision meaning, the statute must also bar new prosecutions when a void purported indictment is secured simply to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring. Any other reading would "obliterate the statute of limitations." United States v. Clawson, 104 F.3d 250, 252 (9th Cir. 1996).
November 24, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Reposted by sadele2
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Comey's other motions might be moot now, but I just wanted to make clear that the reasoning behind Currie's without prejudice dismissal wouldn't necessarily apply to the other motions, if granted.

(This is also weird procedurally because you don't generally have two different judges on one case.)
November 24, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Reposted by sadele2
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
This is not, however, a ruling on Comey's other motions to dismiss — which are before Judge Nachmanoff — and which could be with prejudice, if granted.
November 24, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Reposted by sadele2
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
As for Comey, DOJ will be arguing that it can re-indict, despite the statute of limitations having since run, under 18 USC 3288.

From DOJ's opposition: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Zeroing in on the actual claim here—that the Attorney General could not lawfully invoke Section 546(a) to appoint Ms. Halligan—Comey comes nowhere close to showing “flagrant misbehavior,” “substantial prejudice,” or the unavailability of a “lesser sanction.” The Attorney General’s invocation of Section 546(a) rather than her many other appointment authorities is not “flagrant misconduct” akin to repeated Brady violations. Cf. United States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1029, 1037 (9th Cir. 2020). As explained above, Comey suffered no prejudice, much less substantial prejudice, from Ms. Halligan’s title when she entered the grand-jury room. And contrary to his assertion (at 25), the counterfactual where the Attorney General did not, in his words, “unlawfully appoint[] Ms. Halligan” is not a world where the government would have let the limitations period run. Instead, the Attorney General would have cited a different authority that would have unquestionably authorized Ms. Halligan to obtain the exact same indictment at the exact same time. If the Court deems the indictment invalid, any dismissal should be without prejudice to permit the government to swiftly seek reindictment under 18 U.S.C. § 3288. 18 U.S. Code § 3288 - Indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations U.S. Code Notes prev | next Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 828; Pub. L. 88–139, § 2, Oct. 16, 1963, 77 Stat. 248; Pub. L. 88–520, § 1, Aug. 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 699; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7081(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4407.)
November 24, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Reposted by sadele2
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Judge Currie, appointed to determine the Appointment Clause question, did not find the matter of whether to dismiss with or without prejudice to be particularly complicated.
Ultimately, I believe the Supreme Court’s Appointments Clause jurisprudence provides the answer to the with-or-without-prejudice question. In both Ryder and Lucia, the Court essentially unwound the actions taken by the unconstitutionally appointed officer and restored the affected party to the position the party occupied before being subjected to those invalid acts. See Ryder, 515 U.S. at 188 (ordering a new “hearing before a properly appointed panel”); Lucia, 585 U.S. at 251 (“[T]he ‘appropriate’ remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new ‘hearing before a properly appointed’ official.” (quoting Ryder, 515 U.S. at 183, 188)); see also Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 83 (2003) (vacating decisions made by an appeals panel that included a judge who was ineligible to sit by designation on an Article III court and remanding “for fresh consideration of petitioners’ appeals by a properly constituted panel”). I will do the same here. I will invalidate the ultra vires acts performed by Ms. Halligan and dismiss the indictment without prejudice, returning Mr. Comey to the status he occupied before being indicted. See Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d at 1303, 1309.
November 24, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Reposted by sadele2
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Comey opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

James opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Last week at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com/p/11-reasons...
11 reasons why (the Jim Comey indictment could get tossed out)
A judge found that Lindsey Halligan appeared to make "fundamental" misstatements of law to the grand jury. DOJ faces skepticism on many fronts. Also: More on Charlotte.
www.lawdork.com
November 24, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Reposted by sadele2
bendobrown.bsky.social
In 2024 I investigated many similar accounts that posted very similar types of content, claiming to be ‘Trump supporting women’ from the US, but they were fake accounts using images stolen from European influencers.

The findings were reported here 👇 edition.cnn.com/2024/08/28/e...
Stolen photos of European influencers used to push Trump propaganda on X | CNN
A phony campaign on X backing Trump ahead of the US election is using stolen or manipulated photos of real women in Europe to push its agenda.
edition.cnn.com
November 23, 2025 at 12:55 PM