Sean Wilken KC
@swilkenkc.bsky.social
KC, mediator and arbitrator specialising in international, commercial, construction and energy law. GB FIS rep. May post about international law, politics and various security issues. Also skis, climbs, dives, fences, reads & writes the odd book.
There is a strong counter vote for tea and putting the stove on 2/2
November 14, 2025 at 10:32 AM
There is a strong counter vote for tea and putting the stove on 2/2
In an economic austerity moment - I will be doing my con this morning mostly dressed as a WWII member of the Norwegian resistance: beard - check; very chunky sweater - check; woollen shirt and thermals - check; snow trousers and braces - check. Heroes of Telemark here I come. 1/2
November 14, 2025 at 10:31 AM
In an economic austerity moment - I will be doing my con this morning mostly dressed as a WWII member of the Norwegian resistance: beard - check; very chunky sweater - check; woollen shirt and thermals - check; snow trousers and braces - check. Heroes of Telemark here I come. 1/2
There’s goretex for one and probably hair product for the other….
November 14, 2025 at 9:21 AM
There’s goretex for one and probably hair product for the other….
I remember my parents stockpiling food, candles and camping stoves….
November 14, 2025 at 9:18 AM
I remember my parents stockpiling food, candles and camping stoves….
How about pine martens and marmalade sandwiches?
November 13, 2025 at 3:22 PM
How about pine martens and marmalade sandwiches?
Hmmm. Barley on green?
November 13, 2025 at 2:41 PM
Hmmm. Barley on green?
You’ll be on Georgie Best Superstar next….
November 13, 2025 at 12:48 PM
You’ll be on Georgie Best Superstar next….
That amount of punning can only have one response
a man in a suit and hat is standing with his hands in his pockets in a black and white photo .
ALT: a man in a suit and hat is standing with his hands in his pockets in a black and white photo .
media.tenor.com
November 11, 2025 at 1:11 PM
That amount of punning can only have one response
Which must mean even they thought that challenging those findings was unarguable. Even they….
November 11, 2025 at 12:41 PM
Which must mean even they thought that challenging those findings was unarguable. Even they….
Yes. Because SCOTUS ruled that despite being an insurrectionist Trump was eligible. Thus although he was an insurrectionist he could be on the ballot. And even though he was an insurrectionist people could vote for that insurrectionist.
November 11, 2025 at 12:27 PM
Yes. Because SCOTUS ruled that despite being an insurrectionist Trump was eligible. Thus although he was an insurrectionist he could be on the ballot. And even though he was an insurrectionist people could vote for that insurrectionist.
Plus the Rosenbergs themselves contended that it was a treason conviction (failed on appeal) but there is a duck point here
November 11, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Plus the Rosenbergs themselves contended that it was a treason conviction (failed on appeal) but there is a duck point here
The prosecution and the judge both approached the case as if it were treason. If we're going to get pedantic, how about Gadahn - indicted and then eje'd via drone in 2015?
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 PM
The prosecution and the judge both approached the case as if it were treason. If we're going to get pedantic, how about Gadahn - indicted and then eje'd via drone in 2015?
Sure as heck gives rise to an appeal unless accurate!
November 11, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Sure as heck gives rise to an appeal unless accurate!
Legal nonsense. It's legal 101 - if an appeal does not challenge the facts and indeed proceeds on the basis of those facts, the facts remain
November 11, 2025 at 11:59 AM
Legal nonsense. It's legal 101 - if an appeal does not challenge the facts and indeed proceeds on the basis of those facts, the facts remain
Sigh. It's a finding. It's stare decisis.
November 11, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Sigh. It's a finding. It's stare decisis.
Judge's summing up: who knows how many millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason.
November 11, 2025 at 11:56 AM
Judge's summing up: who knows how many millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason.
Anderson v Griswold is the correct citation. The finding of fact - Trump was an insurrectionist was not appealed. The appeal to SCOTUS proceeded on the basis that he was & was still eligible despite being an insurrectionist.
November 11, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Anderson v Griswold is the correct citation. The finding of fact - Trump was an insurrectionist was not appealed. The appeal to SCOTUS proceeded on the basis that he was & was still eligible despite being an insurrectionist.
The Rosenbergs are on the phone from 1953 - they would like a word?
November 11, 2025 at 11:50 AM
The Rosenbergs are on the phone from 1953 - they would like a word?
Anderson v Griswold - www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1...
The eligibility point was appealed the finding of fact was not
The eligibility point was appealed the finding of fact was not
Read the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that kicked Trump off the state primary ballot
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump is not eligible to become president again after engaging in insurrection. Read the Colorado justices' full ruling.
www.npr.org
November 11, 2025 at 11:48 AM
Anderson v Griswold - www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1...
The eligibility point was appealed the finding of fact was not
The eligibility point was appealed the finding of fact was not
Wrong again. But please keep digging that hole
November 11, 2025 at 11:43 AM
Wrong again. But please keep digging that hole
Wrong. CO Court so found and the finding was unchallenged on appeal.
November 11, 2025 at 11:43 AM
Wrong. CO Court so found and the finding was unchallenged on appeal.
Brett is correct. The finding was not challenged on appeal and is therefore binding
November 11, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Brett is correct. The finding was not challenged on appeal and is therefore binding