No, the subject of the dependent clause is "the machine," which eats. Whom does the machine eat? The immigrants, of course!
ICE is just trying to meet their insane daily arrest quota. They don't care whom the machine eats.
This article is mainly about burglarizing parked cars. It doesn't say much about carjacking, which is a bigger part of the gameplay loop in my experience.
$600 of the $1373 is a deposit to mitigate risk of future missed payments... The electricity itself is really high, but it's not that high.
This is also Tulsa in the summer.
The 6-3 SCOTUS ruling was in a lawsuit that challenged the exec order on its face. That is to say, the lawsuit was asking the federal courts to declare that the EO is illegal and void. The supreme court said just having an EO is too wishy washy to be an actual harm or injury that you can sue for.
But... During the time of this litigation, the post office has finalized the new rules that implement the EO. So now there are rules on the books that actually do things that affect people... Actual harms that can be the basis of a new lawsuit.
And that's exactly what happened. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the rule instead of the EO, and they're going to ask for their TRO and prelim injunction very shortly now.
TLDR: the supreme court is once again finding the lamest and most legalistic reasons to hand this president small "victories" real fast, while they duck and dodge on saying anything about the real issues.
Qualified immunity is a concept that applies to state law enforcement officers. Feds of all kinds have a different form of immunity that is generally stronger than qualified immunity.
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
The tcpdumps I've worked with can also dump UDP, ICMP, and even ARP.
2040000 ping.
The newest One Weird Trick is to name the little patio in front of the Kennedy Center as the "Donald J. Trump Plaza" (which can then be inscribed onto the building).
Considering they dropped all charges with no prejudice, the city was in the wrong here.
FYI: "without prejudice" means that the city prosecutors are free to refile the charges again at a later date. Or they can file a different set of charges for the same conduct.
You don't actually need to "press" a criminal charge to file a civil lawsuit for the parallel tort. If you've got the evidence, you've got the evidence.
While sitting for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that she filed, Laura Loomer was asked to explain under oath what she meant by the phrase "Arby's in her pants" (which she earlier penned in a tweet).
Transcript:
Q Can you explain to me what it means to say to her that "the Arby's in her pants"?
A Well, Arby's --
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q Answer the question.
A Arby's sells roast beef.
Q Right. Can you tell me what -- why you were talking about "the Arby's in her pants"?
A Well, it's just a -- an expression.
Q What is the expression trying to convey?
A It conveys the reason why she got a divorce by her own admission.
Q Because she had roast beef in her pants?
A Yeah.
Q She'd put roast beef in her pants; that's what you're trying to say there? You're literally saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A I'm saying she literally -- it's so ridiculous. I'm saying she literally put Arby's in her pants. Yes.
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q You're not making a slur about her?
A No.
Q You're literally saying she put an Arby's sandwich in her pants; is that right?
A Yes. That's correct. That's correct.
Q Why are you laughing?
A Because I just think it's so funny.
Q What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A I just think it's so funny. I just think it's so funny.
Q What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A She carries roast beef in her pockets.
Q What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy. Harassment.
DHS is claiming that this man overstayed a visa from 2019, and received a final order of removal from an immigration judge on July 22, 2026. The deadline to appeal such decisions is 30 days, which recently expired.
Edit: And this final order of removal was a default judgement, because he failed to appear at the hearing. He was probably sent a Notice to Appear in the mail and either ignored it or never received the notice.
If he can prove he never received actual notice (maybe the address was bad) he can probably still challenge this. But he needs a lawyer, like yesterday.