mkwt

joined 2 years ago
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

“It’s a bit scary to know that the most valuable private company in the world has your address and has shown up and has questions for you,”

That's how "service of process" works. "Process server" is an entire career for people who figure out how to deliver legal documents to people personally.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

No. I am suggesting that these times are abnormal.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Rehmet won by around 10 points too, which puts the total swing around +30. If that kind of swing holds up in the rest of the state, it would completely blow up the Texas gerrymander. Remember, gerrymanders turn a lot of very safe districts into only moderately safe districts.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Feels like:

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (5 children)

This is, uh, this is not how judges normally sign off on opinions:

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It may have been invisible, but it wasn't very inodorable.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

alcohol in pretty much any quality has negative effects

The key is that this guidance came out somewhere between millennial and gen z coming of age.

When I was a child the TV news would run "health" stories about how moderate amounts of red wine are good for you. It turned out those studies were funded by the alcohol industry.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago

They did some wildly unprecedented legal maneuvers to try to get these warrants.

  1. Went to magistrate duty judge, who approved 3/8 warrants.
  2. Went to that judge's manager, Chief Judge Schlitz. He didn't outright deny the warrants, he just wanted to take a few days to think about it.
  3. That wasn't good enough. They went to the judge-manager's manager, the 8th circuit court of appeals. In a sealed emergency petition for writ of mandamus.
  4. Judge Schlitz was required to defend himself in this mandamus action with two hours of notice and he wasn't even allowed to read the papers.

Since the mandamus action failed, it seems likely that the government has gotten a grand jury indictment. Which process bypasses judges nearly entirely.

Note that it's pretty normal to get indictments first in the federal courts (before the current times), because if the feds arrest someone on a complaint, they have a 30 day deadline to get that indictment. If they don't arrest first, there's no deadline and they can retry as many times as they want.

So normally the feds only use complaints when they need to get someone off the street urgently. These feds use complaints because they only care about splashing the perp walk on social media. They don't care what happens to the case after that.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Some of those bags are still on the moon today, in the lockers on the descent stages where they were left.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Obviously, this is why you should keep your habeas attorney on retainer at all times. (/s)

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The planes are adaptable, multirole fighters that can, in fact, fly in all sorts of conditions. The problem is the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours is really high. I was once quoted that it was an amortized $12k just to turn it on bring the engine to idle, and turn it off again.

Given that reality, in peace time, many operators will pick and choose when and where they fly. In wartime, of course, the way economy will either expand to handle the maintenance, or (more likely, imo) designs will pivot to something more manufacturable and maintainable.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Isn't that similar to the shit that got Turkey kicked out of the F35 program?

 

Over the weekend, Judge Nachmanoff made it clear that a large amount of discovery material is to be delivered to James Comey today. The prosecution team from North Carolina seem to be engaging in a series of stall tactics to delay this.

The eastern district of Virginia is known informally as the "rocket docket" because of its fast resolution times for cases.

 

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.
view more: next ›