mkwt

joined 3 years ago
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Depends probably on the nature of what "forwarded the costs" means.

If the business collected the costs from you and then forwarded them to CBP while acting as your agent, then you can demand a refund from them or sue them.

If you agreed to purchase goods for one price while also agreeing to pay a separate "tariff reimbursement fee" in exchange for purchasing the goods, you're probably shit out of luck.

Various shades in between might be arguable or litigatable one way or another.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Trump specifically alleged in the lawsuit that he filed that the BBC caused him to lose a bunch of money. He should expect the BBC to be able to obtain documents that would tend to prove or disprove how much money he lost.

His lawyers should have definitely seen this one coming. And they shouldn't wait until the day before the deadline to file their opposition. The one-day "emergency" is completely of their own creation.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

If you already received your item(s) and you don't immediately need to do any more business with them, it sounds like they don't have a lot of leverage to get you to pay.

Sounds like that might have been a screw up on their part.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

No. But they do occasionally advertise their TV and movie rental services as videos in the feeds.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 34 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

If you, as a consumer, directly paid one of the illegal tariffs, you can get a refund via the shipper who acted as an agent for you.

For example, here's the form if you shipped something over the border using UPS and paid an illegal tariff to get it released from customs.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Cocaine seems like it would be a new world crop. Meaning Columbus would have to find and develop a source of coca from South America first.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Year 1804. Close.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

ICE is doing this now. They get information from TSA on who is going to be at what airports, and at which dates and times. That lets ICE make their arrest quotas with relatively low effort on their end.

If you have any kind of not completely regular immigration status, I would urge you to avoid domestic air travel in the United States right now.

People have been arrested at airports for overstayed visas, when they filed an adjustment of status on time, and the application has just been sitting at USCIS for several years.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

I'm sure Steiner can open the strait up.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (5 children)
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Here's Western District commander Bunny Colvin on the importance of the brown paper bag to civilization.

 

The Trump administration has dropped its case against a former Olympic canoeist charged in connection with damage to the Reflecting Pool, acknowledging their allegations against David “Davey” Hearn don’t hold water.

officials obtained information that undermined “the evidentiary basis for the indictment” against Hearn.

 

After the supreme court denied Trump's petition for cert in the $5 million defamation case, the district judge has ordered the clerk to pay out the now $5.8 million judgement to E Jean Caroll's lawyers.

The original judgement was for $5 million, and it earned about $800k interest during the appeal. The money is coming directly from the court because Trump earlier paid the full amount into the court registry in lieu of posting an appeal bond.

Trump immediately appealed the pay-out order. But since there's no stay, it's still effective.

E Jean Caroll also has a separate judgement against Trump for about $80 million. That case is still on appeal.

 

Washington, DC resident Sam O'Hara noticed a couple of national guard soldiers patrolling the streets, and he decided to follow them around playing the Star Wars "Imperial March" on a portable speaker.

For this he was handcuffed and detained for about 20 minutes. Now he has reached a settlement where the government will pay him an undisclosed amount of money in compensation.

59
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by mkwt@lemmy.world to c/Epsteinfiles@lemmy.world
 

Breaking now, Judge Emmet Sullivan has granted a preliminary injunction that orders the Department of Justice to either release a number of specific Epstein files to the public, or to "show cause" why they shouldn't.

The government has until July 2 to file responses.

Lawyer and journalist Katie Phang filed suit to enforce the Epstein Transparency Act. The judge has evidently determined that she has suffered harm from being unable to report on the unreleased files, and therefore has standing to sue.

This decision seems like it might be headed for an appeal, but Judge Sullivan declined to stay, or delay implementation, to allow the government time to appeal. So the clock to July 2 is currently ticking.

Bates numbers that are mentioned:

Ordered to unredact names:

  • EFTA00749245
  • EFTA01187999
  • EFTA01930501
  • ETFA01928255
  • EFTA00628112
  • EFTA02648868
  • EFTA02504630
  • EFTA01022356
  • EFTA01703108
  • EFTA00038227

Ordered to produce underlying FBI notes:

  • EFTA01245620
  • EFTA02858481
  • EFTA02858491
  • EFTA02858495

Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.16.0_2.pdf

Full court docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

UPDATE: July 2 is now here. In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, the government decided to produce no additional documents, and they filed a lengthy response explaining reasons why they should not. Short version:

  • All of the redacted email addresses are either victims; or the email address appears in both the name and email fields (like "jsmith@gmail.com" jsmith@gmail.com); or in one case Thomas Massie already outed the guy, so there's no need for the government to comply with the court order (?)
  • The government claims that they count people as "victims" if they started out as victims, but later performed reprehensible acts (according to the files)
  • One indictment was over-redacted, but they claim it's okay because they unredacted some of the same names in some other documents. Another indictment only contains redacted "victims."
  • No need to produce FBI interview notes because the FBI always types up exactly the stuff in their notes into the final report.
  • Reviewing foreign language documents for release is just too darn hard to do.
  • The government plans to publish the redaction log as required, but the law doesn't put a deadline on that, so the judge shouldn't either.
 

A lawyer working with the Minnesota attorney’s office said she just wants some sleep, after working so hard to try to get ICE to follow court orders.

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.”

Edit clarification: This attorney works for the federal government, not the State of Minnesota.

 

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 ›