Fogbow

You’ve got to feel for the defendant LLC in this Fourth Circuit ruling. It was sued, counterclaimed, won, and was awarded damages and attorney’s fees only to have the whole thing vacated on appeal because one of 39 partners in the LP that owns the LP that owns the LLC that owns the defendant LLC lives in the same state as the plaintiff, destroying diversity of citizenship. But “[w]hether mutual contentment with the federal forum or genuine obliviousness brought the parties to this unfortunate juncture, this Court will not condone the exercise of jurisdiction where it did not truly exist.”

Judge rejects former White House press secretary Jen Psaki's effort to quash subpoena

A judge refused Friday to quash a subpoena issued to former White House press secretary Jen Psaki that seeks her deposition in a lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana, alleging that the Biden administration conspired to silence conservative voices on social media.

Psaki filed a motion in federal court in Alexandria seeking to quash the subpoena, saying that she had no relevant information to provide and that a deposition would place an undue burden on her. The Justice Department supported her efforts to quash.

U.S. Magistrate Ivan Davis said during a hearing Friday that he was unimpressed with Psaki's arguments. But he did not reject her request outright. Instead, he transferred the case back to Louisiana, where the lawsuit was filed.

The Louisiana judge has already issued an order saying that Psaki and other government officials can be deposed. That order is being appealed.

Psaki was allowed to file a separate opposition in Virginia because she lives in the state and would be deposed there.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:38 am Do states have standing on such an issue? Seems odd to me.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:42 am

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:38 am Do states have standing on such an issue? Seems odd to me.

I'm not following this case, but appears to be (another) cart before the horse: the court granted discovery so the plaintiffs can seek a preliminary injunction.

So I infer somewhere the court waived hands to so say it probably had jurisdiction (because the plaintiffs have standing) for the purposes of "limited" discovery.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:47 pm https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/sc/

You’ve got to feel for the defendant LLC in this Fourth Circuit ruling. It was sued, counterclaimed, won, and was awarded damages and attorney’s fees only to have the whole thing vacated on appeal because one of 39 partners in the LP that owns the LP that owns the LLC that owns the defendant LLC lives in the same state as the plaintiff, destroying diversity of citizenship. But “[w]hether mutual contentment with the federal forum or genuine obliviousness brought the parties to this unfortunate juncture, this Court will not condone the exercise of jurisdiction where it did not truly exist.”

http://m.ij.org/MTEwLVdTQi03ODcAAAGIK6z ... bV1tGwfWU=

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:17 pm

keith wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:59 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:47 pm https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/sc/

http://m.ij.org/MTEwLVdTQi03ODcAAAGIK6z ... bV1tGwfWU=

Is there any thing in that paragraph that is written in non-wordsalad?

Yeah. Basically, a guy filed suit against st 36 other people in Federal Court. The defendants filed a counterclaim, the whole thing went to trial, the plaintiff won, and was awarded damages and lawyer's fees.

Then an appeal was filed. A case can only be tried in Federal Court if the plaintiff and defendant live in different states. If they live in the same state, the case has to be filed in State Court. The appeal was based on the fact that *one* of the 36 defendants lived in the same state as the plaintiff and therefore, the Federal Court didn't have jurisdiction to try the case. The defendants won the appeal and everything that had already been done was tossed out. If the plaintiff still wanted to pursue the case he'd have to start all over again in State Court.

What I'm curious about is why no one caught this issue when the case was filed. You would think that between all the lawyers, assistants, clerks, and judges who saw the case, *someone* would have caught it. I would think if they *did* catch it, they'd have an obligation to bring it to the court's attention, wouldn't they? Or if, say, the defendants' lawyer caught it, could he keep quiet about it, knowing he'd have an appeal if they lost?

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:37 pmEr, no. A guy filed a suit in federal court against a small firm, who counterclaimed. The small firm won, including attorney fees, but the plaintiff appealed. The appeals court ordered the small firm to disclose it's ownership. It was then discovered that the firm was owned by another firm, which was owned by another firm, which was then owned by yet an even larger firm that had partners in 39 states, including the state the plaintiff lived in. This meant that the federal court did not have diversity jurisdiction, and since no other jurisdiction applied, the court was not permitted to adjudicate the case. So now the plaintiff can choose to refile at the state level, or simply wash his hands of the matter without having to pay up.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:37 pm

Er, no. A guy filed a suit in federal court against a small firm, who counterclaimed. The small firm won, including attorney fees, but the plaintiff appealed. The appeals court ordered the small firm to disclose it's ownership. It was then discovered that the firm was owned by another firm, which was owned by another firm, which was then owned by yet an even larger firm that had partners in 39 states, including the state the plaintiff lived in. This meant that the federal court did not have diversity jurisdiction, and since no other jurisdiction applied, the court was not permitted to adjudicate the case. So now the plaintiff can choose to refile at the state level, or simply wash his hands of the matter without having to pay up.

Billionaire's troubled insurance companies liquidated by North Carolina judge

By Victor Skinner | The Center Square contributor
19 hrs ago

(The Center Square) – North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey is celebrating a Wake County Superior Court decision this week to liquidate two financially troubled insurance companies once led by billionaire Greg Lindberg.

The Monday court order from Judge Graham Shirley granted a Nov. 1 request from Causey to place Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Co. and Bankers Life Insurance Co. into liquidation, which means obligations will be assumed by state guaranty associations.

“This is an important first step that will allow more policyholders to get more of their money back, sooner,” Causey said in a prepared statement.

“The Department of Insurance stands ready to work with the state guaranty associations to get payments up to the guaranty limits out to policyholders as quickly as possible,” the statement read. “In the meantime, last week I directed two additional motions to be filed with the court to allow more money to be released from the insurance companies directly to policyholders while the state guaranty associations prepare to disburse their payments.”

Lindberg, once North Carolina’s top political donor, was released this summer from a minimum-security prison in Alabama, where he was serving seven years for an alleged attempt to bribe Causey. An appeals court panel in June overturned his 2020 bribery and fraud convictions over mistakes made by the trial judge in delivering jury instructions.

Causey worked with the FBI to record and later testified a Lindberg associate promised a large donation for Causey’s campaign in exchange for a request to replace a state insurance official involved in regulating Lindberg’s businesses.





https://www.thecentersquare.com/north_c ... de7ad.html

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:50 pm How’s this going to affect your business, Fogs?

Velveeta microwavable Shells & Cheese cups advertise that it takes three and a half minutes to cook them to cheesy perfection on the label, but for one distraught Florida woman, that was anything but the truth. Amanda Ramirez has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Kraft Heinz Foods Company of violating state and federal laws with their deceptive labeling, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports. Ramirez’s lawsuit argues that, although the microwave time is three and a half minutes, the preparation, including removing the lid and cheese sauce pouch, as well as adding water, add sufficient time to the ordeal. The suit argues Ramirez would never have purchased the cheesy treat had she known it would take longer than advertised to make. She’s seeking more than $5 million in damages and expects the class of victims to total more than 100.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:11 pm My macaroni that I make for the kid when the missus is out says it takes 10 minutes on the box, but that is 10 minutes AFTER you boil 6 cups of water, which take awhile. Then you still have to strain and mix up the cheese powder, milk and butter.

Can I haz paid?

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:00 am Why it matters that the wording on your Penalty Infringement Notification is comprehensive.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-29/ ... /101710632

The NSW government will withdraw more than 33,000 COVID-19 fines, after a Supreme Court ruling today.

Key points:

The fines cancelled are about half of the 62,128 COVID-related infringements issued
Revenue NSW says that all sanctions on unpaid fines will now stop
They also said the remaining 29,017 fines would still be required to be paid
Earlier today, Justice Dina Yehia SC found two fines for between $1,000 and $3,000, did not meet the requirements of section 20 under the Fines Act.

Those that received penalty notices in the same form will also be deemed invalid, these will be:

• Fail to comply with noticed direction in relation to section 7/8/9 – COVID-19–Individual” (the Revenue NSW website states that there are 32,648 fines in this category)
• “Unlawfully participate in outdoor public gathering – Area of concern- Individual” (the Revenue NSW website states that there are 163 fines in this category)

Those who have paid, will be refunded

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos wrote:A pharma millionaire is suing four hunters for $7 million, and the results will have a huge impact

OnX is an app that’s intended to help hunters find public land so they can go after deer, elk, or whatever they happen to be hunting. At first glance, that may not seem like news, but users of that app get an invaluable view of just who owns the property around them, which is critical when trying to reach public lands where hunting is legal. They have also gotten a very clear view of something that is otherwise hidden from the public: how corporations, millionaires, and billionaires have blocked out huge chunks of public property so that they alone can access it—without paying a dime.

They do this by creating public land “islands,” areas that are surrounded by privately held property. The public lands in these islands become de facto parts of the surrounding property. In most states, there is absolutely no rule that says the property owners have to do anything to allow access to that island of land.

Now, in what may be one of the most egregious case of someone using their power and wealth to bully both local residents and officials, drug company executive Fredric Eshelman—net worth $380 million—is trying to make the situation even worse. He’s trying to block off huge areas of land even when he doesn’t surround them, by pressing a case that would make it much easier to prevent the public from reaching public land.

In the process, Eshelman is trying to financially destroy four hunters for “trespassing,” even though they literally never set one foot on his property. The outcome of this case will affect not just hunters and fishermen, but hikers, bird watchers, artists, photographers, and anyone who simply wants to access land that belongs to all of us.

► Show Spoiler

Well aware of how prickly many land owners are about hunters crossing their property, Cape located an area of “checkerboard” control. That is, the land is divided into one mile-by-one mile sections, half of which are public property, half of which are privately owned, like the black and white squares on a checkboard.

At one place on this checkboard map, Eshelman controlled two squares that met at a corner. The other two squares were public property. Using OnX, Cape mapped out the exact location and led three friends in stepping across the corner from one public square to the other. They not only didn’t step on Eshelman’s land, the area of his property they crossed was infinitely small. Not one state has laws against this “corner crossing,” which is common in areas where grants of public land were once given to railroad companies in an effort to “open up” the West.

Legally, Eshelman can’t run a fence across that corner. So instead he installed “no trespassing” signs at the corners of each of his squares, leaving only a few inches in between (a photograph of the signs is in the Times article). But in a return visit the hunters, aware of the signs after scouting the location, brought with them a specially constructed short ladder, allowing them to hop over the space between the signs.

Read further at https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1 ... ecommended

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:42 pm https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ississippi

Mississippi sues NFL Hall of Famer Brett Favre over misspent welfare dollars
Quarterback was paid for speeches he did not make
Favre has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing

Brett Favre files motion to dismiss Mississippi lawsuit against him in welfare fraud scheme

By Alta Spells, Dianne Gallagher and Eric Levenson, CNN
Updated 1:29 PM EST, Tue November 29, 2022

In a motion filed Monday, retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre and Favre Enterprises Inc. asked a Mississippi court to dismiss a civil complaint filed against him by the Mississippi Department of Human Services, seeking to retrieve funds distributed to Favre as part of what the state calls a statewide welfare fraud scheme.

The civil lawsuit against Favre alleges that the Mississippi Community Education Center directly paid Favre $1.1 million in federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program funds for promotional ads and speaking appearances that the state auditor said never occurred.

Favre has said he had been asking the state for funds to build a new volleyball stadium at his alma mater, the University of Southern Mississippi, where his daughter played volleyball at the time. The nonprofit news organization Mississippi Today, which has covered the scheme for several years, has reported that at least $5 million of the welfare funds were channeled to the new facility.

What we know about Brett Favre and the Mississippi welfare scandal

The former Green Bay Packers star has insisted he didn’t know the millions in grant money he helped secure for the volleyball center at the university or the $1.1 million he was paid directly for a public service announcement campaign came from welfare funds.

Favre returned $500,000 in May 2020 and repaid the remaining $600,000 in October 2021 after the state auditor issued a demand letter for it, according to the auditor’s office. But the auditor’s office maintains Favre still owes $228,000 in interest payments.



https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/28/us/b ... index.html