General Law and Lawsuits

[Phoenix520]

Or, as Maria Muldair puts it, “It ain’t the meat, it’s the motion”.

[RTH10260]

DHS Collected Americans’ Financial Records in Bulk: Sen. Wyden

By Ken Silva
March 14, 2022 Updated: March 15, 2022
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has collected Americans’ financial records in bulk, according to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Wyden revealed the existence of a DHS financial surveillance program in a March 8 letter to the department’s inspector general, calling for an investigation into the previously unknown activities.

Wyden said he has recently learned that Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)—a law enforcement component of DHS—was operating an “indiscriminate and bulk surveillance program that swept up millions of financial records about Americans.”

“After my staff contacted HSI about the program in January 2022, HSI immediately terminated the program,” Wyden wrote to DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari.

The senator said his office was briefed by HSI on Feb. 18—the first time Congress had been told about the program.

“HSI told my staff that it used custom summonses to obtain approximately six million records about money transfers above $500, to or from Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico,” Wyden wrote. “HSI obtained these records using a total of eight customs summonses, which it sent to Western Union and Maxitransfers Corporation (Maxi), demanding records for a six-month period following the order.”

Wyden said the HSI financial surveillance activities are highly problematic for numerous reasons, including the fact that only eight summonses were used to obtain more than 6 million records.

“The customs summonses authority only permits the government to seek records that are ‘relevant’ to an investigation,” he said.

“HSI should have known that this authority could not be used to conduct bulk surveillance, particularly after the Department of Justice inspector general harshly criticized the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2019 for using subpoenas to conduct a bulk surveillance program involving records of international phone calls.”

Wyden also said the HSI database allows hundreds of law enforcement agencies “unfettered access” to the financial records without any court supervision.

The fact that DHS immediately shuttered the program after being contacted by the senator further suggests a lack of internal oversight, he said.

“I write to request that you thoroughly investigate the program to determine whether HSI’s surveillance of Americans was consistent with DHS policy, statutory law, and the United States Constitution,” the letter reads.

Reacting to Wyden’s revelations, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the HSI program “blatantly illegal.”



https://www.theepochtimes.com/dhs-colle ... 35871.html

[keith]

Off Topic

THERE IS NO EXIT FROM THE FOGBOW.

But you can check out whenever you like.

[raison de arizona]

People go to Harvard Law School thinking they’ll be surrounded by KBJs, unaware that they’ll be surrounded by so, so many more Tom Cottons and Ted Cruzes.

[Phoenix520]

Does this belong here?

Chad Loder, a California activist who has taken on Andy Ngo and others on the fringe right (there were lawsuits involved, which he won), received a threatening letter from an attorney representing Andy Ngo. He hired Popehat to respond.

The response is everything you would want.

“Bumptious”, right there in the first paragraph.

[Volkonski]

Trump train

https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-train/

AUSTIN, Texas — A federal court in Texas refused to dismiss a lawsuit arising from a 2020 incident in which supporters of then-President Donald Trump surrounded a Biden campaign bus on the highway between San Antonio and Austin, Texas. The plaintiffs, including former state Senator Wendy Davis, claim the defendants and others came within inches of the bus and one vehicle slammed into a campaign staffer’s car.

[raison de arizona]

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-10- ... /100555550

Nikolas Cruz has pleaded guilty to murdering 17 people during a rampage at his former high school in Parkland, Florida, leaving a jury to decide whether he will be executed for one of the nation's deadliest school shootings.

Key points:

Cruz has plead guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder
A penalty trial with 12 jurors will now decide whether he will get the death penalty or life in prison
Cruz killed 14 students and three staff in a seven-minute rampage on Valentine's Day, 2018

This is in jury selection.

Parkland shooting: Potential sentencing juror says she can't be on jury because of 'sugar daddy'

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A prospective juror for the sentencing of Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz asked the judge to dismiss her from duty earlier this week, claiming she didn’t have enough time to fulfill her civic duty because she’s both married and has "a sugar daddy."

The selected jurors will eventually determine whether Cruz will face the death penalty or life in prison. He killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where he was once a student, on Valentine’s Day in 2018.

Jurors will have to agree to the death penalty unanimously in order for him to receive such a sentence. Otherwise, he’ll face life in prison without the possibility of parole.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/parkl ... ugar-daddy

[raison de arizona]

Well that was clearly a mistake.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Oops!

[Frater I*I]

Oops!

Is that what they call a bench slap?

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Oops!

Is that what the call a bench slap?

[Slim Cognito]

Oops!

Is that what the call a bench slap?

It is now.

Fogbow dictionary nominee.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Oops!

Is that what the call a bench slap?

It is now.

Fogbow dictionary nominee.

Already in, from back in da birfer days, as I recall

[Flatpoint High]

IMG_0959.JPG (59.63 KiB) Viewed 832 times

Oops!

Is that what they call a bench slap?

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Brava!!!!!! Can we emoji that?????

[Volkonski]

[Dave from down under]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-21/ ... /101006330

Gold Coast cosmetic surgeon Cesido Colagrande wins defamation case over fake review

High-profile Gold Coast cosmetic surgeon Cesidio Colagrande has won a defamation case against a rival liposuction doctor who left a fake review on a medical rating website.

Key points:
A Gold Coast doctor has won a defamation lawsuit over a false review left by a rival surgeon
The cosmetic surgeon's commercial competition was ordered to pay $420,000 in damages, as well as costs
The Federal Court of Australia found the false review had left the doctor "profoundly traumatised" and cost him work

[northland10]

So an attorney was suspended by Indiana for filing frivolous lawsuits. He did not take to that very well but at least managed to get the whole process ass-backward and not appealing to the right place when he should have and stuff. It is probably best to read the opinion of the 7th Circuit on his appeal.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1883995.html

One thing of note on that opinion. When the Appellant argues about being wrongly suspended over frivolous cases, ending the opinion with this does not look good for the appellant:

Before we end this appeal, we briefly address procedural matters that Straw has raised. Straw frivolously moved to recuse all judges of this court from hearing his appeal on the ground that, because we have previously ruled against him and taken other administrative action, we are biased.

After the Northern District of Indiana refused to reverse the reciprocal discipline (as mentioned in the appeal above):

Straw then began peppering the district court with motions and letters relating to his desire to “boycott” the court and seek the “abolition of my law license.” He said that he resented judges acting with bias against him, accusing him of being insane and nonsensical, and that he wanted to invoke his First Amendment right not to associate with a court that was hostile towards persons like him with disabilities. The judge denied the motions, emphasizing that she made no pronouncement that would require Straw to associate with the district court, or its bar, and that Straw’s right to practice in the district would remain suspended until he complied with the requirements for reinstatement, as set forth in Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 83‐6.11.

This is from another appeal where he appealed for his right to dissociate:

On appeal Straw asserts that his First Amendment rights to “boycott” and “not associate” with the bar of the Northern District of Indiana required the district judge to strike him from the rolls. But Straw does not point us to any authority permitting a suspended attorney to withdraw unilaterally from the bar of the Northern District of Indiana. Indeed, this court has a contrary rule: an attorney admitted to practice may not withdraw from our bar if he, like Straw, is the subject of a disciplinary matter. In re Wick, 628 F.3d 379, 380–81 (7th Cir. 2010). I

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USC ... 2192-0.pdf

Of course, this ends with extra use of his favorite word, frivolous.

Since seeking to withdraw from the bar of the Northern District of Indiana, Straw has persisted in the misconduct that led to his suspension from the State of Indiana. We recently warned him that his “pattern [of frivolous filings] must stop immediately or he will be sanctioned and barred … from litigating in the courts of this circuit.” Straw v. Vill. of Streamwood, No. 17‐1867, 2018 WL 2068695, at *4 (7th Cir. May 3, 2018). Because we issued the warning after Straw filed this appeal, we will not sanction him at this time, see United States v. Robinson, 251 F.3d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 2001). nevertheless, judicial patience has its limits and we reiterate that continued frivolous filings will risk sanctions, monetary and otherwise

He filed a bunch of petitions with SCOTUS with the one in 2021 having this added to the order of the court

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

I am not sure which petition this was for, I did notice this on one of his SCOTUS petitions.

The 7th Circuit has abused me and accused me of making frivolous filings when all I was doing is opposing that Court hiring my appellee and favoring him and his co-appellees, including the defendant below in this case. Whether opposing the hiring of my appellee in Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court is frivolous or if the bias and favoritism of the Court below is a serious ethical and constitutional problem such that I deserve relief in the form of my motions being GRANTED until it is resolved, and I am totally satisfied. Cf., Magna Carta (1215) Article 61 relief. My appellee started working for the 7th Circuit as a bankruptcy judge on June 15, 2017, the anniversary of the Magna Carta being signed by the King of England. My appeal was denied on July 6, 2017, 3 weeks later.

So, if you are mad at your cases being called frivolous and you think the term frivolous is discriminatory, then your only choice is to sue the word "frivolous"

Civil Action No. 2022-0868
STRAW v. FRIVOLOUS

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 22cv0868-4

Yes, this is a case. He generally sued for an advisory opinion from the DC District, which is totally not frivolous.

It took me a really long time to get to the punch line on this joke. You would not believe how many things I left out.

[Foggy]

Civil Action No. 2022-0868
STRAW v. FRIVOLOUS

That's just his straw man.

Oh hell no I'm not seein' myself out. I live here.

[RTH10260]

Arizona judge rules that 'law enforcement' is NOT a profession
Opinion: A challenge to the make-up of Arizona's Board of Executive Clemency redefined (not in a good way) the dedicated individuals who enforce the law.
EJ MONTINI | Arizona Republic

The idea was not to throw the entire law enforcement community under the bus.

Although that is what the judge did.

The idea was to challenge the makeup of Arizona’s Board of Executive Clemency. That was the plan of the legal representatives of death row inmate Clarence Dixon. They filed a petition with the court saying that the board was “illegally constituted” by having too many former law enforcement professionals on it.

According to state law, “No more than two members from the same professional discipline shall be members of the board at the same time.”

It’s a good rule. One of those rare instances of common sense from our state lawmakers. The idea is to populate the board with a cross section of the citizenry, since the group will be making life or death decisions.

Who knew they weren't professionals?
In Arizona, the governor can commute a death sentence, but can only do so if that is what the clemency board recommends.

The board is supposed to have five members. One seat is vacant at the moment and three of the others are filled with men who spent their professional lives in law enforcement.

Or so they thought.

Michael Johnson and Salvador Freni each retired from the Phoenix Police Department after decades of service.

Louis Quinonez spent years working for different agencies within the same profession.

Or so he presumed.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Stephen Hopkins disagreed, ruling that, “Historically, law enforcement has not been thought of as a ‘profession.’ ”




https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... 395546001/

[Azastan]

Several years ago I fostered a horse which had been seized by Animal Control of one of the local counties. Four years later, the owner of the horse has apparently been charged with some sort of animal abuse/animal neglect charge.

The public defender has sent a subpoena to my veterinarian demanding her records about this particular horse. Washington State requires that records be kept only three years after an animal has last been seen by that vet.

The trial is in TWO WEEKS and my vet is not only angry about the two week notice, but her clients are going to be MAD that their animals are not going to be seen, since the appointments were set up at least a month ago.

The curious thing, though, is that although the public defender knew about the records, she has NOT contacted ME, presumably because she doesn't really want me testifying about the horse which I handled several times daily for two months.

Question: if you were the prosecuting attorney, would you want me to contact your office to offer to be a witness? And how would I do that?

[RTH10260]

Wouldn't this be the case to have the subpoena quashed when the records have actually been purged? My IANAL understanding is that a subpoena for documents is not a request to show up as whitness at a trial. Shouldn't that have been done in advance in discovery to give prosecutors same access to the information?

[Azastan]

Wouldn't this be the case to have the subpoena quashed when the records have actually been purged? My IANAL understanding is that a subpoena for documents is not a request to show up as whitness at a trial.

Because I am an existing client, my vet just keeps all the records. They are electronic records, it's not as if she has a barn full of mouldering old paper records. Also, my vet herself was requested to show up as a witness. She called and was told that she could NOT testify remotely.

I'd like to know the IAAL's opinion on calling a busy medical professional as a witness barely two weeks ahead of when your trail is planned to start, but also, and more importantly, would you, as a prosecutor, want to know my thoughts about the horse in question since I, not my vet, handled this horse for two months?

Edit to add: I'm pretty upset, because my vet could turn around and refuse to see any of my horses in the future due to the threat of having to forego an entire's day's worth of revenue because of needing to testify in court, and she shouldn't have to hire a lawyer just to quash a subpoena BECAUSE OF ME.

[RTH10260]

OK I think I see now, Animal Control gave the horse to you, you then had your own vet look at it, not a vet designated by the agency. Of course the public defender wants a medical opinion on the horses health as recorded back in time, not the opinion of a caretaker. I understand how you are unhappy now of getting the vet into this situation. I guess the lawyer of the vet will need to get the court to have the appearance rescheduled with such short notice. As an outsider I would think of ignoring the appearance and wait for a cort order.

[Foggy]

Honestly, it wouldn't hurt to call the DA's office if you want to volunteer to testify. If they talk to you, you might even suggest you'd be a better witness than the vet, because you saw the horse for many more hours than the vet. But be careful, because prosecutors are not easily persuaded that they might not want to call a witness. They tend to want overkill. The best you can realistically hope for is that IF you testify about the condition of the horse and the DA really thinks she doesn't need the vet, maybe she can release the vet.

But if the prior owner was abusing the horse, maybe your testimony could be really helpful to the DA.