TwiceHorn

I actually have it on pretty good authority that .50BMG doesn't punch holes in human meat sacks. It explodes them. At least inside 1000 yards.

Chickenhawk? Some Freudian confession there, Zach?

More like the Violent Femmes.

Dick is way too big. I may be seeing shadow, but still too big.

Well Tucker and Alex, you probably wouldn't be assaulted by demons if you weren't Satanic pieces of shit in the first place.

And, while the Cheney quote is ridiculous, as Meidas is wont to do, it is out of context. Meidas has some good reporting on some things, but can also be counted on to be quite hysterical and to propagate kind of shitty tweets.

Duly noted elsewhere. Many things wrong with this lawsuit and that is probably the decider. However, that post was in response to specific questions about jurisdiction and venue.

Worth noting that the basis of suspension here (practical disbarment) is his plea of guilty to a serious crime involving misrepresentation, fraud or deceit. Thus, this came within one year of his October 2023 plea and conviction of that crime. This is one of the easiest grounds of disbarment/suspension on which a Bar can proceed. Unlike what the Texas Bar attempted with Powell. However, Texas has a very similar scheme to NY here and I believe I would expect a similar result on her plea and conviction.

Somewhat yes. Revocation of tax-exempt status is sure to evoke cries of violation of the First Amendment and gubmint interference with religion. But possibly more importantly, if the law is enforced equally, black churches are guilty of the same conduct with approximately the same frequency, and loss of tax-exempt status would surely destroy them.

Was thinking in the same vein, given her Rhodes scholarship and further graduate degrees at Oxford. But, she's also just generally a thought extremist, so just proving the horseshoe/circle theory.

All true, but half the reason for my posts are not to explain how it WILL go, but how it SHOULD go, if we weren't on this gotdam timeline. Thirty some odd years ago, when I was a baby lawyer, I was gratified that the Fifth Circuit was one of the more balanced courts of appeal with solid jurists with a sense of humor like Irving Goldberg and even civil rights leaders like Wisdom and others. And illustrious judicial UT alumni I now find it disgusting and repugnant and probably the worst court of appeals. That's really fucking embarrassing.

And if things go wonky on turn-by-turn, as in road construction, you can be well and truly fucked. Real-time data has mostly solved that, but not completely. Also, I have temporarily lost connections in such a way that nav doesn't seem to know where I am on the route and delivers erroneous instructions that I only know to ignore because I have examined the route in total ("Rerouting" "Rerouting"). I also use nav apps to evaluate traffic before embarking on a familiar journey, so I can hopefully choose the fastest or at least least congested route. But on multiple occasions, I have been well and truly foiled by changing conditions. More on topic, I have an internal dialog that can be pretty pessimistic or negative, especially when it comes to self-evaluation. I have to Stuart Smalley it from time to time. I am not synesthetic nor do I have an eidetic/photographic memory, but it's close and relies a lot on visual cues. Example, I have always been an excellent speller. Part of it is, if I have seen a word, I remember how to spell it. But I'm also pretty good at phonetic spelling. I remember people's names that I have met only in passing, which often serves to embarrass them because they don't remember my name or even me at all.

Yeah, there have been moments in recentish conservative history where I thought the party might turn away from culture war shit, but each time that was utterly false and the people I identified with that virtually complete shitheads.

Two questions have to be answered here, one is "personal jurisdiction" and the other is venue. Personal jurisdiction is constitutional and its existence gives the court the power to hear the case and its lack deprives the court of that power. It attempts to measure the defendant's connections or contacts with the state in question and the fairness/foreseeability of being sued in the state. It probably barely exists here because the case arises out of CBS' broadcast of the interview and subsequent actions, all of which were available to viewers in Texas, as CBS knew and intended. That's probably enough. Venue is not constitutional, it's a creature of statute. Some statutes mandate where venue lies for certain kinds of cases, like patent infringement, where the suit must be filed where the defendant resides or commits acts of infringement and maintains a place of business (e.g. an Apple store for when Apple infringes patents). If the suit is not filed in one of those places, venue is conclusively wrong and the suit must be dismissed or transferred to a district where venue is proper. But a lot of cases have no "mandatory venue" statute, and this would be one of them. Therefore, if personal jurisdiction is satisfied, so is venue, at least technically. So, the judge can dismiss or transfer it if the venue is "inconvenient." There are factors to consider here, one of which is a complete lack of connection of the plaintiff (and defendant) to the venue in question. However, ultimately it is an "abuse of discretion" standard that mostly leaves it up to the judge. The only way to appeal a judge's venue decision is by a "writ of mandamus," which is a very narrow type of appeal that is disfavored and typically unlikely to succeed. It would seem that the political affinity between the 5th Circuit, Kazmethhead, and Trump mean this is effectively unappealable.

Interdasting. A medical image should be the subject of a copyright just as is a photograph. The author of such an image would seem to be the radiology or imaging tech, but because they are employed to make such images, the "author" then would be the lab that employs the tech, as a work for hire. Thus, this would seem to be subject to the same kind of copyright infringement suit that is going on on behalf of other "creatives" against bigtech AI. On the other hand, if a valid owner or licensee of the owner of such an image submits it to an AI, it probably implicitly licenses the image to the AI entity. I think both the doc that orders the image and the patient that submits to it are implicit licensees of the lab that made the image.

The problem of course is that venue lies in the discretion of the judge, mostly. And Kazmethhead has yet to meet a suit without connection to Texas that he's willing to dismiss or transfer. And it's not like the Fifth Circuit is going to grant mandamus to overrule him. Standing in this case is going to be measured by the DTPA statute and I don't think Trump is a consumer within the meaning of the statute. ETA: Standing in the case of violation of a statute, like this cause of action, is a less free-ranging inquiry than what we've seen lately in the constitutional tort type cases. It boils down to is the plaintiff the type of person that the statute intends to protect and does the plaintiff allege an injury that the statute was intended to redress. I think the answers here are no and no. (4) "Consumer" means an individual, partnership, corporation, this state, or a subdivision or agency of this state who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services, except that the term does not include a business consumer that has assets of $25 million or more, or that is owned or controlled by a corporation or entity with assets of $25 million or more. (10) "Business consumer" means an individual, partnership, or corporation who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services for commercial or business use. The term does not include this state or a subdivision or agency of this state. Secondarily, DTPA was originally intended to be sort of a "super Trademark/false advertising" statute. It has been construed to cover a broader range of activity than that, but I don't think it stretches nearly this far. Thirdly, I think the Texas anti-Slapp statute will apply to this, so if a 12(b)(6) motion doesn't kill it, that will. ETAA: well goddammit, the Texas anti-Slapp statute appears not to apply in diversity cases in the 5th Circuit (I'm actually probably ok with this, as I am not so sure about that whole statute, Laura). Finally, a ragtag weird collection of lawyers handling this for Trump, signifying that he is still unable to secure white shoe representation. You can be reasonably sure that CBS is going to meet this with the best media/1A lawyers in the country that are going to stuff these dbags through the hoop, even in Kazmethhead's court.

And energy independence, what a load of shit. For like two days during the Trump administration we were a net exporter of oil. That's not energy independence, it's not even a trend toward energy independence. It's a market anomaly. We might get actual energy independence, but not with oil. Also, I don't expect my wife to vote the same way I do, but we do talk about it such that she wouldn't hold any misconceptions about whether oil prices are better under Ds or Rs.

For nav apps, I really like to view the route, preferably in its entirety, more than rely on turn-by-turn directions. And by in its entirety, I mean a map showing the point of origin and destination.

From Kazmethhead, probably not.

That Jungian thing, sir.

It's just wrong, so fucking wrong. It doesn't belong in federal court or any court in the state of Texas. It's like a pro se litigant, there's so goddamn many things wrong with it it's hard to figure out where to even start.

I did that on purpose and left out the hyphens.

Geezus jumped-up Christ. It's a gotdam DTPA suit filed in ND Tex Amarillo division, where Kazmethhead sits, between residents of Florida and New York, with absolutely zero connection to the state of Texas. Venue is wrong and personal jurisdiction is probably dubious. Texas law doesn't apply. Trump is not a consumer. This is not what DTPA addresses. And, yeah, standing is a problem too.. This thing should be shot into the sun, without whiskey or hash browns.

So, I have a client who recently passed away and his wife and daughter are trying to license some of his patents to an Austrian manufacturer. They have a family friend that is a lawyer cum real estate investor that is kind of leading the charge with one of his German business associates. He said today on a conference call, "let's hope Trump wins, they're afraid of Trump and his tariffs blah blah blah." I could feel the eye rolls from some of the people on the call. It sounded so stupid, regardless of your political affinities. Guys in his late 60s and real-estatey, but really ought to know better.