#Federal Appeals Court

[news4dzhozhar]

Boston Marathon bombing victims rip Tsarnaev’s latest legal appeal

**So due process and the right to appeal is a "cash cow" now? This whole attitude is why some of the appeals are being filed in the first place. There SHOULD have been a change of venue, Judge O’Toole SHOULD 100% be removed, 2 of the jurors lied in their pretrial screenings so the penalty phase SHOULD be retried. **

BOSTON — Boston Marathon bombing victims say Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attempt to get his old legal team back together is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Tsarnaev, locked up in a Colorado Supermax, has an Aug. 21 court date in Boston where his lawyers will begin to try to keep him out of the electric chair.

That status conference is before federal Judge George A. O’Toole Jr.

“Who’s paying for this?” said Liz Norden. “He blew up innocent people and we’re told it’s no one’s business to know how much his lawyers cost? It makes no sense.”

The Department of Justice has denied a Herald public records request for Tsarnaev’s legal bill while his case drags on in the courts.

Norden has attempted to make every hearing in a solemn show of support for the victims of the bombing, including her two boys who lost their right legs that terrible day on Boylston Street on April 15, 2013.

Marc Fucarile, woke up in a hospital with his right leg mostly gone and his left one possibly next, said Monday the seemingly never-ending case against the bomber is an insult to the city.

“Stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars just for greedy lawyers,” he said of Tsarnaev’s appeal of his death penalty sentence. “He was already judged by his peers. There should be no question he deserves the death penalty.

“Let’s just cut off this cash cow,” he added.

The bomber has questioned the bias of two jurors in his 2015 death penalty trial and won a partial victory in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The appeals court stated “the district court’s investigation fell short of what was constitutionally required” over this one issue. If bias is shown, the court adds, Tsarnaev will be “entitled to a new penalty-phase proceeding.”

The alleged bias is over social media postings about the bombing made by two jurors.

The appeals court has added “regardless of the outcome, (Tsarnaev) will spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Now the bomber is moving quickly to assemble his legal team, with Boston attorney William Fick filing an appeal to return to the case now that he is in private practice.

Tsarnaev is “legally indigent,” Fick writes, and the courts should allow him back on the case “in order to serve the interests of justice, judicial economy, continuity in representation.”

His motion also states attorneys Daniel Habib, Deirdre von Dornum, and Mia Eisner-Grynberg from the Federal Defenders of New York, are on his side of the bench. It’s not clear if all the lawyers are working pro bono or submitting a bill.

The New York group does offer free help to “persons charged with federal crimes who cannot afford to hire an attorney.”

The case remains in the Seaport federal court before the same judge as the alleged bias of two jurors is re-examined, the court announced Monday. Still, Tsarnaev does have a chance to avoid death.

The bombing killed Martin Richard, 8; Krystle Campbell, 29; and Lu Lingzi, 23. More than 260 people were injured and maimed. MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 27, was shot execution-style days later by Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan, killed hours later in a firefight in Watertown.

Boston Police Officer Dennis Simmonds, 28, injured in the Watertown shootout, died in April 2014.

Tsarnaev is locked up in the Federal Correctional Complex Florence in Colorado — a Supermax called the “Alcatraz of the Rockies.”

[lasseling]

An overnight decision from a federal appeals court has halted a Texas law permitting authorities to arrest and deport illegal aliens, coming shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling favoring the state.

[tomorrowusa]

SO MUCH LOSING!

When Donald Trump isn’t busy dining with Nazis or plotting to terminate the US Constitution, he gets to watch his legal team suffer setbacks.

In recent months, former President Donald Trump and his allies have suffered a string of defeats in court as they’ve tried to resist or impede criminal investigations into his conduct.  

The latest example was Trump’s unsuccessful bid to block testimony from his former White House lawyers before the federal grand jury investigating 2020 election subversion. The attorneys, Pat Cipollone and Pat Philbin, appeared before the DC-based grand jury on Friday. 

The night before, a federal appeals court tossed out the special master review that was holding up parts of the criminal probe into government documents that were taken from his White House to Mar-a-Lago.  

The Trump-world losing streak reflects the deference that courts tend to give to criminal investigations – particularly when the probes that have not yet brought charges. Courts have shown far less tolerance for legal delay tactics in cases concerning criminal probes. 

His setbacks are at both the state and federal level.

Many of the disputes over the subpoenas are playing out in state courts across the country based on where the witnesses in question now reside. Those courts often made the determination that the witnesses are “necessary and material” to the investigation, while pointing to the approvals the subpoenas got from the judge in Georgia who is supervising the Fulton County grand jury. 

Trump has tried to claim that being a former president gives him special standing. The courts aren’t buying that.

As if Trump were not in enough trouble, a New York law just went into effect which permits adult victims of previous sexual abuse to sue their attackers.

E. Jean Carroll sues Trump for battery and defamation as lookback window for adult sex abuse survivors’ suits opens in New York

With this sort of luck, Trump may be wondering if his only way out is to defect to Russia or North Korea.

[snap-blogz]

Todd And Julie Score $1 Million Settlement Amidst Conviction

In a surprising turn of events, Todd and Julie Chrisley, of “Chrisley Knows Best,” have clinched a substantial $1 million settlement from the state of Georgia. This legal triumph comes amid their prison sentences for involvement in a bank fraud and tax evasion case.

Table of Contents

Key Lawsuit Allegations

Misconduct Claims Against Waites

Settlement Outcome

Current Imprisonment Situation

Family Reaction

Key Lawsuit Allegations

 The couple filed a federal lawsuit against Joshua Waites, the former Director of Special Investigations for the Georgia Department of Revenue. The lawsuit accused Waites of targeting the Chrisleys for state tax evasion charges due to their fame. The family’s attorney, Alex Little, emphasized the unusual nature of the criminal case, stating,

 “This settlement is an encouraging sign.”

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C17SU2KOPSY/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=14&wp=485&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fsnapblogz.com&rp=%2Ftodd-and-julie-score-1-million-settlement%2F#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A1665.2999999821186%2C%22ls%22%3A629.6999999880791%2C%22le%22%3A1327.9000000059605%7D

Misconduct Claims Against Waites

The lawsuit revealed shocking allegations of misconduct by Waites during the investigation. It detailed how Waites focused on the Chrisley family, particularly Todd and his estranged daughter Lindsie. The family accused Waites of attempting to use Lindsie to gain compromising information, even sharing confidential tax details. Despite the efforts, the Chrisleys endured significant personal and financial hardship.

“Ultimately Waites’s efforts failed, but in the process, the Chrisleys were forced to incur substantial personal and financial hardship,” expressed Michael J. Bowers, the Chrisleys’ former lawyer.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CmHrsZ-JKSt/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=14&wp=485&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fsnapblogz.com&rp=%2Ftodd-and-julie-score-1-million-settlement%2F#%7B%22ci%22%3A1%2C%22os%22%3A1671.0999999940395%2C%22ls%22%3A629.6999999880791%2C%22le%22%3A1327.9000000059605%7D

Settlement Outcome

The State of Georgia agreed to pay the Chrisleys $1 million to resolve the lawsuit. Little highlighted the rarity of a government arm compensating defendants while another fights to keep them in jail.

 “It’s nearly unprecedented for one arm of the government to pay money to defendants when another arm is fighting to keep them in jail,” he remarked.

Current Imprisonment Situation

Although cleared of state tax evasion charges, Todd and Julie faced federal charges, leading to their imprisonment. Todd’s 10-year sentence and Julie’s reduced 5-year sentence are currently being served. The couple’s original sentences were trimmed in September 2023. An appeal of their criminal convictions is scheduled for April at the federal appeals court in Atlanta.

Family Reaction

Chase Chrisley, the couple’s son, expressed optimism on social media, calling the settlement a “small victory” and emphasizing their innocence. “Savannah Chrisley” urged followers to “open their eyes to the corruption occurring EVERY SINGLE DAY.”

In summary, the Chrisleys’ legal journey takes a positive turn with the $1 million settlement, offering a glimmer of hope as they navigate through a complex legal battle. The upcoming appeal in April will be a crucial chapter in their quest for justice.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily blocked a House Committee from obtaining former President Trump's tax returns.

THE BIG PICTURE: Roberts' stay comes after Trump on Monday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case to block the release of his tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee.

• The temporary stay gives the court more time to consider Trump's emergency appeal.

DRIVING THE NEWS: "It is ordered that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ... is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Roberts wrote.

• Roberts asked the House panel to respond by Nov. 10.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Trump's tax returns were set to have been released to the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee as early as Thursday before Roberts' temporary stay.

• A federal appeals court last week declined Trump's request to block the release of his tax returns.

GO DEEPER ... Appeals court says House Committee can obtain Trump's tax records

[queersatanic]

The Satanic Temple is very bad at court cases (December 2023)

Changes from November include:

Confirmation both Travis County, Texas, lawsuits have not seen any new filings in more than one year.

Ninth Circuit granted TST partial victory in form of an additional opportunity to make defamation claims in federal district court against Johnson et al Defendants.

Full list on The.Satanic.Wiki

Full list on r/TheSatanicCirclejerk

Moreover, we’re still being sued by The Satanic Temple in federal appellate court and now King County Superior Court.

TST is also still suing Newsweek and its reporter (but maybe not her anymore!) for writing about us. In addition, The Satanic Temple is now suing a TikToker in Texas for talking about our case. Check the pinned post for more.

While it looks bad on its own, compare how things looked just one short year ago for The Satanic Temple and notice how so many of those "ongoing" cases turned out.

When it comes to The Satanic Temple, there's always more and it's always worse.

[rabbitcruiser]

The Postal Service Act, establishing the United States Post Office Department, is signed by United States President George Washington on February 20, 1792.

[blessedmoonsoul]

just watched that pr*gerU video of Frederick douglass saying slavery was a necessary compromise.........

[nationallawreview]

George Washington’s Whisky Distillery, 21st Century Edition

You might think the laws of King Edward I of England (1239-1307), George Washington’s whisky distillery, and an 1807 “Treatise on the Law of Idiocy and Lunacy” have little to do with the federal criminal code of 2024. And you might think they have even less to do with contemporary federal regulation of cannabis. But the Supreme Court’s test for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms…

[thoughtlessarse]

In back-to-back rulings on when cops should be afforded qualified immunity, an appeals court came to radically different conclusions. I like dogs. I’m a “dog person.” I think people who don’t like dogs are… a little weird. I think people who murder dogs, like South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, are psychopaths. I have no problem eating meat or killing mice or launching a tactical nuclear strike on a nest of wasps, but I think the law should elevate pets to a higher state of legal protections than mere property. But, and this is going to sound weird to a lot of folks, I like Black people more than dogs. Not every Black person, to be sure. In fact, I particularly detest Black people who actively campaign to be little more than the white man’s pet, as is the case with South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. But since Black people are, you know, people, while dogs are non-people, I think the law should offer more protections to Black people than to people’s pets. At the very least, I do not think the law should treat Black people worse than dogs. Apparently, this is a controversial opinion—at least for the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, three states with a lot of dogs and Black people. In two rulings handed down this week, the circuit took wildly different stances on the protections afforded to dogs versus Black people. Both cases involved questions about qualified immunity. In each, plaintiffs tried to sue law enforcement for monetary damages after law enforcement screwed up. But the outcomes were decidedly different. As a reminder, agents of the state, like the cops, are generally entitled to immunity from individual liability claims if those agents are acting in their official parameters. But there are exceptions where the immunity shield can be “pierced” and law enforcement can be forced to pay damages for their actions.

continue reading

[news4dzhozhar]

Hello,the recent info about Tsarnaev,do you know if he's gonna be present in the court? Or just his lawyers

Usually it's just his lawyers unless he needs to speak (entering a plea, receiving a verdict). The Court would be the Federal one in Boston and since Dzho is housed at the ADX in Colorado, it would be a security and logistics nightmare to fly him out for court appearances that are 20-30 minutes. If he were to be granted a new penalty phase then he'd be brought into court but not for the various appeals.

[agentfascinateur]

The case in California vs Biden & Blinken

Taking a page from Trump & January 6th:

Dereliction of duty is recognized as a crime in some state laws, such as an Ohio statute governing law enforcement personnel, but no general federal law makes it a crime. There is, however, a robust body of dereliction of duty law in the armed forces. Since the president is commander in chief, there is some justice in invoking the concept, even though Trump was never subject to military law, either before or during his time in office. The Manual for Courts-Martial sets forth the elements of the offense of “dereliction in the performance of duties.” The first three apply across the board: (a) that the accused had certain duties; (b) that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (c) that the accused, willfully or through neglect or culpable inefficiency, failed to perform those duties. A fourth element applies where the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm: (d) that such dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm to a person other than the accused. The manual elaborates: A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Culpable inefficiency is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse. The manual also provides that “where the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm, the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm is not required.” Dereliction can be a serious offense in the armed forces. The maximum punishment turns on whether the conduct was willful, negligent, or the result of culpable inefficiency. Importantly, for willful dereliction that results in death or grievous bodily harm, confinement for up to two years is authorized. Had Trump been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there would be no question that his actions and failures to act on Jan. 6th rose to the level of willful dereliction. And there were fatalities and grievous bodily injuries at the Capitol that day. Setting aside technical definitions of dereliction of duty, even its broader, colloquial sense—someone’s failure to perform an action it was his responsibility to perform—is now no longer the main point. It could have formed the basis for an impeachment, but Trump is no longer subject to impeachment. Indeed, he escaped his last impeachment, coming as it did so close to the end of his term, in part because some thought his misconduct could be adjudicated in criminal and civil proceedings. (“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office,” Mitch McConnell said. “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation.”) Even so, reference to dereliction of duty in connection with Jan. 6th is quite understandable. It contributes to our understanding of just how grave a betrayal Donald Trump’s behavior represented. It may go to his intent, and it would certainly be taken into account on sentencing in the event he is criminally charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol. Particularly as the Jan. 6th Committee trains its sights this week on his conduct during that assault, it is worth keeping in mind, if only for contextual reasons as the Department of Justice, state prosecutors in Georgia and perhaps elsewhere, and Americans generally, make the critical decision whether he should face criminal charges.

(Source: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trumps-inexcusable-jan-6th-dereliction-of-duty )

[tomorrowusa]

Special Counsel Jack Smith has had it with Trump-appointed Federal Judge Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon has been indulging every questionable whim used by Trump's lawyers in the classified documents case in order to stall it. Her decisions have been blatantly partisan; perhaps Trump promised her a seat on the US Supreme Court – not that he's famous for following through on loyalty.

Jack Smith filed a motion asking Cannon to get moving with the case – with the implied threat that he will appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to have her overruled or even removed from the case. The 11th Circuit had already, in a unanimous decision, vacated a previous order of hers which would have delayed the proceedings.

Time To Fire The Cannon?

Putting Trump back in office would allow him to appoint more dubious judges like Aileen Cannon. Defeating Trump would not just protect democracy but would prevent the federal judiciary from becoming a corrupt Trump tool.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider overturning a nearly 40-year precedent by taking up a challenge to a regulation affecting fishing vessels in a case that is the latest conservative-led attack on federal bureaucracy.

The court will weigh whether to overturn a much-cited 1984 ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which said courts should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous.

Attempts to overturn the ruling, which the court has rarely invoked in recent years, is just one avenue of attack by conservative groups and business interests as part of what has been dubbed “the war on the administrative state.”

"The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct one of the most consequential judicial errors in a generation," said Ryan Mulvey, a lawyer at the Cause of Action Institute, a conservative group that represents the challengers. The Chevron ruling "has proven corrosive to the American system of checks and balances and directly contributed to an unaccountable executive branch."

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is skeptical of broad assertions of federal agency power.

The case itself is a challenge to a government regulation that requires fishing vessels to help fund the collection of scientific data to assist with fishery conservation and management. The court could still rule in favor of the challengers by limiting the scope of the Chevron decision without overturning it entirely.

The court took up an appeal brought by Loper Bright Enterprises and several other operators of fishing vessels that are active in the herring fishery off the Atlantic coast, which challenged the 2020 rule applying to New England fisheries.

The challengers say the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal body that oversees ocean resources, did not have authority to issue the regulation under the relevant law, the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The rule implements a monitoring program that vessel operators are required to fund. As the challengers put it, operators have to pay up to $710 a day at certain times for independent observers to board their vessels and monitor their operations. The cost is a significant burden on small owner-operators, the challengers say.

The case, backed by conservative groups, is the latest attempt to undermine the power of federal agencies. Lawyers for the fishing vessel operators say a lower court that upheld the rule gave too much deference to the federal agency in interpreting the 1976 law.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the vessel operators' claims in a decision in August, upholding a similar ruling a federal district judge issued the previous year.

The brief Supreme Court order noted that liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not participating in the case. She was originally part of the appeals court panel that decided the case before President Joe Biden appointed her to the high court. She heard oral arguments but was not involved in the ruling itself.

[minnesotafollower]

Problems in U.S. Asylum System Help Promote Increases in U.S. Immigration

A lengthy Wall Street Journal article provides details on the well-known promotion of increases in U.S. immigration by the many problems in the U.S. asylum system. Here then is a summary of the basic U.S. law of asylum, the current U.S. system for administering such claims and a summary of the current problems with such administration. The Basic Law of Asylum On July 2, 1951, an international…