#civil defense litigation attorney

[askaceattorney]

Dear J'Luc K. Star,

With fools, you cannot predict them.

I believe Ms. Miney was likely threatened by her former boss to sue her. I've been involved in enough cases to know his type. He would threaten the family of his dead employees if it meant saving his precious reputation.

Had Ms. Miney contacted a lawyer early on instead of pulling this nonsense, she could have put in a counterclaim of his abusive treatment toward her sister and won flawlessly.

- Franziska von Karma

[lawfirm-elixir]

At Elixir, our Best civil attorney in Mumbai draws on decades of experience supporting businesses, individuals, and families across the nation and offshore. Whether you are looking to protect or defend civil litigation proceedings or issue a claim, we are here to endeavor and fight your corner to achieve the best possible outcome for you. Our commitment to exceptional client service remains the hallmark of our business.

[pamelawalkerattorney]

Choosing The Right Legal Representation In Granbury, TX

Things can get quite tough when you face criminal charges, civil disputes, or organizing for your estate. In Granbury, TX, selecting the best attorney to represent you is essential. Experienced criminal defense lawyers, skilled civil litigation attorneys, and pocket-friendly estate planning attorneys are available in Granbury to cover your legal needs.

Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer

The stakes are incredibly high when a person is charged with criminal activity. A professional criminal defense lawyer in Granbury may change the outcome of your case significantly. For a successful defense, you need a legal representative who is conversant with the nitty-gritty of the criminal justice system.

An experienced criminal defense lawyer will offer you a concrete consequence on the court procedure and avert any violation of your rights. They scrutinize all allegations charged against you, collect proof, and finally map out an exclusive plan for handling all issues related to your problem. In Granbury, defense attorneys versed with local by-laws and courts seem to be leading, thereby working to your advantage.

Civil Litigation Lawyer in Granbury

Granbury has a civil litigation attorney representing clients involved in these matters, whether as the accused or the claimant. The issue might be a personal injury claim, a contract dispute, or property-related problems.

Hiring a competent civil litigation lawyer would mean you have someone who knows how to maneuver through complex civil laws as a voice for you on your side. They will work hard to get you out of trouble with your case by negotiating settlements out of court or prosecuting it inside traditional court arenas where necessary for justice to to be done. Granbury's civil litigation attorneys are good at managing their workload well enough so that each customer has the opportunity tonality to receive ultimate satisfaction from the service offered.

Fair-priced yet Excellent Estate Planning Lawyers in Granbury

since many individuals think legal services are too costly, they put off dealing with their estates even though it's essential to managing assets so that wills are respected upon death. Nonetheless, it is still true that you can get an Affordable Estate Planning Attorney in Granbury, TX, with high-quality estate planning attorneys who will excellently help you.

An estate planning attorney can help craft a comprehensive program covering wills, trusts, powers of attorney, and healthcare directives. This knowledgeable adviser will take the time to hear your concerns, enabling him to develop one that suits your requirements and desires.

The lawyer ensures that all individuals, whether rich or poor, can access estate planning services by offering them at reasonable rates, thus allowing each person to take care of his heritage and safeguard his dependents.

The Importance of Choosing a Great Lawyer

Choosing the perfect attorney for your unique legal challenges in Granbury could significantly change the outcome of your case.

An expert in criminal law can help you evade tough penalties and safeguard your future. In this context, a talented professional in civil litigation would be instrumental in settling disputes quickly, thus saving you money and time.

 In addition, a fair estate planner can reassure you by ensuring that everything concerning you is in good condition while not taking away every coin from your pocket.

Conclusion

Granbury is home to a wide array of law practitioners who are in a position to help with different legal concerns. By making a wise decision on who to represent you in court, you will successfully go through all the intricacies of law, knowing that your rights are being taken care of. Be patient enough when doing your search and end up with an appropriate attorney so that things go well on your side regarding lawsuits.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kyle Cheney at Politico:

Donald Trump is on the cusp of emerging unscathed from his four criminal prosecutions — thanks almost entirely to the decisions of four judges he appointed. Trump’s three Supreme Court picks formed a decisive bloc to declare presidents immune from prosecution for official conduct — freezing the charges he faces in multiple jurisdictions for trying to subvert the 2020 election and putting his New York conviction in doubt. Then his nominee to the federal court in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon, handed him another victory by dismissing the charges he faces for hoarding classified documents and concealing them from investigators.

Her decision earned a shout-out from Trump as he accepted the Republican nomination on Thursday. “A major ruling was handed down from a highly respected federal judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon,” he said. Trump’s string of victories reflects what experts say is extraordinary luck and timing. He’s the first president since Ronald Reagan to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court, and the first to ever face criminal charges that, soon thereafter, landed in front of the very judges he put on the bench. “This is a perfect example of serendipity, how the occurrence of events and trials and tribulations of the judicial process have all combined to work in favor of Donald Trump,” said Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor and civil litigator.

But it’s also a function, those experts say, of the fact that Trump rose to power in an era when conservatives — who had been burned in the past by judicial picks that later broke ranks — had begun perfecting a strategy of appointing judges who would more reliably rule in their favor. President Joe Biden, too, has appointed judges whose backgrounds appear more reliably liberal, though it’s not yet clear whether he will have the same impact on the judiciary as his predecessor. “Today, given that politics are so important in securing a judicial appointment, I can see how that sort of concern can spread,” said David Zaring, professor of legal studies from the Wharton School of Business. “[Trump] got so lucky — people don’t usually get a chance to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court in one term. Trump got it and then the Supreme Court gave him a very favorable ruling after that.”

Cannon’s ruling in the documents case had nothing to do with the substance of the charges — widely considered to be the most clear-cut case Trump faces. Cannon found that Attorney General Merrick Garland overstepped his authority when he named Smith special counsel, invalidating the entire prosecution. But the decision — which legal experts suggested would likely be reversed on appeal — nevertheless put Trump’s already-slim odds of facing trial this year effectively out of reach. [...] Cannon, in particular, represents a stark example. She was confirmed to the bench in November 2020, days after Trump lost reelection to Joe Biden. And she drew widespread criticism two years later after she slowed the investigation by granting a longshot push by the defense to require that an independent monitor review materials the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago.

[...] Not all of Trump’s appointees have ruled uniformly in his favor throughout his yearslong odyssey through the criminal justice system. In 2022, the Supreme Court rebuffed his effort to shield his White House papers from the Jan. 6 select committee, and it declined to consider his Cannon-backed effort to keep the documents investigation frozen.

This Politico article details the influence that the judges Donald Trump appointed are helping him evade legal trouble.

[plethoraworldatlas]

In what case litigants are calling the first time an American jury has held a U.S. corporation legally liable for atrocities abroad, federal jurors in Florida on Monday found that Chiquita Brands International financed a Colombian paramilitary death squad that murdered, tortured, and terrorized workers in a bid to crush labor unrest in the 1990s and 2000s.

The federal jury in West Palm Beach, Florida found the banana giant responsible for funding the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) and awarded eight families whose members were murdered by the right-wing paramilitary group $38.3 million in damages.

EarthRights International, which first filed the case—Doe v. Chiquita—in 2007, called the verdict "a milestone for justice."

"The jury's decision reaffirms what we have long asserted: Chiquita knowingly financed the AUC, a designated terrorist organization, in pursuit of profit, despite the AUC's egregious human rights abuses," the group said.

"By providing over $1.7 million in illegal funding to the AUC from 1997 to 2004, Chiquita contributed to untold suffering and loss in the Colombian regions of Urabá and Magdalena, including the brutal murders of innocent civilians," EarthRights added. "This historic verdict also means some of the victims and families who suffered as a direct result of Chiquita's actions will finally be compensated."

One of the plaintiffs in the case called the verdict the "triumph of a process that has been going on for almost 17 years, for all of us who have suffered so much during these years."

Plaintiffs' attorney Agnieszka Fryszman said that "the verdict does not bring back the husbands and sons who were killed, but it sets the record straight and places accountability for funding terrorism where it belongs: at Chiquita's doorstep."

The U.S. labor reporting site More Perfect Unioncalled the verdict "an unprecedented win against corporate violence, which could [be] the first of many."

A Chiquita spokesperson toldFruitnet that the company plans to appeal the verdict.

The AUC was formed in 1997 via the union of right-wing paramilitary groups battling leftist guerrillas—mainly the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN)—in the South American nation's civil war. Closely linked to Colombia's U.S.-backed military, the AUC—some of whose members were trained by Israelis—was designated a terrorist organization in 2001 by the U.S. State Department, which cited its "massacres, kidnappings of civilians, and participation in the trafficking of narcotics."

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court on Monday said Idaho can enforce a law banning gender transition care for minors, stepping into the debate over an issue that has divided lower courts.

The court did so over the objections of the three liberal justices.

It’s the first case about restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people under age 18 that the court has acted on. But it does not get to the underlying legal questions of the ban itself, an issue that has divided lower federal courts and is part of a wave of conservative legislation and litigation aimed at transgender Americans.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, writing for herself and Justice Sonya Sotomayor, criticized the majority for granting Idaho’s request through its “emergency” route, rather than letting it proceed through the regular channels.

“This Court is not compelled to rise and respond every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency, and it is especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged, and unsettled circumstances,” Jackson wrote.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the district court went further than it should have when it blocked the state from enforcing any aspect of the law while it’s being litigated. That decision threatened to suspend the law indefinitely because it can take years to reach final judgment, Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own defense of the majority’s order in a concurrence joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Chief Justice John Roberts did not make his position public.

The court could also decide soon whether it will review such bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. That election-year decision would come as transgender issues have become an increasingly potent political issue.

Passed last year, Idaho’s law is being challenged by the families of two transgender teenagers.

After lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement, Idaho asked the Supreme Court to let it go into effect with an exception carved out for the challengers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the two Idaho families, said that option won't protect the teenagers as medical providers won't want to risk triggering a law that could put them behind bars for a decade. Also, the teens would have to give up their anonymity.

AN 'AWFUL RESULT FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH'

The ACLU called the Supreme Court's decision an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state."

"Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption," the group said in a statement.

Praising the court's decision, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the law ensures minors will not be subjected to life-altering drugs and procedures.

"Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids," he said in a statement.

Filed as an emergency request, Idaho’s appeal to the high court is a prelude to the larger pending issue: Whether the justices will uphold such bans, which have proliferated in recent years.

KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE TRANSGENDER CASES MAY COME NEXT

Families of transgender children have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit allowing Kentucky and Tennessee to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors.

The Justice Department has weighed in on the side of the families, telling the court that its input is “urgently needed” to definitively resolve whether the bans are discriminatory.

“These laws, and the conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families around the nation,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a filing.

The court could announce as early as this month if they will hear the appeals.

Combined with other state actions to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use and what sports teams they can join, the laws are expected to be a major issue in this year’s elections.

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL PUSH TO BAN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR MINORS

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has said he will press Congress to pass a law banning gender-affirming care for minors and will cut federal funding for schools pushing “transgender insanity” if he returns to the White House.

President Joe Biden has boasted about steps he’s taken to strengthen the rights of “transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans.”

The issue has gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny fraction of Americans who are transgender.

Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors has grown from four to 23, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Restrictions were fully in effect in 17 states as of January.

That’s despite the fact that most major medical groups support youth access to gender-affirming care.

The American Medical Association has called the state bans a “dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of medicine and the criminalization of health care decision-making.”

“Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people,” Dr. Michael Suk, a member of the AMA board, said when the group reinforced its opposition to state bans in 2021.

DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND SELF-HARM

One of the transgender teenage girls challenging Idaho’s law suffered from depression, anxiety and self-harm before starting gender-affirming medical care, according to filings. The mental health of the other teen likewise deteriorated as puberty began.

Their parents have told the courts they’re terrified about the impact on their daughters’ health and lives if they can’t continue treatment.

Labrador, Idaho's attorney general, argued the law is needed to protect “vulnerable children” from what he called “risky and dangerous medical procedures.”

“Idaho should be able to protect children from experimental medical procedures that cause irreversible and life-long harms,” Labrador wrote in his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled to go into effect in January, Idaho's law was temporarily blocked by a district court judge in Idaho while it’s being litigated. The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision in January.

Despite the litigation swirling around transgender minors, the Supreme Court has largely been silent on the issue. In April, the high court sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who was challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition. The ruling came on the court's emergency docket and did not resolve the underlying questions in the case.

In January, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether schools can bar transgender students from using a bathroom that reflects their gender identity, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed a transgender middle school boy in Indiana to use the boys' bathroom.

[wutbju]

The State reported this weekend that Ellen Weaver's Department of education "retained a private attorney" to help it limit schools from choosing their own books for their own libraries.

The attorney? Class of 2005 Miles Coleman.

The State did a good job of covering Miles' deep ties with the "intellectual" side of Klandamentalism:

Miles Coleman, an attorney with the prominent Nelson Mullins law firm and president of the Columbia chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative national legal group, was contracted by the Department of Education to represent it regarding the new regulation. Coleman, who the Education Department described as a nationally recognized expert in First Amendment law, was retained at a rate of $225 an hour, according to a request to employ outside counsel that state Superintendent Ellen Weaver filed with the state Attorney General’s Office.

They continued:

Coleman, a partner at Nelson Mullins in Greenville, also specializes in appeals, business litigation and complex civil and criminal litigation, according to his bio. Among other clients, he represented the Pickens County school district in a lawsuit brought by the NAACP concerning the district’s decision to ban the book “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You,” by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi. He also represented the Christian Learning Centers of Greenville, a private religious education provider, in their fight to obtain a $1.5 million state earmark. A 2009 graduate of the University of South Carolina School of Law, Coleman has been heavily involved in conservative organizations. In addition to being a member of the executive committee of the Federalist Society’s Religious Liberties Practice Group, Coleman was a fellow at the National Review and is currently the secretary of the board of directors at School Ministries, an organization that provides support for public school students to go off campus during school hours to study the bible. While in law school, Coleman also received a 2007 Blackstone Legal Fellowship. The fellowship is a summer legal training program run by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group, which was designated an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The ADF has strongly denied this characterization and describes itself as a leading Christian law firm “committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.” “Mr. Coleman is a nationally recognized First Amendment expert whose work has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Coleman was engaged by the SCDE regarding the State Board of Education’s instructional materials regulation to help ensure it protected students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights,” Raven said. While the Department of Education has a general counsel, it’s not unusual for state agencies to work with outside counsel when special expertise is needed, Raven told The State. Coleman also appeared to take a leading role in pitching the new rule to legislators. In April, Coleman appeared at least twice before legislators to explain the need for the new rule, saying that it aimed to fix a “patchwork quilt of 80 or more different policies,” according to the South Carolina Daily Gazette. He also defended the regulation’s sweeping prohibition on “sexual content” in library books and classroom materials. By keeping the definition broad, Coleman told lawmakers that the Department of Education was trying to avoid lengthy debates about what did or did not meet standards, according to the Daily Gazette. “It’s simple enough that it’s not going to get bogged down,” he told lawmakers.

We all know Miles. We know his parents:

And remember his grandfather too.

And do you remember what his grandfather said about Chuck Phelps after we alumni were up-in-arms about his defense of a violent rapist?

This is "justice" in Klandamentalism. It's all connected. Tightly connected.

[lawfirm-elixir]

Civil law, the foundation of legal systems in many countries, offers a distinct approach to resolving disputes and governing interactions between individuals and entities. Compared to common law, civil law prioritizes codified statutes, placing a strong emphasis on written law for clarity and predictability. This system delivers a range of advantages, making it a cornerstone for fostering a just and well-functioning society. Let's delve into the seven key benefits of civil law.

[surolawfirm]

Defamation Defense in Denver: Trust Suro Law Firm for Expert Legal Support"

Facing defamation online? Get the best legal support from Suro Law Firm, your trusted defamation attorney in Denver, Colorado. Defamation can tarnish your reputation, but our experienced defamation lawyers in Denver, Colorado, are here to protect your rights and restore your image.

In today's digital age, defamation issues are rampant. False accusations and harmful statements can spread like wildfire, damaging your personal and professional life. That's where our defamation attorneys in Denver, Colorado, come in. With their expertise and dedication, they will fight tirelessly to defend your reputation and seek justice on your behalf.

Don't let malicious attacks go unchecked. Our defamation lawyers in Denver, Colorado, have the knowledge and skills to navigate the complexities of defamation law and provide you with the strong representation you deserve. Whether you're dealing with slander or libel, we're here to stand by your side every step of the way.

When it comes to defamation defense, claims, and lawsuits, trust Suro Law Firm to deliver results. Our team of defamation attorneys in Denver, Colorado, is committed to upholding your rights and securing the best possible outcome for your case. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards protecting your reputation.

[casillaschristianlaw]

Lawyers specializing in the provision of legal representation for individuals and enterprises facing allegations of criminal misconduct are recognized as criminal defense lawyers. Within the course of a criminal proceeding, a criminal defense lawyer assumes a multitude of significant responsibilities.

[andrewdosalaw]

Andrew Dósa-civil attorney in Alameda County CA explains the first steps an injured party must take to help their future claim or lawsuit! For more information contact us at 510-333-4564.

[longwindedbore]

Big dollar lawsuits are different from criminal or even civil cases most USAmericans may encounter.

You can only become hopeless off-track and confused if you try to apply to the Trump Civil Fraud lawsuit in New York what you know about criminal cases, or even if those personal or friend’s experience in a civil lawsuit.

I’ve been involved with criminal (juror), as both litigant and defendant in civil actions in small claims and trial courts and as qualifying as an expert witness in lawsuits ranging from five million to a billion dollars.

Big money lawsuits have a different set of rules than criminal cases. They always have exponentially more greater complexity than even a bitterly contested divorce.

Big dollar lawsuits are not covered in the USA media virtually at all, and certainly not in any depth.

The state of New York versus the Trump organization is probably the first big dollar case covered in detail beginning with the ruling on the motion for summary judgment, followed by day-to-day in depth updates.

But reporters aren’t experienced in what they should have be looking for because they have never covered one of these cases in depth. That includes Forbes and the Wall Street Journal.

The legal experts used by the media are generally prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys. Most haven’t been involved in any big dollar civil lawsuits let alone ‘blue sky law’ fraud civil cases.

Reporters and talking heads unthinkingly incorrectly call the State’s Attorneys “prosecutors” which they aren’t in this case.

Everyone talks about Trump property valuations versus past/current market values.

No one is talking about the Frauds for which the Trump team have offered no defense:

Valuing 20,000 NONEXISTANT square feet at $600million.

Claiming $75million of investor money committed to another project was available to service a new loan for a different project.

Failing to disclose a myriad of material facts undercutting the valuation as required by law to be disclosed.

Omitting to disclose loans that would negatively affect cash flow available to service the new loan.

Overstating cash flow from projects.

Etc.

Virtually no one remembers to mention when talking about defense strategies that the Trump organization has appealed the motion for summary judgment involving the foregoing frauds three times and failed three times.

No one mentions that ‘no bank lost money’ BECAUSE the ongoing frauds allowed the Trump Organization to acquire ever LARGER loans. Over $billion right now.

No one lost money with Bernie Madoff UNTIL his obligations exceeded his cash flow.

[lboogie1906]

Johnnie Lee Cochran Jr. (October 2, 1937 – March 29, 2005) was a high-profile lawyer and civil activist known for his leadership role in the defense and criminal acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. He defended his client with rhymes like "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit!" He represented Sean Combs during his trial on gun and bribery charges, as well as Michael Jackson, Tupac Shakur, Stanley Tookie Williams, Todd Bridges, football player Jim Brown, Snoop Dogg, Riddick Bowe, Reginald Oliver Denny, Marion Jones, and Geronimo Pratt. He was known for his skill in the courtroom and his prominence as an early advocate for victims of police brutality. He was born in 1937 in Shreveport. His father, Johnnie Cochran Sr. was an insurance salesman and his mother sold Avon products. The family relocated to Los Angeles. He went to local schools and graduated first in his class from Los Angeles High School. He earned a BA in business economics from UCLA and a JD from the Loyola Law School. He was a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity and the fraternity's 45th Laurel Wreath laureate. He took a job in Los Angeles as a deputy city attorney in the criminal division. He prosecuted one of his first celebrity cases, Lenny Bruce, a comedian who had recently been arrested on obscenity charges. He entered private practice. He opened his firm, Cochran, Atkins & Evans, in Los Angeles. In his first notable case, he represented an African-American widow who sued several police officers who had shot and killed her husband, Leonard Deadwyler. Though he lost the case, it became a turning point in his career. He realized the trial itself had awakened the black community. He wrote in The American Lawyer, "those were extremely difficult cases to win in those days. But what Deadwyler confirmed for me was that this issue of police abuse galvanized the minority community. It taught me that these cases could get attention." He had established his reputation in the African American community. He was litigating several high-profile police brutality and criminal cases. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #kappaalphapsi https://www.instagram.com/p/CjNifFqr6wQ/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[psychic-refugee]

The accuser’s assertion that she is “waiting for [PHW] to make a move” in terms of litigation is quite the bold legal strategy.

It makes absolutely no sense, but I almost admire its boldness in its stupidity.

Given her actions and posts, any legal representation she has is more than likely a figment of her imagination.

He has no reason to sue her, other than spite or revenge. Given his silence, he’s too smart to throw money away like that.

The ONLY reason why I would possibly see that she’s refrain from filing herself (besides the fact she has no evidence, which she has admitted to), is that she can’t afford the filing fee.

Administration of Justice Act, ONTARIO REGULATION 293/92:

i.  A statement of claim, notice of action or notice of application, $243. ii.  A third or subsequent party claim, $243. iii.  A statement of defence and counterclaim adding a party, $243. iv.  A summons to a witness, $33. v.  A certificate, other than a certificate of a search by the registrar required on an application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee, $33. vi.  A commission, $60. vii.  A writ of execution, $77. viii.  A notice of garnishment or notice of renewal of garnishment (including the filing of the notice with the sheriff), $155.

Him suing her, lets him set the narrative and puts her on the defensive. Not something I would want to happen.

I bet he can at least knock out big chunks of time when he wasn’t in Toronto and the parties with him couldn’t have happened. He’ll assert the other times didn’t happen, and then she has to prove that at the very least they’ve been in the same physical location. She’s already admitted she has no proof that they’ve even met.

It’d also be easy to show that she’s unreliable and her timeline is insane.

No attorney is going to want to put her on the stand. There’s too much evidence, that she posted herself, is public, and on her own free will, where she’s an unreliable witness. Even if she could clean up the timeline and give original text messages, it’s too late. I’d impeach her immediately for inconsistent statements and based upon character. Twitter posts are public and admissible in court as long as we can provide enough proof they’re legitimately hers and from Twitter with no alteration.

If her “evidence” is more of the same we saw on Twitter, I doubt any of it will be admitted or is even relevant and she’d be up shits creek.

Canadian legal experts weigh in, but I’m seeing that Canadians do not have the right to legal representation. If PHW were to sue her in his personal capacity, it’d be a tort (civil) and she’d have no right to one anyway. If she were to be sued by the Crown (criminal) because of the CSAM, she may qualify for legal representation because she’s broke, and it’d be in the “interest of justice.”

IMO, this “strategy” is nothing more than a smokescreen for the fact she knows she has nothing and isn’t willing to take the farce far enough to actually incur any legal fees.

Right now, I think she’s taking advantage of the fact that she has no assets and is basically too pathetic to sue. She’s in a legal sweet spot of not being worth suing, and not causing enough damage to his reputation because no one takes her seriously.

From what I’ve witnessed of this debacle; she’s troubled, lonely, insecure, and has nothing going for her in her life. She’s clinging to the high of attention she’s receiving from the accusations, because otherwise she’s lost in a sea of boundless mediocrity. 

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Salt Lake Tribune

* * * * 

Putting More Guns in the Wrong Hands  ::  Joyce Vance

First the Supreme Court decided Heller, a case that extended the Second Amendment notion of well-armed militias to permit Americans to possess virtually any kind of firearm that wasn’t fully automatic or short-barreled in their home, under a self-defense rationale. Then came last term’s decision in Bruen, a New York case, that struck down what it decided were unreasonable limitations on public possession of firearms. So we knew it was only a matter of time until a court took it even further. After all, over the years the NRA has advocated for the right of blind people to carry firearms, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the only federal agency tasked with oversight of the gun industry, is so notoriously underfunded by Congress that it cannot fully perform that role.

This week the 5th Circuit entered the fray, ruling that the domestic violence provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) contradicts the nation’s “historical tradition” of access to firearms even for people who aren’t “model citizens.” The three-judge panel (two Trump appointees and one Reagan appointee, for those who are counting) held that the statute is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to Congress to determine who qualifies as “law-abiding, responsible citizens” when it comes to gun ownership.

The court worried about who might lose their right to possess firearms if they permitted the prohibition against people with a demonstrated propensity towards violence against their partners to stay on the books: “Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?”

The court vacated the conviction of the Texan man Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty to having a pistol in his home following the issuance of a civil domestic-violence restraining order for assaulting his former girlfriend. Texas, which we know denies women abortion access to protect the lives of unborn fetuses, apparently thinks it’s acceptable to risk that same woman’s life at the hands of a man with a firearm who has already shown a willingness to do violence to her. The court wrote that “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”

The 5th Circuit contorted itself to ignore the use of language like “law-abiding citizen” that prior cases have used to determine the reach of Second Amendment rights. And while the decision is limited to the 8th subsection of the statute, which we started out with above, there is little reason to believe litigants won’t proceed to challenge other parts of the statute.

And none of this is theoretical. Prosecutions for possession of firearms by disqualified persons have risen steadily over the years. The most recent numbers available from the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that in 2021, there were 7,454 offenders convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). That was an increase from 6,032 offenders in fiscal year 2017. Illegal firearms possession cases are also significant as a percentage of DOJ’s total criminal docket. For instance, in fiscal year 2016, there were 5,391 offenders convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), accounting for 8% of all offenders sentenced in federal court.

DOJ has already announced it will appeal the Rahimi decision in a statement from Attorney General Garland: “Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”

What should we expect the Supreme Court to do? In a 2019 case, Rehaif, the Court considered whether the government had to prove a defendant was aware they had the status that made it a crime for them to possess a firearm (in that case, that they were not legally in the United States). The Court ruled that the government did, without in any way suggesting that the statute itself was unconstitutional. However, this Court has been less mindful of precedent than the Court has been at any other point in our lifetimes. Given its recent trajectory on firearms and Second Amendment issues, it’s hard to feel optimistic that all of the public-safety-based restrictions on firearms ownership in 922(g) will survive.

We’re in this together,

Joyce