#in case of this lawsuit

[exhuastedpigeon]

Buck when Eddie can’t hang out because he’s got plans with his girlfriend: Bummer man! We can hang out after our next shift then.

Buck when Eddie can’t hang out because he made friends with a hot, older firefighter with access to a helicopter: OH I SEE. I guess he hates me. Our friendship must have meant nothing to him. He’s going to leave the 118 and leave me and I’m going to be all alone forever. I guess I should try to ruin the friendship subconsciously by being a petty asshole.

[strawlessandbraless]

I aspire to this level of pettiness. My dearest sketch artist, you’ll always be famous to me

[coquelicoq]

A Grants Pass city ordinance requires homeless residents living in vehicles to move every 72 hours, and police require anyone living in parks to move as often as is allowed by state law, which is also every 72 hours. City code bars anyone from sleeping in public spaces or using sleeping materials for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live under threat of criminal and civil penalty.

[...]

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case out of southern Oregon, expected in June, will broadly impact how local governments write homelessness policy in the United States.

Since the Supreme Court took up the case in January, Democrat and Republican governments, district attorneys and business associations submitted amicus briefs arguing a 2022 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals injunction removes necessary tools for enforcing laws against homeless residents sleeping on public property.

A host of organizations submitted amicus briefs in support of counsel representing homeless residents, saying laws punishing individuals for being homeless are cruel and unusual. The briefs also argued the laws do nothing to solve the homelessness crisis and will likely exacerbate the issue.

[...]

Referring to the state law, Jackson asked about “constitutional avoidance,” a legal doctrine that would allow the Supreme Court to decline to render a decision on the constitutionality of the Grants Pass ordinance. Roberts appeared to also question the court’s responsibility, asking why “these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgements.”

The lower court’s decision will stand if the court decides not to issue a ruling as a matter of constitutional avoidance. Kelsi Corkran, Georgetown Law Supreme Court director and counsel for the class of homeless residents, told the court she would have no issues with that outcome.

If the court determined the ordinance does not violate the Eighth Amendment because Oregon has a necessity defense, the burden of proof would fall on each homeless individual to show a court they were sleeping outside for a reason, each time they received a citation.

[...]

“Ending homelessness requires collaboration and buy-in,” Rabinowitz said. “That cannot happen when the government is focused on throwing away people's stuff and throwing folks in jail.”

Tickets can impact credit scores, making it more difficult for people to be accepted into housing, and a criminal history also creates significant barriers.

“All of these things break connections and displace people from their chosen communities,” Rabinowitz said. “They all make homelessness worse.”

There is a broad range for what the Supreme Court could ultimately decide, Rabinowitz said. It could uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision saying civil and criminal punishments against homeless residents for being homeless are cruel and unusual. It could say people can be fined but not arrested, or it could overturn Martin v. Boise. While there appeared to be little appetite for it in the courtroom, the court could go so far as to say it has wrongly interpreted the Eighth Amendment in cases like 1962’s Robinson v. California. That could make way for laws criminalizing other involuntary statuses.

Rabinowitz said in the best-case scenario, the Supreme Court will set a bar — albeit a low bar — saying homelessness cannot be criminalized. People still need a place to go, regardless of the court’s decision. Until the support systems are in place to keep people from becoming homeless, the crisis will continue, according to Rabinowitz.

“Homelessness is a choice made by our elected officials every day when they fail to fund housing,” he said.

8 May 2024

[i-eat-deodorant]

i'm sure you know this already but:

COTL ISN’T DELETING THEIR GAME.

1) in terms profit they'd pretty much shoot themselves in the foot with that decision, and as protest it's not very effective to make unity listen.

2) if they were, there would've been a much bigger announcement than a twitter tweet.

3) they confirmed they're not in both the discord and the twitter. after the deletion tweet went viral. which...ok.

4) it's probably a scare tactic to take advantage of the unity news to get more people to buy their game.

5) it probably worked.

so many people are focused on the unity issue that i don't think it's often talked about how much of a shitty pr stunt that was by the social media manager. people are fearmongering, sure, but the initial seeds were planted by that twitter post that really should've gone through some extra foresight.

hope they enjoy their extra revenue.

[kvetchinglyneurotic]

stupid tma question time: are blind people exempt from the "not allowed to quit the archives" curse or does it only work if you blind yourself while working there?

[blusical]

okay but seriously though. Is there a possibility that bowman has actually done work to make up for his mistakes? yeah. there is always that possibility. Does that mean he should be immediately hired? no. now don't get me wrong, i am all for giving people second chances. we all fuck up at some points. many of our favorites do. however, i will admit, when it comes to situations like sexual assault and abuse (or in this case covering up abuse), it's a bit more complicated (especially as a survivor myself). Now. I will give credit where credit is due; both Bowman and Jackson have been in contact with Beach (With Beach allegedly approving of the hiring) which is good to see. Also worth noting, Sheldon Kennedy, who was abused himself by Graham James, supports Bowman's return.

However, I do think this is something we should hear from Beach himself. Although considering the stress he probably dealt with during the scandal and speaking out, combined with how ruthless some hockey fans can get (especially online), I personally wouldn't blame him for not making a public statement.

Now with that out of the way, none of that changes the fact that Bowman did what he did. It's not going to make what he did okay. Also, keep in mind that there's still another lawsuit Chicago is facing as well, and possibly many more victims out there too, and who knows how they might be feeling right now.

I know people are bringing up the fact that he was also just... really bad as a GM (Which was definitely true, Hawks fans can vouch for this one). But that's not the fucking point here. That's not the problem. The problem is that he ruined a person's life all for the sake of a cup. In terms of forgiveness, that's up to Beach and the other victims, not us. However, we cannot deny that this was a bad decision, especially in the midst of another lawsuit against Chicago, and especially when the OILERS PLAYERS WEREN'T EVEN NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS. Again, I'm all for second chances. And if Beach is okay with this hiring, then great! But even then, we cannot deny the harm he's caused. Just because Beach and Kennedy are okay with the hiring doesn't mean other survivors will feel the same way. And honestly, I feel like in a situation like this, this is something you should give your players a heads up about.

Now, I'm not entirely confident the Oilers will drop Bowman (Keep in mind they still have Evander Kane). However, with the amount of backlash they've gotten, I see no reason why they shouldn't reverse this decision, and there's a slim chance with enough of our rage, we can make them reconsider. (Remember, Boston dropped Miller after both fans and players criticized the signing!). Should Bowman stick around though, we should make sure what he's done is not swept under the rug and forgotten. Nothing will make this okay.

[nando161mando]

the CIJ-ICJ has declared that israel’s discriminatory laws and measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are tantamount to the crime of apartheid

[the-final-sif]

Also, like, just as a general take about this whole situation, if you are going to allege that someone else did a crime or any sort of serious grounds for a civil case, please please please do not start on twitter. Please go consult a lawyer or the police.

Even if your claims are entirely true and factual and you have proof, you can do an incredible amount of harm to your case by posting about it on twitter. Any statements you make can become witness impeachment evidence, and if you lack sufficient evidence to prove your claims are true, you could be exposing yourself to an expensive libel case. There is a reason people involved in lawsuits do not make statements on them.

Twitter is not a courtroom. Twitter ruins your chances in courtrooms. If you are going to accuse someone of a crime, please go talk to a legal expert.

[timmurleyart]

You want the money? 📞💲💵💎💰💶💷

[catfishimages]

so like, what did ken penders actually do wrong?

legitimately, if there's something he did that i'm not aware of please let me know, cause it kinda just seems like he sued a giant corporation for royalties over characters he made/had a hand in making

i kinda thought we were all on the same page vis-a-vis creators suing gargantuan companies? you guys aren't seriously defaming this one guy just because you personally like the stuff the corporation makes, right? right??

[alwaysbewoke]

[purple-and-mint]

So, turns out a big part of those who "were just supporting a victim" didn’t care about the victim thing at all. Poi’s allegations gave them not an urge to "support a victim", but an opportunity to throw hate at Build. As soon as the situation turned out to be not so convenient, the talks shifted from wanting justice to "even if he wins at court, it doesn’t mean he’s not guilty" and "even if the allegations are not true, he still deserves to *insert any unpleasant thing that comes to mind*".

Didn’t those people want justice? The case is going to court, and justice will be served.

So what’s wrong?

The fact that Build was the one who filed the lawsuit? Then it’s more of a question to Poi about why she hadn’t done that first. If Build and his lawyer are confident enough to file a case, I don’t see why they shouldn’t do it.

That Build spoke up about the situation? He has every right to.

Or that now it’s not so easy to hate on him?

It’s understandable to not view Build as a victim since it’s not yet been confirmed by the court. But then the same should also be applied to Poi, no? And Twitter is not a court, and its users are not judges. If someone was so quick to believe Poi after seeing the tweets, then shouldn’t they also have believed Build after the call recording or Build’s interview with the media?

It’s upsetting to see how this victim thing is handled, how these serious matters are used to initiate fanwars, to start hating campaigns on someone who people dislike, to gain followers and retweets through the "hyped topic" (I can’t explain otherwise WHY ON EARTH people would make up stories about rape). It’s not doing any favors to any real female and male victims, and the fact that those things are hidden behind the smokescreen of "supporting a victim" makes it much, much worse.

[lewisinho]

i think the most interesting thing the massa case will reveal is how the court will distinguish between different forms of cheating in f1 specifically; race manipulation via crashing on purpose is an undeniable form of cheating, but to what extent does it differ to other forms of cheating (for e.g. illegal rear wing, illegal engine etc.) for it to warrant an annulment of a race and not, as is commonplace and accepted, a DSQ for the cheating team; if it is indeed the case that there is a legally significant difference, i do not think it is too far-fetched to presume that it would set quite a dangerous precedent for any future cases that involve cheating, from the smallest of transgressions and exploitations of the rulebook’s finer print to the ones that involve purposeful crashes, because any gradation of ‘cheating’ would be essentially, entirely arbitrary and left to the discretion of the FIA

[just-leon]

I'am proud of wonyoung

Jang Wonyoung and Starship Entertainment wins in the lawsuit against YouTuber S*jang, with the court ordering a payment of $74,5K."

"This victory sets a precedent against overseas-based content as a shield for celebrity insults, signaling accountability for such actions."

Detail below

[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