My summary of the March 6 Appellant Brief: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — this is just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
At first glance, the DOJ seems to support the revocation of security clearances better. But that's because they are hammering on the language of Department of Navy v. Egan (1988) and Lee v. Garland (2024) with all the bluster of a con artist or chat bot stuck in a self-reinforcement loop. But both those cases were predicated on the presumption of regularity — that the appropriate agency, following procedure, undertook a careful determination and the review of which is a nonjusticiable political question. Trump's four Executive Orders make it clear that none of that happened and all of this is retaliation for not capitulating. And NRA v. Vullo seems to say that is coercion in violation of the First Amendment.
Finally, on page 14, the DOJ argues its position is made stronger by the 9 firms that capitulated. (Kathryn Rubino also pointed this out.) but pages i-ii counts (in addition to the 4 law firms and 4 District judges) a total of 147 amici across the four cases. (If the DOJ didn't check for overlap between these amici, why should I?) These numbers don't make the DOJ look good.
Halligan’s response to the judge Tuesday — a remarkably defiant document that strains the boundaries of standard legal rhetoric and logic … characterized Novak’s questions as “a thinly veiled threat” against her authority and claimed the previous unlawful appointment ruling only prevented her from working the dismissed cases against Comey and James … did not explain why she and the DOJ have repeatedly identified her as a full U.S. attorney in court filings — dropping “acting” or “interim” from her title — even though she was never confirmed by the Senate or federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia.
— Jacob Knutson
Court: what is this crap? Didn’t a judge tell you that you’re not the US Attorney?
Lindsey Halligan: Just because a judge decided that it is unconstitutional for me to say I am the US Attorney and threw out my case against Comey, doesn’t mean I need to stop acting as and signing court papers as US Attorney. Also, you are not very good at this law thing, Judge.
— RP
Court: What is this crap? Didn’t a judge tell you that you’re not the US Attorney?
Lindsey #Halligan: Just because a judge decided that it is unconstitutional for me to say I am the US Attorney and threw out my case against #Comey, doesn’t mean I need to stop acting as and signing court papers as US Attorney. Also, you are not very good at this law thing, Judge.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.22.0.pdf
You malign the lawyer, but this is the same lawyer who was there for ABC's $15 million payola to the presidential library + $1 million to lawyer. The same lawyer who penned the threat letters to CNN and New York Times for Trump in June.
He may be a franchise law lawyer, but Trump is his franchise now and ignorance of the 1st Amendment is part and parcel of that game.
Regardless of media reports, the demand is for not less that $20 billion. $10 billion for the defamation per se that ... I guess that the card exists with Trump's signature and $10 billion more for the implied defamation that Trump associated with Maxwell and Epstein?
So that the article has a headline with "His Lawyers Can’t Read Good" is a bit embarrassing on this point.
Now onto my rant (expanded from last week):
So you’ve been sued by the President, how is that fair?
I submit it is the court’s responsibility to make it fair. Immunity can’t be both sword and shield.
一方的に攻撃できるほど世の中甘くない
“The world is not so easy that we can attack one-sidedly.“
— Title of Season 1, Episode 3 of “My Instant Death Ability Is So Overpowered, No One in This Other World Stands a Chance Against Me“
Presidential duties and a implied immunity insulate a president from being bothered by civil lawsuits for the performance of official acts. But here he waives that immunity to demand billions in (undocumented) damages, subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the court as far as Article II will let him.
The court should take the $20 billion dollar claim at face value and let Murdoch do a full forensic examination of all Trump’s businesses and holdings to quantify these claimed losses and their causes. Any failure of candor, any failure to conform to discovery should be penalized with the adverse finding that Trump is the true author of the letter exactly as described in the article and complaint, and that Murdoch should be reimbursed in total for all associated legal costs. And since there might be limits on the court’s ability to impose fines and costs on the Article II president, his attorneys should be held jointly liable for this very serious matter.
Because, the focus of all this nation’s media wouldn’t just abuse the court system to manipulate the press, would he?
Presidential duties and a implied immunity insulate a president from being bothered by civil lawsuits for the performance of official acts.
But here he waives that immunity to demand billions in (undocumented) damages. The court should take the $20 billion dollar claim at face value and let Murdoch do a full forensic examination of all Trump's businesses and holdings to quantify these claimed losses and their causes. Any failure of candor, any failure to conform to discovery should be penalized with the adverse finding that Trump is the true author of the letter exactly as described in the article and complaint, and that Murdoch should be reimbursed in total for all associated legal costs. And since there might be limits on the court's ability to impose fines and costs on the Article II president, his attorneys should be held jointly liable for this very serious matter.
It's not very strong, but it might apply as the Complaint describes the claimed letter as similar to a play and the WSJ is obviously news.
Florida’s general anti-SLAPP provision, which was adopted in 2000 and expanded in 2015, prohibits lawsuits brought against individuals for exercising their right of free speech in connection with a public issue or their rights to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.295(3) (2019).
The law defines “free speech in connection with public issues” as statements “made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity” or “made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.” § 768.295(2)(a).
PACER reports DJT sued Murdock and Wall Street Journal twice today in Miami Federal Court (Florida, Southern District).
25-cv-23229 is just a stub with DJT seemingly representing himself, pro se. There is no complaint filed here.
25-cv-23232 has DJT represented by a Coral Gables law firm and has him suing in his individual capacity. Two tries to file the paperwork is embarrassing, but at least the lawyer is closer to the courthouse than Mar-a-Lago, so Trump wasn't literally just looking in the parking lot for a lawyer.
Despite ALL the defendants being linked to New York, DJT wants to sue in Florida, claiming both personal jurisdiction and proper venue.
DJT's lawyer thinks WSJ commonly prints sketches of naked women as per paragraphs 21–22:
Despite these unsubstantiated claims, however, the Article does not attach the purported letter, does not identify the purported drawing, nor does it show any proof that President Trump has anything to do with it.
Tellingly, the Article does not explain whether Defendants have obtained a copy of the letter, have seen it, have had it described to them, or any other circumstances that would otherwise lend credibility to the Article. That is because the supposed letter is a fake and the Defendants knew it when they chose to deliberately defame President Trump.
I don't think any news source feels obliged to attach a full chain of proof to its article, so this point seems very weak and prone to being knocked over with fact witnesses. Are they going to put DJT on the stand to claim he never doodled naked women and didn't create the page with his signature on it???
Let's just peek under the hood to see if there is anything there.
Claims of defamatory per se:
The letter bears Trump's name
The letter has an outline of a naked woman
The outline appears hand-drawn in heavy marker
Small arcs denotes the woman's breasts
The signature "Donald" denotes the woman's pubic hair
It is Trump's signature
The letter contains an imaginary dialogue
Trump is one of the imagined speakers
Imaginary Trump finishes with "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Claims of implicit defamation:
Headline: Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.
Ghislaine Maxwell sought to build an album from "Jeffrey Epstein's family and friends", including Trump.
The album included content from various persons, including "childhood pals"
Epstein, at the time, was "socializing with Trump" at various locations
Um, all I see is:
* Trump used to associate with Epstein and Maxwell. ✅ (We've all seen it.)
* Trump's signature is a scrawl that could substitute for pubic hair. ✅ (We've all seen it.)
* Trump, in the past, would doodle. ✅ (Before Sharpiegate, there were some sketches attributed to him.)
* Trump, in the past, would objectify women. ✅ (Objects with handles, even.)
* Trump is capable of speaking of himself in the third person. ✅ (J.K. Rowling, Washington Post, New York Times called him out for this.)
* Trump was capable of relating an imaginary dialogue. ✅ (Whether it's his MIT uncle talking about the Harvard-educated Unabomber attending his classes and correcting everyone or the "Sir stories" where big, strong men come to Trump with tears in their eyes, it is clear that Trump can invoke fictional dialogue)
And the article went viral.
On this basis Trump demands not less than 20 billion dollars. Ha ha ha.
It will be an uphill battle to get this past a Grand Jury and probable motion to dismiss. DOJ accuses Judge Hannah Dugan of:
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Presumably this part:
“Whoever corruptly ... endeavors to ... impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ...”
Heavy lifting:
Prove that keeping ICE from scaring people away from their due process in a State Courthouse is some sort of corrupt intent
Prove that ICE serving an administrative warrant (not from an Article III court) in a State Courthouse is “due and proper” when the published handbook says it is not
Prove serving an administrative warrant is in furtherance of a pending proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 1071 - Concealing person from arrest
Presumably, this part:
“Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person”
Heavy lifting:
How is directing a person not to exit directly into waiting ICE agents a form of concealment? or harboring when the complaint is that the judge showed the guy to an exit?
Discovery was not impeded, arrest in public spaces was not impeded since the judge took no action in public spaces.
They could have gotten a judicial warrant and arrested the suspected undocumented migrant, Mr. Flores-Ruiz, inside Judge Hannah Dugan’s courtroom, but instead they staked out her courtroom with only an administrative warrant and waited for him to come out a door into a semi-public hallway. The judge noticed, told them to check with the head judge if their conduct was authorized because it looked like it was going to obstruct the justice of the state courthouse, as he faces some criminal charges which look like they will now never be adjudicated, and he exited a different door to the same semi-public hallway. They saw him, rode down in the same elevator car as him, and arrested him outside the courthouse.
They they come back, arrest her, perp-walk her, castigate her in the media in violation of DOJ policy, and she is released on her own recognizance to await a possible indictment from a grand jury to which she could have an arraignment (pled guilty or not guilty) by May 15. That’s not normal when it comes down to a matter of legal interpretation between a trained lawyer/jurist and some CPA who works for the FBI operating on notes left by 6 ICE/CBP/FBI/DEA undercover agents without legal training. A normal DOJ would have given her the opportunity as a legal professional and officer of the court to self-surrender, instead of tactics to inspire fear of our own government.
As to a future motion to dismiss:
Since the defendant, Mr. Flores-Ruiz, had constitutional right to due process, and an immediate ICE arrest would nullify any outcome of the scheduled hearing in Judge Dugan’s courtroom that he voluntarily participated in, letting him walk into an ICE ambush that she had became aware of would seem to violate his rights under the U.S. Constitution, effectively obstructing the justice that he was entitled to, and with this mindset Judge Dugan would not have any corrupt intent evidenced by showing the defendant an alternative exit that the one ICE anticipated thus she cannot have corruptly obstructed justice while preventing ICE from obstructing justice. And if that is the case, the charge that showing the defendant to an alternate exit is somehow harboring or concealing him from arrest is equally void, since if the government wanted to make her courtroom the site of the arrest they could have secured a judicial warrant and have the supremacy clause of the Constitution on their side and arrested him INSIDE the courtroom — instead they wanted to play dress-up secret police and arrest him at the exit to her courtroom.
That’s a long way to case dismissed, I think.
But that’s an adversarial argument, not something that happens before the magistrate judge at either the complaint stage nor the 4 minute hearing where the judge was released on her own recognizance.
Under the rule of law, trademark fights like these affect all of us — not just the rich. If one athlete manages to trademark a bare jersey number, it weakens protections that keep generic terms free for public use.
Imagine a world where “milk,” “cereal,” and other common words were trademarked. Cheese makers would be forced to advertise “100% bovine lactation” instead of just “milk.” In an age of innovation, if Bell had trademarked the word “phone,” there might be no “iPhone.”
We’d be living in a linguistic minefield: the internet’s favorite debate — whether a taco™ counts as a sandwich™ — would be mooted for legal reasons, not culinary ones. Restaurants would need legal teams just to write their menus. Even jersey numbers — the most neutral markers in sports — could inflate into four-digit identifiers just to avoid lawsuits.
This isn’t just a fight among celebrities. It’s a battle over how much of the language we all share can be locked behind paywalls and paperwork.
(This one will not will Editor's Choice for the week, but ...)
Actually, "fetch" did briefly become a thing in the not-for-kids YouTube animated show Helluva Boss, Season 1, Episode 8, "Queen Bee." At a party, a collection of hellhounds are gabbing in speech inspired by (San Fernando) Valley Girls.
Vikki: And so, I told him "I'm not gonna go get it, unless you fucking throw it this time."
Dalmatian Hellhound: That is so, not fetch!
Vikki: Not fetch...
This slow-motion corporate saga, which has had many stops and starts, ends with [Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, David] Ellison[,] replacing [media mogul Sumner Redstone'a daughter, Shari] Redstone[,] as the rich kid at the heart of an iconic brand. (At least as long as Paramount doesn’t find a better deal in the next 45 days, triggering more chaos.)
...
The company has done badly, and the Skydance deal is best summed up as being utterly fantastic for Redstone and, ehhh, maybe fine for everyone else.
...
Ellison’s plans are a bit murky. “The first thing we need to do is to double down on the core competency of storytelling across mediums,” he says. OK, then!
The linked article lists a four-factor test and gives two examples. I believe the shirt is still protected as fair use because the shirt is marketed to a different audience than authentic LA Lakers shirts.
But there is clearly room for disagreement due to the amount of copying and artistic content of the copied portion (2nd and 3rd factors). If the highly stylized basketball is originally clipart, however ....
While it closely resembles clip-art, the basketball in the logo even more closely resembles that in the Lakers' logo; so strongly, I suspect it was literally and provably copied. But the resulting work was transformative and parallels 1st-amendment-protected parody in that it stands for the proposition that criticizing police abuses should be just as popular as wearing the local team sports merchandise.
In the absence of the 1st amendment, it would seem to be both copyright and trademark infringement, but generally it is poor practice adopt a position which assumes the constitution doesn't exist.
How would that go?
I have three daughters: SpaceX, Tesla, and X(Twitter). Which of them loves me most?
SpaceX: "What if the rockets didn't destroy infrastructure at launch and survived to orbit?"
Tesla: "How does marketing an electric vehicle to those that anticipate the collapse of society (and therefore the electrical grid) make sense?"
X: "I will always love you, provided you make loving you the sole qualification for posting/employment."
97 pages of self-assured drivel
My summary of the March 6 Appellant Brief: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — this is just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings." At first glance, the DOJ seems to support the revocation of security clearances better. But that's because they are hammering on the language of Department of Navy v. Egan (1988) and Lee v. Garland (2024) with all the bluster of a con artist or chat bot stuck in a self-reinforcement loop. But both those cases were predicated on the presumption of regularity — that the appropriate agency, following procedure, undertook a careful determination and the review of which is a nonjusticiable political question. Trump's four Executive Orders make it clear that none of that happened and all of this is retaliation for not capitulating. And NRA v. Vullo seems to say that is coercion in violation of the First Amendment. Finally, on page 14, the DOJ argues its position is made stronger by the 9 firms that capitulated. (Kathryn Rubino also pointed this out.) but pages i-ii counts (in addition to the 4 law firms and 4 District judges) a total of 147 amici across the four cases. (If the DOJ didn't check for overlap between these amici, why should I?) These numbers don't make the DOJ look good.
Halligan's latest contempt?
Halligan and DOJ still at it
Court: What is this crap? Didn’t a judge tell you that you’re not the US Attorney? Lindsey #Halligan: Just because a judge decided that it is unconstitutional for me to say I am the US Attorney and threw out my case against #Comey, doesn’t mean I need to stop acting as and signing court papers as US Attorney. Also, you are not very good at this law thing, Judge. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.22.0.pdf
Good article, but (2 of 2)
You malign the lawyer, but this is the same lawyer who was there for ABC's $15 million payola to the presidential library + $1 million to lawyer. The same lawyer who penned the threat letters to CNN and New York Times for Trump in June. He may be a franchise law lawyer, but Trump is his franchise now and ignorance of the 1st Amendment is part and parcel of that game.
Good article, but
Regardless of media reports, the demand is for not less that $20 billion. $10 billion for the defamation per se that ... I guess that the card exists with Trump's signature and $10 billion more for the implied defamation that Trump associated with Maxwell and Epstein? So that the article has a headline with "His Lawyers Can’t Read Good" is a bit embarrassing on this point. Now onto my rant (expanded from last week): So you’ve been sued by the President, how is that fair? I submit it is the court’s responsibility to make it fair. Immunity can’t be both sword and shield.
Presidential duties and a implied immunity insulate a president from being bothered by civil lawsuits for the performance of official acts. But here he waives that immunity to demand billions in (undocumented) damages, subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the court as far as Article II will let him. The court should take the $20 billion dollar claim at face value and let Murdoch do a full forensic examination of all Trump’s businesses and holdings to quantify these claimed losses and their causes. Any failure of candor, any failure to conform to discovery should be penalized with the adverse finding that Trump is the true author of the letter exactly as described in the article and complaint, and that Murdoch should be reimbursed in total for all associated legal costs. And since there might be limits on the court’s ability to impose fines and costs on the Article II president, his attorneys should be held jointly liable for this very serious matter. Because, the focus of all this nation’s media wouldn’t just abuse the court system to manipulate the press, would he?Congrats!
Your comment won the weekly editor’s choice on the funniest ones.
A shield is not a sword
Presidential duties and a implied immunity insulate a president from being bothered by civil lawsuits for the performance of official acts. But here he waives that immunity to demand billions in (undocumented) damages. The court should take the $20 billion dollar claim at face value and let Murdoch do a full forensic examination of all Trump's businesses and holdings to quantify these claimed losses and their causes. Any failure of candor, any failure to conform to discovery should be penalized with the adverse finding that Trump is the true author of the letter exactly as described in the article and complaint, and that Murdoch should be reimbursed in total for all associated legal costs. And since there might be limits on the court's ability to impose fines and costs on the Article II president, his attorneys should be held jointly liable for this very serious matter.
IANAL but...
It's not very strong, but it might apply as the Complaint describes the claimed letter as similar to a play and the WSJ is obviously news.
Did he stutter?
PACER reports DJT sued Murdock and Wall Street Journal twice today in Miami Federal Court (Florida, Southern District). 25-cv-23229 is just a stub with DJT seemingly representing himself, pro se. There is no complaint filed here. 25-cv-23232 has DJT represented by a Coral Gables law firm and has him suing in his individual capacity. Two tries to file the paperwork is embarrassing, but at least the lawyer is closer to the courthouse than Mar-a-Lago, so Trump wasn't literally just looking in the parking lot for a lawyer. Despite ALL the defendants being linked to New York, DJT wants to sue in Florida, claiming both personal jurisdiction and proper venue. DJT's lawyer thinks WSJ commonly prints sketches of naked women as per paragraphs 21–22:
I don't think any news source feels obliged to attach a full chain of proof to its article, so this point seems very weak and prone to being knocked over with fact witnesses. Are they going to put DJT on the stand to claim he never doodled naked women and didn't create the page with his signature on it??? Let's just peek under the hood to see if there is anything there. Claims of defamatory per se:- The letter bears Trump's name
- The letter has an outline of a naked woman
- The outline appears hand-drawn in heavy marker
- Small arcs denotes the woman's breasts
- The signature "Donald" denotes the woman's pubic hair
- It is Trump's signature
- The letter contains an imaginary dialogue
- Trump is one of the imagined speakers
- Imaginary Trump finishes with "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Claims of implicit defamation:- Headline: Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.
- Ghislaine Maxwell sought to build an album from "Jeffrey Epstein's family and friends", including Trump.
- The album included content from various persons, including "childhood pals"
- Epstein, at the time, was "socializing with Trump" at various locations
Um, all I see is: * Trump used to associate with Epstein and Maxwell. ✅ (We've all seen it.) * Trump's signature is a scrawl that could substitute for pubic hair. ✅ (We've all seen it.) * Trump, in the past, would doodle. ✅ (Before Sharpiegate, there were some sketches attributed to him.) * Trump, in the past, would objectify women. ✅ (Objects with handles, even.) * Trump is capable of speaking of himself in the third person. ✅ (J.K. Rowling, Washington Post, New York Times called him out for this.) * Trump was capable of relating an imaginary dialogue. ✅ (Whether it's his MIT uncle talking about the Harvard-educated Unabomber attending his classes and correcting everyone or the "Sir stories" where big, strong men come to Trump with tears in their eyes, it is clear that Trump can invoke fictional dialogue) And the article went viral. On this basis Trump demands not less than 20 billion dollars. Ha ha ha.Judge Hannah Dugan was trying to prevent obstruction of justice
It will be an uphill battle to get this past a Grand Jury and probable motion to dismiss. DOJ accuses Judge Hannah Dugan of: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees Presumably this part: “Whoever corruptly ... endeavors to ... impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ...” Heavy lifting:
- Prove that keeping ICE from scaring people away from their due process in a State Courthouse is some sort of corrupt intent
- Prove that ICE serving an administrative warrant (not from an Article III court) in a State Courthouse is “due and proper” when the published handbook says it is not
- Prove serving an administrative warrant is in furtherance of a pending proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 1071 - Concealing person from arrest Presumably, this part: “Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person” Heavy lifting:- How is directing a person not to exit directly into waiting ICE agents a form of concealment? or harboring when the complaint is that the judge showed the guy to an exit?
- Discovery was not impeded, arrest in public spaces was not impeded since the judge took no action in public spaces.
They could have gotten a judicial warrant and arrested the suspected undocumented migrant, Mr. Flores-Ruiz, inside Judge Hannah Dugan’s courtroom, but instead they staked out her courtroom with only an administrative warrant and waited for him to come out a door into a semi-public hallway. The judge noticed, told them to check with the head judge if their conduct was authorized because it looked like it was going to obstruct the justice of the state courthouse, as he faces some criminal charges which look like they will now never be adjudicated, and he exited a different door to the same semi-public hallway. They saw him, rode down in the same elevator car as him, and arrested him outside the courthouse. They they come back, arrest her, perp-walk her, castigate her in the media in violation of DOJ policy, and she is released on her own recognizance to await a possible indictment from a grand jury to which she could have an arraignment (pled guilty or not guilty) by May 15. That’s not normal when it comes down to a matter of legal interpretation between a trained lawyer/jurist and some CPA who works for the FBI operating on notes left by 6 ICE/CBP/FBI/DEA undercover agents without legal training. A normal DOJ would have given her the opportunity as a legal professional and officer of the court to self-surrender, instead of tactics to inspire fear of our own government. As to a future motion to dismiss: Since the defendant, Mr. Flores-Ruiz, had constitutional right to due process, and an immediate ICE arrest would nullify any outcome of the scheduled hearing in Judge Dugan’s courtroom that he voluntarily participated in, letting him walk into an ICE ambush that she had became aware of would seem to violate his rights under the U.S. Constitution, effectively obstructing the justice that he was entitled to, and with this mindset Judge Dugan would not have any corrupt intent evidenced by showing the defendant an alternative exit that the one ICE anticipated thus she cannot have corruptly obstructed justice while preventing ICE from obstructing justice. And if that is the case, the charge that showing the defendant to an alternate exit is somehow harboring or concealing him from arrest is equally void, since if the government wanted to make her courtroom the site of the arrest they could have secured a judicial warrant and have the supremacy clause of the Constitution on their side and arrested him INSIDE the courtroom — instead they wanted to play dress-up secret police and arrest him at the exit to her courtroom. That’s a long way to case dismissed, I think. But that’s an adversarial argument, not something that happens before the magistrate judge at either the complaint stage nor the 4 minute hearing where the judge was released on her own recognizance.Not just "Let them fight"
Under the rule of law, trademark fights like these affect all of us — not just the rich. If one athlete manages to trademark a bare jersey number, it weakens protections that keep generic terms free for public use. Imagine a world where “milk,” “cereal,” and other common words were trademarked. Cheese makers would be forced to advertise “100% bovine lactation” instead of just “milk.” In an age of innovation, if Bell had trademarked the word “phone,” there might be no “iPhone.” We’d be living in a linguistic minefield: the internet’s favorite debate — whether a taco™ counts as a sandwich™ — would be mooted for legal reasons, not culinary ones. Restaurants would need legal teams just to write their menus. Even jersey numbers — the most neutral markers in sports — could inflate into four-digit identifiers just to avoid lawsuits. This isn’t just a fight among celebrities. It’s a battle over how much of the language we all share can be locked behind paywalls and paperwork.
Actually ....
(This one will not will Editor's Choice for the week, but ...) Actually, "fetch" did briefly become a thing in the not-for-kids YouTube animated show Helluva Boss, Season 1, Episode 8, "Queen Bee." At a party, a collection of hellhounds are gabbing in speech inspired by (San Fernando) Valley Girls.
Hilarious!Thanks. It seems I won the Editor's award for the week, as well.
New Kryptonite
Filing deadlines! Gasp! Choke! My only weakness!
TL;DR
So what you are saying is our fourth amendment rights are being geofenced?
Merger is closing, except if better offer in 45 days...
Actually ....
The linked article lists a four-factor test and gives two examples. I believe the shirt is still protected as fair use because the shirt is marketed to a different audience than authentic LA Lakers shirts. But there is clearly room for disagreement due to the amount of copying and artistic content of the copied portion (2nd and 3rd factors). If the highly stylized basketball is originally clipart, however ....
While it closely resembles clip-art, the basketball in the logo even more closely resembles that in the Lakers' logo; so strongly, I suspect it was literally and provably copied. But the resulting work was transformative and parallels 1st-amendment-protected parody in that it stands for the proposition that criticizing police abuses should be just as popular as wearing the local team sports merchandise. In the absence of the 1st amendment, it would seem to be both copyright and trademark infringement, but generally it is poor practice adopt a position which assumes the constitution doesn't exist.
I would strongly agree with Mike and Timm if I didn't want to keep my
Twitter𝕏 account still running. j/k I've long since left the Nazi bar.How would that go? I have three daughters: SpaceX, Tesla, and X(Twitter). Which of them loves me most? SpaceX: "What if the rockets didn't destroy infrastructure at launch and survived to orbit?" Tesla: "How does marketing an electric vehicle to those that anticipate the collapse of society (and therefore the electrical grid) make sense?" X: "I will always love you, provided you make loving you the sole qualification for posting/employment."