So former big leaguer Paul Hansmeir has been sent down to the minors.
Maybe he'll be able to file some pro se ADA cases and represent himself. I think the standard under the ADA is you have to suffer from a disability that substantially limits a major life activity, which is defined to include things like reading, thinking, communicating, and working. His stupidity certainly has substantially limited him in those areas. Of course, I doubt a court would let a mentally incompetent represent himself, so it's a dilemma.
This reminds me of the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Leonard's bully comes up with the idea for a device that makes every movie 3D or whatever, and then expects Leonard to figure out how to make it.
Perhaps some enterprising attorney (hurry Hansmeir before you lose your license) could extend civil forfeiture just a little further and have the documents/data seized as the fruits of unspecified, uncharged crime. There seems to be a pretty low threshold for seizing money and other property.
Sure they are. That's just part of pleading the case and the cause of action. The department failed to properly train, supervise, etc. And it certainly looks like they did. In fact, given that the department itself cleared the officer involved of any wrongdoing, it certainly appears that the department condones roadside rectal exams, at least as long as the officer thinks he remembers the one being violated from a prior drug case.
Take Two will get another chance to file a motion for summary judgment, and at that point the judge will consider evidence and arguments that she really can't consider now. Lindsey ain't out of the woods yet.
4. Is Cy Vance a bloviating hopeless tool? Yes No X
5. What kind of bloviating tool is Cy Vance? Select all that apply. [This question requires an answer] __ helpless __ dickless __ the kind that sodomizes livestock __ one that is obsessed with the "backdoor" __ one with better hair than Donald Trump but far less money __ Other
I like this line from the Supreme Court's opinion:
"A United States District Court found that there was probable cause to believe that the Company’s facilities were being employed to facilitate a criminal enterprise on a continuing basis. For the Company, with this knowledge, to refuse to supply the meager assistance required by the FBI in its efforts to put an end to this venture threatened obstruction of an investigation which would determine whether the Company’s facilities were being lawfully used."
So, what was at stake was the refusal "to supply the meager assistance required by the FBI." Meager. I don't think that word can be applied to anything that Apple is being asked to do.
That the DOJ has asked the district judge to basically overrule the magistrate is not at all surprising. It is routine. While I admittedly have not read any of the actual court documents, I presume that the case in question is actually pending before the U.S. District Court. It is common to assign discovery and pre-trial matters to a magistrate judge, who then issues a "report and recommendation" resolving whatever is in dispute. The parties then have a certain amount of time (maybe 30 days, I can't remember) to request that the district court review the magistrate's findings, and they support the request with a brief raising arguments in support of whatever outcome they think is warranted. Here, Apple will also get to present argument on why the magistrate was correct. This isn't a case of forum shopping or the DOJ looking for a sympathetic judge.
I've bought two tubes of this product and found it very useful. But on both occasions, after having the Bondic for a few months, I went to use and found that the top had basically disengaged from the body of the tube, spilling the glue in the case. It happened to both tubes I bought. Too bad I could use the spilled glue to affix the top back to the body of the tube.