Remy Green (they/them)

Wow this is narrowcast, and yet it hits.

This is unambiguously correct.

Link to the full complaint here:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

This case of ours involves some wild foot stomping by the City’s police unions — and City officials all too willing to cooperate with those tantrums.

I am rather excited to get into discovery with the unions here…

Police Unions Broke the Law to Get a CCRB Investigator Fired, Suit Alleges State law says you can't deny people employment based on their criminal record. So why was Ronald Davidson fired?

NY law says that you can't deny people employment just because they have a criminal record. But after police unions launched a campaign to get a CCRB investigator with a criminal record fired, he lost his job. Yesterday, he sued the CCRB and the unions.

hellgatenyc.com/ccrb-employm...

Yesterday, we released our 2025 annual report. There are a *lot* of numbers, but the tl;dr? Hell Gate has been growing! Read the report here: hellgatenyc.com/hell-gate-20...

I’ve started using it in briefs—and I think it’s more precise than “cleaned up,” or at least less ambiguous, while making things much more legible.

But it’s WILD that the concurrence didn’t drop this citation after getting the majority draft with the footnote saying this misunderstood what ChatGPT does. I cannot fathom how the judge didn’t read that and think better of this citation.

It really looks bad.

This seems to really be a fundamental misunderstanding by the judge of what ChatGPT even IS. As if it will produce this output whenever anyone asks this question—and therefore it is appropriately cited like a static article.

The majority opinion’s footnote is collegial, as it should be.

(2/3)

This understates how bananas the citation is.

This citation format suggests ChatGPT published something that was called “What does monkey ass mean?” But following the permalink, there is a kind of low quality screenshot of a chat log, not titled, but with that text in the chat.

(1/2)

Part one of a trash AI slop fundraising text from Eric Adams’ org.

Part two of the same.

Omfg Eric Adams with the AI slop.

Otherwise, yes, I too have always seen things pled that way; it’s just that some folks think it’s wrong and have Strong Feelings about it.

It’s certain judges/districts—but the ones I’ve seen do it do it on every complaint.

I cannot speak to whether Cannon is consistent on this, but I would bet she is.

… is pulled through to all counts kind of is the only real option.

It’s common practice, but some judges are persnickety about it—and I think it’s at least colorable to say it’s wrong.

It was certain incorrect to do things this way pre-Twiqbal. But post Twiqbal, the level of detail required for certain things makes doing a separate fact section that …

There seems to be a distinct lack of commentary on Cuomo and Adams’ continued campaign against a democratic nominee by those talking about “blue no matter who” unity around Newsom.

Curious.

Something as simple as a crack pipe.

(And in NY, we have the India Walton/Buffalo episode in the recent past…)

Cuomo out here trying to become the “The rent is TOO DAMN LOW” guy.

Oh, THAT’S why you went back to Hawaii. Fair, tbh.

Yeah totally. And I read your point as being that, which is totally right. One of the best things I’ve learned from NLG mentors.

But it is impossible not to notice, from where I practice.

I am being careful with my words here — and I haven’t really seen this in NYC’s federal courts — and not going to call out specific boroughs. But it is something that puts the rest in relief.

(Fin)

So, again, no shade to Sean! But I do spend a lot of time thinking about how — or whether — the ordinary lack of consistency in applying law and the ordinary deference to government litigants shaped and enabled the “sliver” Sean is describing here.

I don’t have a fully formed thought.

(6/x)

More, I find that the less “important” the case and issue are, the less consistent the application of precedent can be. That, of course, is for a far different reason than what Sean is talking about above—and this is not something I ever encountered when I was in big law.

(5/x)

“It doesn’t matter if they violated the [Court’s] order. If that merited sanctions, we would never do anything else.”

And they were right about that.

I absolutely think about that as we watch, say, the DC Circuit appeal about contempt proceedings play out.

(4/x)

…really can be entirely arbitrary.

A (not quite verbatim) quote I genuinely once heard from an court attorney in one of NYC’s City Parts (where cases against the City are litigated, in front of one judge per borough):

(3/x)

That is, the Prerogative State cannot function if it applies everywhere—part of its perniciousness is in how it can be described as a “sliver” of the Normative State. (I don’t think Sean is being blind to this, to be clear)

But also, second, I think this overlooks how much daily litigation…
(2/x)

I think a lot about this in two ways.

First, what Sean is describing IS what Fraenkel describes as fascism’s Dual State. The structure of unlimited and arbitrary discretion in the prerogative state relies on the continued functioning of the Normative State.

(1/x)

Did a party get removed from the docket? I think sometimes the PACER docket caption sometimes lags, but the caption on the opinion/order is going to be correct.

Paperclip (sanitized) is the way to go!