#1 in United States v. Pacheco Leiton (S.D. Fla., 9:25-mj-08273) – CourtListener.com CRIMINAL COMPLAINT as to Yenire Karolina Pacheco Leiton (1), Enyerbert Alberto Blanco Blanco (2). (swr) (Entered: 05/19/2025)

Because it seems like no response is forthcoming, and I'd rather just post it than lose it:
Content warning: trafficking of a minor
www.courtlistener.com/docket/70320...
Page 13 (page 11 by the affidavit's numbering)

If I provided a legal filing that explicitly notes a paraphrased conversation using quotation marks to denote that someone other than the filer was speaking, would you accept that quotation marks do not universally denote a verbatim quote?

In more formal contexts where exact quotation matters (like legal briefs or academic papers), yes, quotation marks should denote quotes unless explicitly stated otherwise, but outside of those formal contexts, paraphrase quotation marks are common.

In some contexts, quotation marks are used for paraphrases or modified quotes in order to say someone else was talking. I've seen it on fora, though I've also seen polite posters add "[paraphrased]" or the like.
Just using bsky search for latest:
bsky.app/profile/malt...
bsky.app/profile/tomm...

While you're here - to me, the third row looks odd, and seems to not be how overlap is supposed to work. The medals are supposed to be displayed with each inboard in front of the outboard, right? So the NAM should go over the NASA OLM, and the NASA ESM over the NASA EAM, right?
Thanks!

They posted some twitter links: xcancel.com/yasinaktimur...
Seems like they're meant to interlock in multiple different ways.

What do the sages say about a younger uncle?

Of course, for the first there's an obvious comeback: "You know, Pete, you're right. I really should have put more emphasis on my medals from my service as a United States Astronaut. Thanks for reminding me, "Major"."

I think the second and third rows are switched; the third row (by the NASA medals) seems to be non-military awards, which take precedence over the campaign and service awards and marksmanship award in the second row, if I've understood correctly. Within each row the order seems right.

I have very little experience, so I could easily be wrong, but the second and third rows seem to be switched. The second row is campaign and service awards and a marksmanship award, which should be lower precedence than the non-military awards of the third row.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...

One other thing that seems wrong, but which I'm less certain about, is the overlap of the third row; the arrangement seems to not match the inboard-in-front-of-outboard pattern I've generally seen.

I have less experience than you, but from the regulations, the third row seems to be non-military decorations, while the second row seems to be campaign and service awards (and marksmanship), which should be switched.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
5307 and 5308.

If I read correctly, the regulations you linked seem to indicate that both of the medals currently on the bottom row should be above the second row, as non-military awards take precedence over campaign and service awards. Is that correct?

Yeah - that's why the "(or not)"; I know English and Scottish jurisprudence are separate, but don't know how much influence each had on the other, especially when it comes to military law.

How apt (or not) would it be to reference a jury instruction by the High Court of the Justiciary when discussing Anglo-American jurisprudence? I found one from an 1807 case that seems to require the defiance of a manifestly unlawful order.

Because it might be relevant: the above quote was taken from a case at the High Court of the Justiciary, the highest criminal court in Scotland. Might not be entirely relevant to English law, but at the least it illustrates that the requirement to disobey unlawful orders wasn't uniquely American.

To add an example: in 1807 (so yes, after the Revolution, but not so soon that a major principle was likely to be established), in the trial of Ensign Hugh Maxwell, the judge said "if an officer were to command a soldier to go out to the street, and to kill you or me, he would not be bound to obey."

By that point, the British actively based large parts of their legal system on two major events of defiance: the First Barons' War and the English Civil War. Not to mention the Glorious Revolution, only two generations prior.

The right of revolution is based on the idea that one can choose - based on no superior law, but instead based on conscience - to set aside a ruler entirely.

These are separate ideas.

But worse is the fact that the British were not simply opposed to defiance of the monarch.

This is both a poor analysis and, to my understanding, a complete misunderstanding of British history.

The bad analysis: the right to refuse unlawful orders is based on the idea that your first obedience is to law, and that one's (military) superior is supposed to be the means for that obedience.

#230 in United States v. Abrego Garcia (M.D. Tenn., 3:25-cr-00115) – CourtListener.com NOTICE of Supplemental Information by Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia re 104 MOTION to Dismiss for Vindictive and Selective Prosecution (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Zamora Cordero statement to Washingto...

Your link got cut off; I'm guessing you meant storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... ?

It doesn't even negate the existence of relevant legal process, though it often makes a mockery of it.

1) "A debatable reference" is insufficient to show that Kreis has "obviously" made a mistake. It is wildly insufficient for an accusation of racism.
2) The existence of summary punishment does not negate the existence of a principle that soldiers are to refuse unlawful orders.

You have not established any mistake. You have occasionally alluded to 1725 in questions, but have not provided any answer that would demonstrate that Kreis was incorrect.

Instead, you made a vague questioning sound, then when it was answered in a way you found unsatisfactory, you threw out an extreme and unjustified accusation of racism.

If you had wanted to be polite, you could have said "I've studied British legal history, and I don't think this is an accurate representation of historical British military law; on what basis are you claiming this principle extends back that far?" That would have made your contention clearer.

Your initial question was not "the most polite way possible"; there was no way to determine that you were disputing British history. You asked something that could have meant anything from what you are claiming to "What does 'Anglo' mean?"

Vampire hunter corporations that, instead of staking vampires, drain the money from any of them who try to get into any economically sketchy things.

Motion - Free – #54 in Apelbaum v. Lambert (E.D. Mich., 2:23-cv-11718) – CourtListener.com MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Thomas Siver, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A. June 11 2025 Email Agreement to Pay Demand, # 3 Exhibit Exhi...

I'm pretty sure it was deliberate. Bachenberg was attempting to "enforce" it (and get the case against Lambert dropped) as soon as it was accepted. Lambert got in on the attempt on the first motion, 7 days after the offer and more than a year since default.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Now check who Byrne's lawyer was.