Dan Homiller

Coming soon: “All I Wanted To Do Is Watch Children Cry As I Handcuffed Their Mothers And Threw Them Into Unmarked Vans To Be Sent To Torture Camps. Now Hollywood Won’t HIre Me For More Straight-To-Streaming B-Movies. This Is My Story.”

You might get through a hearing or two, but you're going to have lawyers on the opposing side, and they will almost certainly be checking you out. Not only would you be on the hook for the unauthorized practice of law, your client would also have a cause of action against you.

I don't think any privileges for state legislators are actually that broad, but I'm curious as to why you think a Michigan state legislator's comments about an assassination in Minnesota are made in her "official capacity?"

Dude, that’s repugnant.

lol - there was a person in there that sped off. Pretty sure he knew it was a (failed) test and that the dummy didn't need aid.
But man, that thing is not ready for prime time.

Who's next?

I had to read it three times...

Or April. :(

lol. I hope the owner is OK and that he's got an attorney that gives them good advice b/c they better try to settle this one quick.

I believe the PMI part refers to the prices paid index for manufacturers, which indicates what portion of manufacturers are reporting higher prices. An indicator of inflation.

The first rule of Zombie Club is "don't talk about Zombie Club."

This is nuts. Somebody indicated that this is not a copyright issue because of the rights granted/given away by the author - I have no idea whether that is the case, but if it is, we really need to beef up moral rights under U.S. copyright law.

agree. There are two sentences in her post, and the "correctly recognize" is in the one that is FAR more justifiable as a moral/intellectual position.

Right - at the end of 2024, 60% of the court's docketed cases were patent related - either appeals from the USPTO or from infringement suits in the district courts. Other large chunks are from gov't employee cases (13%) and veteran's claims (8%).

Yup. I was just fantasizing.
In this (hypothetical) case, Leo would also run squarely into the problem Carroll had in one of her defamation cases, i.e., that Trump is speaking in his official capacity...

I read that comment as a joke, but who knows. In any case, it sure would be fun watching him trying to disprove that he's a sleazebag. I'm pretty sure he is.

Every day!
I'm arguing with an examiner right now about what "surface" and "side" mean.

Yeah, that's the stupid part. The VAST majority of suburban homeowners aren't burning wood. If you just want a fire to look at, direct venting and power venting will let you put that romantic (gas-log) fireplace in just about any place in the house you want. Chimneys are largely obsolete.

It also tramples all over the functions of Congress - they're the ones who get to say what kinds of research gets funded.

I don't get what they think they're going to accomplish. The judge is clear that the whole damn thing is void, so the BEST case is that the judge broadens the wording of the "enjoin" part, with no actual change in scope.
This has to be performative, and there ought to be penalties.

RunPee: know when to run and pee during a movie. New movies are added every week. (About 160/year) The video below shows an old version of the RunPee app.The current app looks much better, but the features are the same. Recent Movie Reviews

A more proactive approach that might help:

runpee.com

Yeah, it's not fair for exactly that reason. Many kids will get the right numerical answer, but those who are paying close attention are going to get confused.

Eh, this is not great, but I don't think it's as bad as it looks when pulled out of context. Alito's statement is part of a discussion of the relevant history. Two paragraphs later he addresses Harris straight on.

Well, yeah, there are many, many naturalized citizens in the US. So unless the "you" in your comment refers only to citizens who were born here (in which case it's a pointless tautology), it's simply wrong.

Hmm. You might want to reconsider this post, as you just erased one of my family members and many, many other U.S. citizens.

Yeah, there are several "factors" they could incorporate into a multi-factor test: a pure question of law, a fundamental right, the challenged interpretation contravenes decades of understanding and practice, multiple districts in multiple circuits having enjoined the petitioner, etc...

If there is, surely it’s wrong?

This is bullshit. Is it corrupt for someone in a position of power to solicit gifts with a non-binding promise to reward the giver with favorable actions later? Of course it is. Does it make a difference if that promise is implicit? Not morally or ethically.

It’s nuts! All the talk will be about whether it’s legal, when it should simply be about whether it’s morally/ethically right. We forget the difference between right/wrong and “can he get away with it” at out peril.