Well-Pleaded Complaints

Talk slower than you want to. And don’t be afraid to cede your time if you’re not getting any questions.

I think this would be it

www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

i have it on good authority that this is very nearly a real belief of the Westboro Baptist Church

I do not hate myself enough to verify this

Karita Mattila IS Liza Minnelli IS Klytämnestra

We’re all thinking we are doing Serious Politics and actually trying to self-sooth around untreated anxiety disorders

at the end of the day this is narcissistic thinking, folks

“ah yes I was going to promise the electorate X but now I see I won’t lose @timorous.cishet.net’s vote, neoconservatism it is”

what leverage. nobody is sitting around basing their policies on whether Bluesky superusers will hold her nose and vote for them or not. what the fuck are you talking about.

Jemima Kirke saying “I think you guys might be thinking about the 2028 primary too much”

Might as well just pin this now I guess

everything else I have to say is [TOS VIOLATION], [ETHICS VIOLATION], or Sephirothposting, and I will spare you all from the last one

one other observation:
writing a majority opinion like that one should get you impeached for conduct unbecoming

I thought long and hard on what I can ethically say about this case and I will stick with this: when I was a law student I was advised to tell clinic clients to avoid the first trial judge in this case like he was radioactive

[TOS VIOLATION]

THE COURT: It was the third cite. How did you not look at cites one and two, which were the correct cites? MR. FELDMAN: That isn't the way I searched for it. THE COURT: That was the way that you told me you searched for it. MR. FELDMAN: That was -- THE COURT: Stop interrupting me, Mr. Feldman. It really is getting annoying.

Not only am I not sure this man has ever been in court before, I’m not sure he’s ever interacted with another person before

can you imagine being the judge’s clerks

I have an atrocious poker face I would‘ve had to leave the courtroom

THE COURT: That's even more confusing because the quotation -- you told me a moment ago that you read the Mata case and other cases, but you ended up quoting to an article about them and not the case itself. MR. FELDMAN: I did not -- I wanted to cite to the literature that was out there. THE COURT: But you didn't identify it as literature. You didn't identify it as an article about the case. You identified it as the case. MR. FELDMAN: So I originally, in my draft, I actually have the citations to the article, and I went through and I changed it. I actually removed all citations. I thought I removed all citations except for the citations that I was referring to with Ray Bradbury and with the biblical citations and also from the article to -- the British Museum, I think it was. I don't remember if I actually kept it into the final version. Originally I was going to cite to it, but I couldn't find the initial -- THE COURT: But sir, what would have been problematic about citing to Mata, which is an actual case? You are saying now you wanted to remove cites to it. I don't quite understand why what you cited to is not Mata but an article about Mata. I agree with you that there's no utility in perpetuating false citations, but Mata and Park, they're real cases.

Maybe he doesn’t know you’re allowed to cite real cases? That would explain a lot actually

THE COURT: Sir, I don't know how many times I can ask you this. MR. FELDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: What you're suggesting to me is that you found cases that maybe supported your position, but then somehow you managed to either miscite the case or miscite the case and provide a citation to a case that does not exist. I will never understand why you are doing that. But I do think that also runs headlong into another argument you were making because you were saying to me, or you were saying to Mr. MacMull, that some of these cases are the product of hallucinations. Did you not say that? MR. FELDMAN: I don't remember if I said that. But I may have said they were likely to be or may have been the product of hallucinations. At that point, I was not sure because I didn't investigate to see where any of them were. THE COURT: If what you are saying is true, which is that your problem, your mistake, is that you're finding case citations that prove your point, but you are having difficulty translating the cites as you find them into a cite that you can use in your decision. By the way, to be clear, I don't actually believe that, but go ahead, go with that as your argument, and that's the problem. Then I don't understand how these are so wrong.

Any one of these statements from a judge would be enough to make most lawyers commit seppuku. Three in a row?

small pile of ash confirmed

is this, what, direct benefits estoppel? that’s not even labor stuff that’s general arbitration stuff (which is why I have heard of it)

THE COURT: Now, was that the third level of cooperation that you were talking about? MR. FELDMAN: No. That's still the first level. THE COURT: We're still on level one. MR. FELDMAN: Level one, which is, I would say, the strategic coordination. THE COURT: OK. Have we exhausted level one? I just want to know what two, three, and four are. MR. FELDMAN: All right. I can anticipate questions, so I apologize. So I'm trying to focus on what I think is the best view, in my belief, since I am trying to be as accurate as possible. THE COURT: Of course. MR. FELDMAN: And since this is a theory that I have, I'm presenting it as best as I can on the fly. THE COURT: Of course. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:24-cv-09429-KPF Document 223 P8MRFLYc Filed 10/20/25 Page 10 of 97 10 My point, sir, is you said to me at some point that there were four levels of cooperation that attorneys can do. And then you talked about discussions of overall strategy positions and the possibility of me-tooing arguments. I did not know whether those were three things or one thing. You've now told me they are one thing. For my own completeness, may I know if, I'm allowed to, what levels two, three, and four are in your four levels of cooperation?

I would pay cash money and several Lego sets for audio of this hearing

*nobody* pulls one over on Katie Failla

I have been in hearings where some other lawyer was on the receiving end of Judge Failla Being Unhappy

it is a thing to behold

I’m surprised Mr Feldman is not a small pile of ash

Herodias is too obvious. Herod would be /very/ good

man, someone needs to do a John Waters inspired production of Salome. the only question is who Divine would play

we’ve got incest and necrophilia and those aren’t the most worrying parts

to be clear this is why i love opera. bunch of little freaks (laudatory)

one of the most Gender essays in the West‘s horniest and most Gender art form (opera)

i get that people are angry that we are reduced to this but we are genuinely reduced to it

here is Judge Garnett's decision, which dismisses the death-penalty-eligible 924(c) and 924(j) counts

the reasoning has to do with the way these must be daisy-chained to another crime

tl;dr she says stalking crimes are not categorically "crimes of violence", therefore not eligible predicates