Carolyn Ostrander

This dude is the bad guy in every single movie made about high school ever

Federal Prosecutor Used Fabricated Quotes in Court Filing An assistant US attorney in North Carolina filed a response with the court that included “fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings” and then made “false or misleading statements” of ho...

Now pro se plaintiffs are catching Pam Bondi's AUSAs fabricating quotes and citations.

news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...

Relatedly, what we tell kids that a word means may only be one part of what the word means.

This is great stuff

And honestly just makes sense. The past is a foreign country. But it’s not Mars.

Wow. Trump treats Doocy the way he normally treats Kaitlan Collins.

One of my old-school conservative views is that the government has no business being involved in college sports or any sports.

That’s out of fashion.

This matches my read of historical legal arguments: In the 18th century, courts and commentators were very attuned to the consequences of legal rules, and considered them as justifications for/against rules.
review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...

For a deep dive example, consider the arguments and opinion in the Aaron Burr case on the privilege against self-incrimination. Lots of policy arguments as to why the rule was or was not a particular way. harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...

OMG

In an influential pamphlet on search and seizure published in London in 1765, "Father of Candor" opposes general warrants: Under such warrants, "every part of a man's most valuable possessions and privacy is liable to the ravage, inroad, and inspection of suspicious Ministers . . . "

Thus you see "Father of Candor" in 1765 talking about the seizure of all papers being "unreasonable" not in the sense that it violates the common law, but rather in the sense that it would be (as he puts it) extravagant, inquisitorial, leading to tyranny, etc.

Queen CONNIE!!!!

If there is no commentary on these Paralympics events I am going to be so furious.

I get that it's complicated to find knowledgeable commentators for the events, but for fuck's sake, it will always be hard if they don't start somewhere.

Rather than making a threat, the defendant was calling out J.S. for threatening someone else. Also not addressed by the magistrate is that Mr. Wagner’s online posting of J.S.’s parents’ home address is, upon information and belief, a reposting of a prior doxxing of J.S. by another person. J.S. is, apparently, infamous in the circles of online activists who identify as anti-facist and famous among their right-wing online provocateurs. It appears highly unlikely that J.S. suffered any significant emotional distress from a reposting of a prior doxxing incident. From all indications, this sort of online trolling is what gets the guy up in the morning. As further discussed below, J.S. is no blushing lily.

More than a month after Kyle Wagner was arrested in MN, a public defender for him points out that his alleged victim, Jayden Scott, himself commits the alleged crime with which Wagner was charged, all the time.

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

For fuck's sake the newest ridiculous fucking war is keeping an Iranian Paralympian out and also messing with other Paralympians' travel schedules.

Nice that the fuckers waited until after the Olympics to be fucking assholes though.

Elsbeth is a spin-off character from The Good Wife. The backstory is important to understanding the characters and how they interact.

Yes. that's a special kind of avoidance of liability/responsibility that "avoid the passive mood" just doesn't cover.
"Grammar Police" have met the linguistic equivalent of "corporations are people."

The judge has stayed the immediate action part of his decision after the meeting today. Given the CBP outlined how they could handle the tariff refund mess in his declaration, I guess the court is going with that.

Okay, but if you haven’t listened to the hearing from Wednesday you are missing out on some real gems.

bsky.app/profile/did:...

Belt + suspenders generally causes no harm.

I'm sorry, the who what now?

I mean, I get that there is a distinction between a client and their attorney. But we are talking about attorneys in their role as *officers of the court*. "Plaintiffs will assuredly get a refund" so no irreparable harm, give us a stay <s> Sosun Bae, etc., is not the client.

18. Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions.

There's also Article 18 of the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which I appreciate doesn't bind any individuals but is an important general principle.

www.ohchr.org/en/instrumen...

It’s also fair to say that the DoJ lawyers who promised that it would be easy to refund were lying to the courts when they asked (and received) the stay.

Right, but in that case it just outlaws LLMs entirely, because the subject matter covered is all in the sub (i) and (ii), along with the crime requirement. So canon against absurdity kicks in there.

I'm not seeing a functional difference here. In either case, it's only covered if it would be a crime if a human did it.

The screenshot you provided is from the summary. The bill text is, IMO, not ambiguous, because the 'would violate' is pushed into two subdivisions.

legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/20...

Section 1. The general business law is amended to include a new section § 390-f that defines artificial intelligence system, chatbot and propri- etor and prohibits a proprietor of a chatbot to provide any substantive response, information, or advice, or take any action which, if taken by a natural person, would constitute a crime under sections 6512 or 6513 of the education law in relation to the professions whose licensure is governed under articles 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 153, 154, 163 of the education law, or article 15 of the judiciary law.

Wait! Cheap Lawyer Trick time. From the summary:

That's mirrored in the statutory language too.

The liability is only there if whatever is given would violate the law if it was given by a human.

Arguably, if we view outputs as the provider's speech, that liability is (or should be) already there.

That's not what the bill says, though.

It codifies liability only where the output would violate existing law if a human said the thing - the machine's output isn't treated differently from human speech.

The only new thing is that it puts liability with the provider.