I would like to know who decided and why they decided to use Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-Sharp Minor (that's Moonlight Sonata) for Ilya baring his soul to Shane in Russian. #heatedrivalry
That's how it works, btw. I would get a call sheet that had the station ID, the location, the time, and the name of the host (so I wouldn't fuck it up). It would be like eight shows in all over the course of two or three hours. Short little hits.
Did not expect Dr. Drew!
I told the booker that in the future it would be helpful if they flagged the nationally syndicated programs on call sheets, as opposed to the random morning shows in like, Little Rock.
My Dr. Drew story is that some years ago I was doing a series of radio hits about an op-ed I wrote that proceeded from east to west across the country, ending with, according to the call sheet, "KABC L.A. - Drew."
It wasn't until I was on the hostile call that I realized it was the Dr. Drew Show.
United States Onurt of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 26-5050 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-02471-ACR Filed On: March 6, 2026 Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, et al., Appellees V. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, et al., Appellants BEFORE: Walker, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, the opposition thereto, the reply, the amicus briefs, and the Rule 28(i) letters, it is ORDERED that the motion for a stay be denied.
BREAKING: DC Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, keeps in place a lower court order blocking DHS Sec. Noem’s effort to end Haiti temporary protected status designation.
Judges Pan and Garcia deny DOJ’s request to stay the district court order. Judge Walker would have granted it.
Haiti TPS is safe for now.
I love that name. (Also, congrats, man.)
bai
DHS claimed "an ICE agent had fired 'defensive shots' into Martinez's vehicle after Martinez 'intentionally ran over' another agent."
But body cam video now "shows that Martinez's vehicle, a blue Ford Fusion, was stationary or going at a very low rate of speed when he was fatally shot."
The secret to never getting caught with hallucinations in your briefs is to NEVER USE generative AI to write your briefs. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
This guy is TOAST.
Just flipping through CourtListener, there are several lawsuits against Kalshi starting in 2024, and it doesn't appear they went to arbitration. (of course, they could change their TOS at any time)
I also am a fan of (cleaned up), but I think it's important to let the reader know when I've been doing some cleaning up!
It's not like internal citations, quotation marks, footnotes, alterations, and subsequent history are important in law, or anything.
1Unless otherwise indicated, case quotations omit all internal citations, quotation marks, footnotes, alterations, and subsequent history.
This has been bugging me for about an hour now.
This appears to just be a blanket invocation of (cleaned up) without indicating so the reader can tell what is an actual quotation and what isn't.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242...
The c/as are breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, and, uh, receiving property “that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft” under California law.
4. In the rules summary displayed to users at the time the Market was opened and during the period when most trades were placed, Defendants prominently represented that “if Ali Khamenei leaves office before March 1, 2026, then the market resolves to yes.” This language was clear, unambiguous, and binary: if Khamenei left office for any reason—including death—the Market would resolve to “yes” and holders of “yes” positions would receive the full contractual payout. 5. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran. News outlets began reporting that Khamenei had been killed. Khamenei’s death was subsequently confirmed. By any reasonable interpretation of the Market’s terms, Khamenei had “left office” before March 1, 2026, and the Market should have resolved to “yes.” 6. Instead, after Khamenei’s death became public, Defendants invoked a socalled “death carveout” provision—a fine-print mechanism designed to allow Defendants to avoid paying consumers what they were owed when the predicted event occurred through its most foreseeable scenario. Under this provision, Defendants asserted that if the leader “leaves solely because they have died,” the Market would
Lawgeeks, here's the complaint against Kalshi for not paying out the bet on "Ali Khamenei out as Supreme Leader" because he died.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
INTRODUCTION Nearly three months ago, the district court stayed a Department of Homeland Security policy that imposed waiting periods before members of Congress could conduct oversight visits at immigration detention facilities, notwithstanding an appropriations rider prohibiting precisely such a policy. Rather than heed the court's order or seek appellate review, DHS waited three weeks and then secretly reissued a substantively identical policy, which has now also been stayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705. Defendants-appellants the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and their respective heads (collectively DHS) now seek emergency relief from this Court, but there is quite transparently no emergency for DHS.
DHS has made no showing that it will experience irreparable injury warranting this Court's emergency intervention while the appeal is pending. The entirety of DHS's irreparable-harm argument is contained in a single sentence and includes only a speculative fear of unexplained "safety" concerns. Mot. 26. As the district court found, "during the pendency of this litigation, Defendants have not cited any concrete examples of safety issues posed by congressional visits without advanced notice, let alone the significant harm necessary to justify a stay of the [district court's order." Add.286. DHS cannot overcome the high bar to obtain the stay it seeks, "a rare form of emergency relief reserved for true emergencies," Fed. Educ. Ass'n v. Trump, No. 25-5303, 2025 WL 2738626, at *3 (D.C. Cir. Sep. 25, 2025), and this Court should not credit DHS's attempt to do so by issuing an immediate administrative stay.
Here is the plaintiff members of Congress's opposition to DOJ's request for an immediate administrative stay — which was filed just before 5p Thursday, after DOJ's request came in after 9p Wednesday: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Judge Bove writes the decision for the Court and also adds a concurring opinion for himself.
The language applies regardless of supposed membership in a majority or minority group. These considerations are reinforced by the fact that the Rule’s vagueness leaves it susceptible to arbitrary applications and inconsistent results, as we pointed out when we rejected the federal version long ago. See Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1999).
3d Cir. refers to 1999 as "long ago."
Also, some law stuff about doing away with the state law version of a rule that makes it harder for white people to sue for discrimination than minorities.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242...
After the Burn, they're still just hanging out with Omega? For funzies?
Bad plan.
Hey, if you're single in Spotsylvania County, come over for dinner. I want to introduce you to an interior designer (man who is into men) and an architect (woman who is into men).
Actual thing the DH said (names redacted): M and C are single now, they need somewhere to have dinner.
🤦
Family dinner night (Friday) has ballooned from six adults and two kids to eleven adults and three kids bc family friends (love 'em, but) are now invited.
I'm running out of recipes that feed this many that aren't Mexican (because I run home to my roots when I'm pushed).
Oh, I know. I'm certain these are the most perfect pups who ever pupped.
(Day 50)
A black lab puppy sits inside an indoor pen. She's looking towards the camera, and both of her ears are turned out so she's got the pink showing. There's a tug rope on the floor next to her.
MIssy flips her ears up so much we've been calling her Princess Leia.
Arkansas SCT, 2002: We reject Whren under our state constitution, and hold that pretextual stops and arrests violate it.
Arkansas SCT, today: We were wrong in 2002, and we embrace Whren under the state const today. Pretexts aren't unconstitutional.
opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremec... #N
The thing about Jessup is that he is a delusional coward who likes barking old chestnuts about abstractions like "honor" and "code," while it's the JAG lawyers and the enlisted marines who deal in the realities of what an operational military actually involves. So I see why these guys like him
Clever. Definitely worth a shot. But a long shot.
Landrum has prior drug trafficking felonies, and he committed his § 922(g)(1) offense while on supervised release. So, he concedes that Kimble and Giglio mean he can be constitutionally disarmed pursuant to the Second Amendment. But he points out that these decisions had not been handed down at the time of his offense conduct—his possession of the firearm in November of 2023. He thus avers that at the time of his offense, an ordinary person with his history would not have had “fair warning” that he could not possess a firearm. That is, he contends that Bruen and Diaz rendered § 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally vague by requiring courts to perform unpredictable historical analyses to determine the constitutionality of convictions under the statute. There are two fatal problems with Landrum’s argument. First, the vagueness doctrine requires that the challenged statute itself be unconstitutionally vague.18 Landrum does not argue that § 922(g)(1) itself is vague, nor could he: the statute “clearly defines the prohibited conduct— possessing a firearm as a felon.”19 That clarity is dispositive.
Argument: Bruen rendered the felon-in-possession ban unconstitutionally vague by requiring courts to perform unpredictable historical analyses to decide the constitutionality of convictions as applied.
5th Cir.: nah, bruh.
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
