I live in St Paul and know the area well. If I’d seen that poster, I’d have no idea that anyone was planning to go to a church, and certainly not one in a different area entirely
That poster references a protest at the Cub Foods on University Avenue in St. Paul. That’s at least a mile from the church, which is on Summit Avenue. So how is reposting that on social media a crime?
Just because someone took the time to write 1,000 words doesn’t mean anyone has to publish it. Some thoughts should not be said out loud, let alone in a national publication
I miss him so much
And an apology for their behavior
I’ve had clients yell at me that we should sue the plaintiff in the case I was defending. My response was always, “for what?” Answer: “You’re the lawyer, that’s your job to figure out.” Um yeah, bringing a claim isn’t illegal
She’s not dumb, she’s just a huge narcissist. She cares about Kristi and nothing else
My high school class went on a cruise to Mexico to celebrate graduation (it was a very small school). There was a couple on board who won the trip on the Dating Game. They hated each other, so they never talked during the trip
Agreed. I was raised Episcopalian but left the church. I still think Jesus’ teachings are valuable. Especially the Beatitudes, love thy neighbor, the Good Samaritan etc. if he were around today, he’d be horrified by today’s Christian nationalism and prosperity gospel followers and MAGA in general
My great uncle Hugh Jewett was a well known urologist at Johns Hopkins. His techniques are still used today. And he spent time in St Paul, studying under the inventor of the Foley catheter
medicalarchives.jhmi.edu/portrait/jew...
I got it. It’s hard to convey in text
I’ll put it this way, he’s the kind of person who takes a class from his own father. We were partnered up in Trial Practice taught by his dad
lol. Sorry for the confusion. I should’ve said Rosen.
Thanks for the reporting on this. Dan has always been unnecessarily dickish, but he’s not helping himself by arguing with the judge like this. Federal judges have a much lower tolerance for disrespect
I’ve seen a lot of crazy bullshit motions in 20 years of litigation. I’ve never seen anyone do that
Sums it up nicely
Also, it’s an audience of 1. He was probably trying to give Trump talking points to justify Iran
I felt that way about WWI. Its origins seemed murky and it didn’t make any sense. Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated? Ok, but why did that matter? But somehow, this era is even dumber
Iraq v Iran: While there were warning signs in the economy after 9/11, most people didn’t feel it much. Also, Cheney et al spent months building up to invading so people were ok w/it. Today, randomly bombing Iran won’t help us forget the rampant inflation, armed goons kidnapping babies, etc
My dad used to do the same thing, although I doubt too many people were excited to find his signature on an academic history book
When Clinton tried to take out Osama Bin Laden in a targeted strike, he was accused of wagging the dog. Just a couple of years later, 9/11 happened. Then Bush 2 used it as an excuse for regime change in Iraq. Seems like it’s the GOP that wags the dog
And yet they’re neither
I read this as a permission slip to the judges in the district
I interpret this to give a green light to the other judges in the District to hold people in contempt. He is the chief judge of the District
It must be a live dispute. In other words, you can’t sue someone for what they might do in the future. If Trump issues an executive order or takes concrete action to interfere with elections, states can sue. Until then, he’s just blowing hot air
And now Schiltz just issued an order basically giving all of them permission to hold the government in contempt
I read the article and then Schiltz’s order. The article vastly understates his obvious frustration. I’ve read many of his opinions and I’ve never seen him so mad. Also, Dan Rosen sucks. He’s always been a little shit and he’s even worse now
So many of these judges were AUSAs themselves. I assume it’s harder for them to realize that the government is no longer respectful of the rule of law
