internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
@esquiring.bsky.social
21st century digital attorney. cybersecurity & data counsel, privacy & compliance, FOSS, sometimes litigation; probably not your lawyer.
~~☆~~
~~☆~~
Reposted by internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
Are you fucking kidding me it’s like we are living in a cartoon
November 21, 2025 at 8:33 AM
Are you fucking kidding me it’s like we are living in a cartoon
I did read the article. You're right, but it still treats this procedural win as somehow Less Than a jury trial, and I object to the framing of it as "technicality" in any case.
November 25, 2025 at 4:18 PM
I did read the article. You're right, but it still treats this procedural win as somehow Less Than a jury trial, and I object to the framing of it as "technicality" in any case.
Reposted by internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
update on how delivery robots are going in chicago (lakeview specifically)
November 25, 2025 at 6:16 AM
update on how delivery robots are going in chicago (lakeview specifically)
"an illegally appointed prosecutor, brought in just before the statute of limitations ran, botched the grand jury process and then lied about it to the court" is not a technicality;
that's several important constitutional protections being violated.
that's several important constitutional protections being violated.
November 25, 2025 at 3:39 PM
"an illegally appointed prosecutor, brought in just before the statute of limitations ran, botched the grand jury process and then lied about it to the court" is not a technicality;
that's several important constitutional protections being violated.
that's several important constitutional protections being violated.
for example, a technicality is something like:
"witness introduced reasonable doubt by failing to accurately identify the accused" or
"video evidence wasn't properly preserved."
"witness introduced reasonable doubt by failing to accurately identify the accused" or
"video evidence wasn't properly preserved."
November 25, 2025 at 3:37 PM
for example, a technicality is something like:
"witness introduced reasonable doubt by failing to accurately identify the accused" or
"video evidence wasn't properly preserved."
"witness introduced reasonable doubt by failing to accurately identify the accused" or
"video evidence wasn't properly preserved."
once more begging everyone to stop writing off core tenets of criminal procedure as "a technicality"
"The government and Halligan here got off on a technicality.
And yet, in the rough and tumble world of criminal litigation, a win is a win."
@benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org discusses the dismissal of the Letitia James and James Comey indictments in The Situation.
And yet, in the rough and tumble world of criminal litigation, a win is a win."
@benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org discusses the dismissal of the Letitia James and James Comey indictments in The Situation.
The Situation: Not The Way I Wanted This to End
But I’ll take it.
www.lawfaremedia.org
November 25, 2025 at 3:32 PM
once more begging everyone to stop writing off core tenets of criminal procedure as "a technicality"
Second Coffee!
November 25, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Second Coffee!
Reposted by internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
It's weird to not only have lived through an information revolution but also now living through its undoing, all within less than a generation.
Google at its peak was basically the best information retrieval system in human history and they and every competitor decided going from there to “you didn’t want answers you wanted half-assed auto-complete 80%-wrong hallucinations” in a few years was the right idea
November 25, 2025 at 12:19 PM
It's weird to not only have lived through an information revolution but also now living through its undoing, all within less than a generation.
Reposted by internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
Founders on LinkedIn still seem to be struggling with the difference between telling people about their humble beginnings and admitting to straight up committing fraud.
November 24, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Founders on LinkedIn still seem to be struggling with the difference between telling people about their humble beginnings and admitting to straight up committing fraud.
Reposted by internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
Every time a shitty attorney gets smacked for failing to check the local rules, they should have to write an apology letter to their Civ Pro professor.
November 25, 2025 at 1:39 AM
Every time a shitty attorney gets smacked for failing to check the local rules, they should have to write an apology letter to their Civ Pro professor.
couldn't agree more and I'm surprised to see any other answers to this prompt.
November 24, 2025 at 10:47 PM
couldn't agree more and I'm surprised to see any other answers to this prompt.
hands down the best campaign gaffe of the '10s.
November 24, 2025 at 10:00 PM
hands down the best campaign gaffe of the '10s.
Reposted by internet freds 🦇☠️💾✨️
my "Not Enron" shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
it's happening dot gif
November 24, 2025 at 7:58 PM
my "Not Enron" shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
my best guess is that, since the question of whether the gov can re-indict isn't directly before them, they chose to avoid answering that question.
essentially, "let the gov figure it out for themselves, if they want"
essentially, "let the gov figure it out for themselves, if they want"
November 24, 2025 at 7:44 PM
my best guess is that, since the question of whether the gov can re-indict isn't directly before them, they chose to avoid answering that question.
essentially, "let the gov figure it out for themselves, if they want"
essentially, "let the gov figure it out for themselves, if they want"
it reads to me like they're saying the initial indictment was void because of the invalid appointment, which would make the tolling in 3288 not apply? But they don't quite come out and say that directly, so I'm also unclear on how to read this re: their time to re-file.
November 24, 2025 at 7:38 PM
it reads to me like they're saying the initial indictment was void because of the invalid appointment, which would make the tolling in 3288 not apply? But they don't quite come out and say that directly, so I'm also unclear on how to read this re: their time to re-file.
you're absolutely right though the decision addresses that in a way that makes it a little unclear to me whether it applies here.
November 24, 2025 at 7:24 PM
you're absolutely right though the decision addresses that in a way that makes it a little unclear to me whether it applies here.
though, by the court's own discussion of the §3288 issue re: the original indictment, I'm still not 100% clear that section's grace period would apply if the initial indictment was, as the court said, "void."
![a screenshot from the dismissal order pp. 26-27
in relevant part, "Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges
contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An
invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.”
United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see
also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment
insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the
pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier
indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling
result.” (emphasis in original)"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:a4n6zqm2ufqrdbyszo5gvgyq/bafkreidfai55orlhyvzdnp7klnwnpnpeizrzm2murb3gdgks2ayppugpui@jpeg)
November 24, 2025 at 7:23 PM
though, by the court's own discussion of the §3288 issue re: the original indictment, I'm still not 100% clear that section's grace period would apply if the initial indictment was, as the court said, "void."
and @wendyck.bsky.social with the credited response: it looks like there's a procedural 6 month grace period:
bsky.app/profile/wend...
bsky.app/profile/wend...
I thought they get 6 months to file again under §3288 but that's discussed in the dismissal (p 26-27) so 🤔
codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-...
codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-...
18 U.S.C. § 3288 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 3288 | FindLaw
U.S. Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure 18 USCA Section 3288. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com
November 24, 2025 at 5:55 PM
and @wendyck.bsky.social with the credited response: it looks like there's a procedural 6 month grace period:
bsky.app/profile/wend...
bsky.app/profile/wend...
oh, thank you - this looks like the answer.
November 24, 2025 at 5:55 PM
oh, thank you - this looks like the answer.
That's a fair point, if they can allege conduct that *isn't* time barred. Though that would be true even if this dismissal was with prejudice, too.
November 24, 2025 at 5:53 PM
That's a fair point, if they can allege conduct that *isn't* time barred. Though that would be true even if this dismissal was with prejudice, too.
I assume there's some exception I'm missing, but that sounds like a dead case even if the dismissal isn't itself with prejudice.
November 24, 2025 at 5:46 PM
I assume there's some exception I'm missing, but that sounds like a dead case even if the dismissal isn't itself with prejudice.
okay crim pro fans, riddle me this:
if an indictment is dismissed without prejudice but the statute of limitations has run,
how does an AUSA get a new indictment?
if an indictment is dismissed without prejudice but the statute of limitations has run,
how does an AUSA get a new indictment?
BREAKING: Comey case dismissed without prejudice. Halligan invalidly appointed, judge rules. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
November 24, 2025 at 5:44 PM
okay crim pro fans, riddle me this:
if an indictment is dismissed without prejudice but the statute of limitations has run,
how does an AUSA get a new indictment?
if an indictment is dismissed without prejudice but the statute of limitations has run,
how does an AUSA get a new indictment?