Denys Beecher
@dbeecher.bsky.social
16 years in US Social Security law, primarily disability claim representation
Really just coming for the lesbians in general.
November 20, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Really just coming for the lesbians in general.
Going on a multi-page screed about George Soros in a case where he's not at all a party is... not great, Jerry.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
November 19, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Going on a multi-page screed about George Soros in a case where he's not at all a party is... not great, Jerry.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
And if I'd done that surely you'd have a reasonable complaint, but instead, you read the ones you're imagining I typed instead.
November 18, 2025 at 2:25 AM
And if I'd done that surely you'd have a reasonable complaint, but instead, you read the ones you're imagining I typed instead.
Starting to feel like a broken record here, Andy.
November 18, 2025 at 2:18 AM
Starting to feel like a broken record here, Andy.
Clearly I'm just going to have to keep this one on standby.
November 18, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Clearly I'm just going to have to keep this one on standby.
I did read my argument. Now YOU try reading my actual argument and what you claimed my argument was both together. See the difference? Not at all the same thing.
November 17, 2025 at 11:23 PM
I did read my argument. Now YOU try reading my actual argument and what you claimed my argument was both together. See the difference? Not at all the same thing.
Right. That's a direct contradiction to your stated position of "they wouldn't take Davis' case because it would overturn their decision." So which is it? They're willing to overturn precedent or they won't take this case because it would overturn precedent?
November 17, 2025 at 11:21 PM
Right. That's a direct contradiction to your stated position of "they wouldn't take Davis' case because it would overturn their decision." So which is it? They're willing to overturn precedent or they won't take this case because it would overturn precedent?
"They didn't take it because it would mean overturning precedent." I thought you said they don't care about established law. Which is it?
And no, several justices didn't state that.
And no, several justices didn't state that.
November 17, 2025 at 11:04 PM
"They didn't take it because it would mean overturning precedent." I thought you said they don't care about established law. Which is it?
And no, several justices didn't state that.
And no, several justices didn't state that.
What are you talking about? I said originally said "individualized," you tried to swap that to "individually" which entirely alters the point, I then pointed out that you'd misread my original statement.
November 17, 2025 at 8:40 PM
What are you talking about? I said originally said "individualized," you tried to swap that to "individually" which entirely alters the point, I then pointed out that you'd misread my original statement.
No, not individually, *individualized*. Again, reading comprehension.
November 17, 2025 at 8:18 PM
No, not individually, *individualized*. Again, reading comprehension.
Ah, but he's getting that seafood from... the Caribbean
November 14, 2025 at 4:21 AM
Ah, but he's getting that seafood from... the Caribbean
That's the statutory definition in New York. That has no bearing on how people colloquially use the term. By the regular old dictionary definition he's a rapist. Just as by the regular old dictionary definition Epstein was a pedophile.
Your desire to to define only as terms-of-art is just weird
Your desire to to define only as terms-of-art is just weird
November 14, 2025 at 1:13 AM
That's the statutory definition in New York. That has no bearing on how people colloquially use the term. By the regular old dictionary definition he's a rapist. Just as by the regular old dictionary definition Epstein was a pedophile.
Your desire to to define only as terms-of-art is just weird
Your desire to to define only as terms-of-art is just weird
Alas, the account has been suspended, so it's not possible to find the context that post supposedly appears in. Read in isolation how are you supposed to know who the target of that "threat" even is?
November 13, 2025 at 8:29 PM
Alas, the account has been suspended, so it's not possible to find the context that post supposedly appears in. Read in isolation how are you supposed to know who the target of that "threat" even is?
The legal field still talks about them all the time. The concept of the stamping has survived, it's just almost always done electronically these days. Even Adobe still calls it Bates Numbering.
November 13, 2025 at 8:20 PM
The legal field still talks about them all the time. The concept of the stamping has survived, it's just almost always done electronically these days. Even Adobe still calls it Bates Numbering.
They're back with an actual indictment on this case and it's... pretty damn weak.
That's it. One count of 18 USC 875(c)
That's it. One count of 18 USC 875(c)
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
They're back with an actual indictment on this case and it's... pretty damn weak.
That's it. One count of 18 USC 875(c)
That's it. One count of 18 USC 875(c)
Our old six-digit machine. Exceptionally rarely used, but still around for the kinds of situations Mike seems to have found himself in.
November 13, 2025 at 7:23 PM
Our old six-digit machine. Exceptionally rarely used, but still around for the kinds of situations Mike seems to have found himself in.
No further details right now, but from a main local ICE-reporting org.
November 13, 2025 at 5:18 PM
No further details right now, but from a main local ICE-reporting org.
Maybe a different choice of theming would have been appropriate this year, friends?
November 12, 2025 at 6:40 PM
Maybe a different choice of theming would have been appropriate this year, friends?
You're all familiar with strenuous objections, but what about "adamantly overruling?"
November 12, 2025 at 5:04 PM
You're all familiar with strenuous objections, but what about "adamantly overruling?"
No, you said he wasn't human.
November 11, 2025 at 2:20 AM
No, you said he wasn't human.