@kingkurt42.bsky.social
I'm Brian and so is my wife.
Any legal commentary is not legal advice or the official position of anyone in particular, but a secret third thing.
Any legal commentary is not legal advice or the official position of anyone in particular, but a secret third thing.
Writing a response saying "wait that wasn't what I meant" and then deleting both skeets is also great.
February 9, 2026 at 9:11 PM
Writing a response saying "wait that wasn't what I meant" and then deleting both skeets is also great.
And, as the court notes, it's embarrassing that ice made so many procedural mistakes ..
But overstaying a visa is at least a plausible reason to remove someone.
2/2
But overstaying a visa is at least a plausible reason to remove someone.
2/2
February 9, 2026 at 4:58 PM
And, as the court notes, it's embarrassing that ice made so many procedural mistakes ..
But overstaying a visa is at least a plausible reason to remove someone.
2/2
But overstaying a visa is at least a plausible reason to remove someone.
2/2
Good call - I thought it was referring to the bond issue, but that makes more sense.
Fwiw, the order is here
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71921...
The court's ultimate conclusion is the person entered on a 90 day visa and stayed more than 90 days. That's not a good reason to hold him so long, 1/2
Fwiw, the order is here
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71921...
The court's ultimate conclusion is the person entered on a 90 day visa and stayed more than 90 days. That's not a good reason to hold him so long, 1/2
Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case – #27 in Culleton v. De Anda-Ybarra (W.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00554) – CourtListener.com
ORDER denying Petitioner's Amended Petition re 4 Amended Complaint filed by Seamus Thomas Culleton, and Closing Civil Case. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (em) (Entered: 01/23/2026)
www.courtlistener.com
February 9, 2026 at 4:57 PM
Good call - I thought it was referring to the bond issue, but that makes more sense.
Fwiw, the order is here
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71921...
The court's ultimate conclusion is the person entered on a 90 day visa and stayed more than 90 days. That's not a good reason to hold him so long, 1/2
Fwiw, the order is here
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71921...
The court's ultimate conclusion is the person entered on a 90 day visa and stayed more than 90 days. That's not a good reason to hold him so long, 1/2
Woah woah woah - immigration judges have more in common with MVA employees than the kind of judge that works with juries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...
February 9, 2026 at 2:25 PM
Woah woah woah - immigration judges have more in common with MVA employees than the kind of judge that works with juries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...
The garbage time TD is the only thing that bumped Darnold out of competition for worst performance by a SB winning QB.
February 9, 2026 at 3:28 AM
The garbage time TD is the only thing that bumped Darnold out of competition for worst performance by a SB winning QB.
I'm not seeing it. What did they do?
February 6, 2026 at 6:45 PM
I'm not seeing it. What did they do?
I think the average litigation attorney has about a thousand boring days per better call saul day
February 6, 2026 at 1:00 PM
I think the average litigation attorney has about a thousand boring days per better call saul day
It's always tough to tell the victims from the conspirators at the second level of a scam. Some of the people selling [snake oil] to their neighbors really think it helps and some of them know it doesn't.
February 6, 2026 at 12:41 PM
It's always tough to tell the victims from the conspirators at the second level of a scam. Some of the people selling [snake oil] to their neighbors really think it helps and some of them know it doesn't.
The only sane reaction is what Russel Wilson said:
NOPE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT! Not TODAY satan! Some Random plane broker tried to sell me a plane. I had no idea whose plane and never bought the plane. Never talked nor Never met the man.
Anything else is suspicious at best
people.com/russell-wils...
NOPE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT! Not TODAY satan! Some Random plane broker tried to sell me a plane. I had no idea whose plane and never bought the plane. Never talked nor Never met the man.
Anything else is suspicious at best
people.com/russell-wils...
people.com
February 5, 2026 at 4:54 PM
The only sane reaction is what Russel Wilson said:
NOPE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT! Not TODAY satan! Some Random plane broker tried to sell me a plane. I had no idea whose plane and never bought the plane. Never talked nor Never met the man.
Anything else is suspicious at best
people.com/russell-wils...
NOPE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT! Not TODAY satan! Some Random plane broker tried to sell me a plane. I had no idea whose plane and never bought the plane. Never talked nor Never met the man.
Anything else is suspicious at best
people.com/russell-wils...
That may be true - but it's a very different point than becoming a billionaire requires metastatic growth.
There must be at least one billionaire in a coma and therefore not currently doing evil. I suspect that doesn't undermine the point you're trying to make, but 100% is a tough claim to back up.
There must be at least one billionaire in a coma and therefore not currently doing evil. I suspect that doesn't undermine the point you're trying to make, but 100% is a tough claim to back up.
February 5, 2026 at 4:05 PM
That may be true - but it's a very different point than becoming a billionaire requires metastatic growth.
There must be at least one billionaire in a coma and therefore not currently doing evil. I suspect that doesn't undermine the point you're trying to make, but 100% is a tough claim to back up.
There must be at least one billionaire in a coma and therefore not currently doing evil. I suspect that doesn't undermine the point you're trying to make, but 100% is a tough claim to back up.
Like becoming a billionaire through inheritance or divorce. People like that are still likely to do the bad things other billionaires do, but it's not guaranteed.
February 5, 2026 at 1:31 PM
Like becoming a billionaire through inheritance or divorce. People like that are still likely to do the bad things other billionaires do, but it's not guaranteed.
"The most common way to make a billion dollars is to be a bad person" and "being a billionaire changes people" are obviously true.
"It's impossible to become a billionaire and be a good person" and "having that much money makes people evil" are probably true, but susceptible to outlier examples
"It's impossible to become a billionaire and be a good person" and "having that much money makes people evil" are probably true, but susceptible to outlier examples
February 5, 2026 at 1:29 PM
"The most common way to make a billion dollars is to be a bad person" and "being a billionaire changes people" are obviously true.
"It's impossible to become a billionaire and be a good person" and "having that much money makes people evil" are probably true, but susceptible to outlier examples
"It's impossible to become a billionaire and be a good person" and "having that much money makes people evil" are probably true, but susceptible to outlier examples
The implication I think you are missing is that Kubrick knew people who were Epstein's clients in the late 90s
February 4, 2026 at 9:18 AM
The implication I think you are missing is that Kubrick knew people who were Epstein's clients in the late 90s
I suspect the wildly different defamation rules are (or at least, were) a big part of the difference in print journalism.
TV journalism in the US tends to be very flattering of interviewees because it's easier to deny access to good tv interviews than good print sources.
TV journalism in the US tends to be very flattering of interviewees because it's easier to deny access to good tv interviews than good print sources.
February 2, 2026 at 6:55 PM
I suspect the wildly different defamation rules are (or at least, were) a big part of the difference in print journalism.
TV journalism in the US tends to be very flattering of interviewees because it's easier to deny access to good tv interviews than good print sources.
TV journalism in the US tends to be very flattering of interviewees because it's easier to deny access to good tv interviews than good print sources.
But I'm less confident that recent US legislative history shows that obstructionism works than I was this morning.
2/2
2/2
January 29, 2026 at 10:38 PM
But I'm less confident that recent US legislative history shows that obstructionism works than I was this morning.
2/2
2/2
If you read my corner of the thread, you'll see I'm at best a high-ish information voter. But I'm looking to learn more.
I still mostly agree with JB that members of Congress should do more to demand positive change and raise awareness about what the federal government is doing. 1/2
I still mostly agree with JB that members of Congress should do more to demand positive change and raise awareness about what the federal government is doing. 1/2
January 29, 2026 at 10:37 PM
If you read my corner of the thread, you'll see I'm at best a high-ish information voter. But I'm looking to learn more.
I still mostly agree with JB that members of Congress should do more to demand positive change and raise awareness about what the federal government is doing. 1/2
I still mostly agree with JB that members of Congress should do more to demand positive change and raise awareness about what the federal government is doing. 1/2
Maybe read the whole thread before quoting? Another poster asked about the long term effects of the 09-10 Congress, and this is one of them.
January 29, 2026 at 10:02 PM
Maybe read the whole thread before quoting? Another poster asked about the long term effects of the 09-10 Congress, and this is one of them.
I don't think it makes sense to ignore what happened in 2016 (with the same president and many of the same members of Congress) when considering the long term goals of the 09-10 Congress - which is explicitly what you asked about.
bsky.app/profile/real...
bsky.app/profile/real...
ACA passed in spring 2010 based on D victories in 2008 (and 2006)
Rs didn't pay a political cost afaict for their intransigence of 2009-10
They won big in 2010 and regained Senate in 2014 then played hardball on Supreme Court and voters didn't punish them for that
Your cause and effect seems off
Rs didn't pay a political cost afaict for their intransigence of 2009-10
They won big in 2010 and regained Senate in 2014 then played hardball on Supreme Court and voters didn't punish them for that
Your cause and effect seems off
January 29, 2026 at 9:31 PM
I don't think it makes sense to ignore what happened in 2016 (with the same president and many of the same members of Congress) when considering the long term goals of the 09-10 Congress - which is explicitly what you asked about.
bsky.app/profile/real...
bsky.app/profile/real...
And it doesn't make sense to view the 09-10 Congress as an entirely separate entity from the 15-16 Congress. It was the same president and a lot of the same members of Congress.
January 29, 2026 at 9:18 PM
And it doesn't make sense to view the 09-10 Congress as an entirely separate entity from the 15-16 Congress. It was the same president and a lot of the same members of Congress.
Thank you. My response wouldn't make sense as a response to the top line post by @mikeblack114.bsky.social - but it wasn't.
It was in response to a question that specifically asked about the long term goals of the 09-10 Congress.
It was in response to a question that specifically asked about the long term goals of the 09-10 Congress.
January 29, 2026 at 9:17 PM
Thank you. My response wouldn't make sense as a response to the top line post by @mikeblack114.bsky.social - but it wasn't.
It was in response to a question that specifically asked about the long term goals of the 09-10 Congress.
It was in response to a question that specifically asked about the long term goals of the 09-10 Congress.