@saltytempest.bsky.social
Penalty is relatively light, though: "Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."
December 13, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Penalty is relatively light, though: "Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."
8 U.S.C. 1304(e)/INA 264(e): "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d)."
December 13, 2025 at 4:36 PM
8 U.S.C. 1304(e)/INA 264(e): "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d)."
Nitpick here, but if I remember correctly, "nunc pro tunc" literally means "now for then"; it's been a while, so I probably have it wrong, but I think "this for that" would be "hic pro illo."
December 12, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Nitpick here, but if I remember correctly, "nunc pro tunc" literally means "now for then"; it's been a while, so I probably have it wrong, but I think "this for that" would be "hic pro illo."
There is one, at least for the lawyers - and it takes suggestions for people to add and reasons to add them.
glowlaw.org
Up to you to decide about the "sane and committed" part.
glowlaw.org
Up to you to decide about the "sane and committed" part.
The Government Lawyers Database
glowlaw.org
December 12, 2025 at 3:04 PM
There is one, at least for the lawyers - and it takes suggestions for people to add and reasons to add them.
glowlaw.org
Up to you to decide about the "sane and committed" part.
glowlaw.org
Up to you to decide about the "sane and committed" part.
@omrimarian.bsky.social @glowlaw.org I believe that's your music
December 12, 2025 at 1:59 PM
@omrimarian.bsky.social @glowlaw.org I believe that's your music
Because it seems like no response is forthcoming, and I'd rather just post it than lose it:
Content warning: trafficking of a minor
www.courtlistener.com/docket/70320...
Page 13 (page 11 by the affidavit's numbering)
Content warning: trafficking of a minor
www.courtlistener.com/docket/70320...
Page 13 (page 11 by the affidavit's numbering)
#1 in United States v. Pacheco Leiton (S.D. Fla., 9:25-mj-08273) – CourtListener.com
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT as to Yenire Karolina Pacheco Leiton (1), Enyerbert Alberto Blanco Blanco (2). (swr) (Entered: 05/19/2025)
www.courtlistener.com
December 3, 2025 at 2:32 AM
Because it seems like no response is forthcoming, and I'd rather just post it than lose it:
Content warning: trafficking of a minor
www.courtlistener.com/docket/70320...
Page 13 (page 11 by the affidavit's numbering)
Content warning: trafficking of a minor
www.courtlistener.com/docket/70320...
Page 13 (page 11 by the affidavit's numbering)
If I provided a legal filing that explicitly notes a paraphrased conversation using quotation marks to denote that someone other than the filer was speaking, would you accept that quotation marks do not universally denote a verbatim quote?
December 3, 2025 at 1:48 AM
If I provided a legal filing that explicitly notes a paraphrased conversation using quotation marks to denote that someone other than the filer was speaking, would you accept that quotation marks do not universally denote a verbatim quote?
In more formal contexts where exact quotation matters (like legal briefs or academic papers), yes, quotation marks should denote quotes unless explicitly stated otherwise, but outside of those formal contexts, paraphrase quotation marks are common.
December 3, 2025 at 1:22 AM
In more formal contexts where exact quotation matters (like legal briefs or academic papers), yes, quotation marks should denote quotes unless explicitly stated otherwise, but outside of those formal contexts, paraphrase quotation marks are common.
In some contexts, quotation marks are used for paraphrases or modified quotes in order to say someone else was talking. I've seen it on fora, though I've also seen polite posters add "[paraphrased]" or the like.
Just using bsky search for latest:
bsky.app/profile/malt...
bsky.app/profile/tomm...
Just using bsky search for latest:
bsky.app/profile/malt...
bsky.app/profile/tomm...
I mean, if every single post can be paraphrased as "here's an idea I had which will hurt lots of people but never affect me", then I think we've seen all he has to offer already.
December 3, 2025 at 1:20 AM
In some contexts, quotation marks are used for paraphrases or modified quotes in order to say someone else was talking. I've seen it on fora, though I've also seen polite posters add "[paraphrased]" or the like.
Just using bsky search for latest:
bsky.app/profile/malt...
bsky.app/profile/tomm...
Just using bsky search for latest:
bsky.app/profile/malt...
bsky.app/profile/tomm...
While you're here - to me, the third row looks odd, and seems to not be how overlap is supposed to work. The medals are supposed to be displayed with each inboard in front of the outboard, right? So the NAM should go over the NASA OLM, and the NASA ESM over the NASA EAM, right?
Thanks!
Thanks!
November 25, 2025 at 11:34 PM
While you're here - to me, the third row looks odd, and seems to not be how overlap is supposed to work. The medals are supposed to be displayed with each inboard in front of the outboard, right? So the NAM should go over the NASA OLM, and the NASA ESM over the NASA EAM, right?
Thanks!
Thanks!
They posted some twitter links: xcancel.com/yasinaktimur...
Seems like they're meant to interlock in multiple different ways.
Seems like they're meant to interlock in multiple different ways.
xcancel.com
November 25, 2025 at 9:53 PM
They posted some twitter links: xcancel.com/yasinaktimur...
Seems like they're meant to interlock in multiple different ways.
Seems like they're meant to interlock in multiple different ways.
What do the sages say about a younger uncle?
November 25, 2025 at 7:02 PM
What do the sages say about a younger uncle?
Of course, for the first there's an obvious comeback: "You know, Pete, you're right. I really should have put more emphasis on my medals from my service as a United States Astronaut. Thanks for reminding me, "Major"."
November 25, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Of course, for the first there's an obvious comeback: "You know, Pete, you're right. I really should have put more emphasis on my medals from my service as a United States Astronaut. Thanks for reminding me, "Major"."
I think the second and third rows are switched; the third row (by the NASA medals) seems to be non-military awards, which take precedence over the campaign and service awards and marksmanship award in the second row, if I've understood correctly. Within each row the order seems right.
November 25, 2025 at 5:12 PM
I think the second and third rows are switched; the third row (by the NASA medals) seems to be non-military awards, which take precedence over the campaign and service awards and marksmanship award in the second row, if I've understood correctly. Within each row the order seems right.
I have very little experience, so I could easily be wrong, but the second and third rows seem to be switched. The second row is campaign and service awards and a marksmanship award, which should be lower precedence than the non-military awards of the third row.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil
November 25, 2025 at 4:33 PM
I have very little experience, so I could easily be wrong, but the second and third rows seem to be switched. The second row is campaign and service awards and a marksmanship award, which should be lower precedence than the non-military awards of the third row.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
One other thing that seems wrong, but which I'm less certain about, is the overlap of the third row; the arrangement seems to not match the inboard-in-front-of-outboard pattern I've generally seen.
November 25, 2025 at 4:31 PM
One other thing that seems wrong, but which I'm less certain about, is the overlap of the third row; the arrangement seems to not match the inboard-in-front-of-outboard pattern I've generally seen.
I have less experience than you, but from the regulations, the third row seems to be non-military decorations, while the second row seems to be campaign and service awards (and marksmanship), which should be switched.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
5307 and 5308.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
5307 and 5308.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil
November 25, 2025 at 4:31 PM
I have less experience than you, but from the regulations, the third row seems to be non-military decorations, while the second row seems to be campaign and service awards (and marksmanship), which should be switched.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
5307 and 5308.
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/References/U...
5307 and 5308.
If I read correctly, the regulations you linked seem to indicate that both of the medals currently on the bottom row should be above the second row, as non-military awards take precedence over campaign and service awards. Is that correct?
November 25, 2025 at 2:29 PM
If I read correctly, the regulations you linked seem to indicate that both of the medals currently on the bottom row should be above the second row, as non-military awards take precedence over campaign and service awards. Is that correct?
Yeah - that's why the "(or not)"; I know English and Scottish jurisprudence are separate, but don't know how much influence each had on the other, especially when it comes to military law.
November 24, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Yeah - that's why the "(or not)"; I know English and Scottish jurisprudence are separate, but don't know how much influence each had on the other, especially when it comes to military law.
How apt (or not) would it be to reference a jury instruction by the High Court of the Justiciary when discussing Anglo-American jurisprudence? I found one from an 1807 case that seems to require the defiance of a manifestly unlawful order.
November 24, 2025 at 2:03 AM
How apt (or not) would it be to reference a jury instruction by the High Court of the Justiciary when discussing Anglo-American jurisprudence? I found one from an 1807 case that seems to require the defiance of a manifestly unlawful order.
Because it might be relevant: the above quote was taken from a case at the High Court of the Justiciary, the highest criminal court in Scotland. Might not be entirely relevant to English law, but at the least it illustrates that the requirement to disobey unlawful orders wasn't uniquely American.
November 24, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Because it might be relevant: the above quote was taken from a case at the High Court of the Justiciary, the highest criminal court in Scotland. Might not be entirely relevant to English law, but at the least it illustrates that the requirement to disobey unlawful orders wasn't uniquely American.
To add an example: in 1807 (so yes, after the Revolution, but not so soon that a major principle was likely to be established), in the trial of Ensign Hugh Maxwell, the judge said "if an officer were to command a soldier to go out to the street, and to kill you or me, he would not be bound to obey."
November 23, 2025 at 10:29 PM
To add an example: in 1807 (so yes, after the Revolution, but not so soon that a major principle was likely to be established), in the trial of Ensign Hugh Maxwell, the judge said "if an officer were to command a soldier to go out to the street, and to kill you or me, he would not be bound to obey."
By that point, the British actively based large parts of their legal system on two major events of defiance: the First Barons' War and the English Civil War. Not to mention the Glorious Revolution, only two generations prior.
November 23, 2025 at 10:29 PM
By that point, the British actively based large parts of their legal system on two major events of defiance: the First Barons' War and the English Civil War. Not to mention the Glorious Revolution, only two generations prior.
The right of revolution is based on the idea that one can choose - based on no superior law, but instead based on conscience - to set aside a ruler entirely.
These are separate ideas.
But worse is the fact that the British were not simply opposed to defiance of the monarch.
These are separate ideas.
But worse is the fact that the British were not simply opposed to defiance of the monarch.
November 23, 2025 at 10:29 PM
The right of revolution is based on the idea that one can choose - based on no superior law, but instead based on conscience - to set aside a ruler entirely.
These are separate ideas.
But worse is the fact that the British were not simply opposed to defiance of the monarch.
These are separate ideas.
But worse is the fact that the British were not simply opposed to defiance of the monarch.
This is both a poor analysis and, to my understanding, a complete misunderstanding of British history.
The bad analysis: the right to refuse unlawful orders is based on the idea that your first obedience is to law, and that one's (military) superior is supposed to be the means for that obedience.
The bad analysis: the right to refuse unlawful orders is based on the idea that your first obedience is to law, and that one's (military) superior is supposed to be the means for that obedience.
November 23, 2025 at 10:29 PM
This is both a poor analysis and, to my understanding, a complete misunderstanding of British history.
The bad analysis: the right to refuse unlawful orders is based on the idea that your first obedience is to law, and that one's (military) superior is supposed to be the means for that obedience.
The bad analysis: the right to refuse unlawful orders is based on the idea that your first obedience is to law, and that one's (military) superior is supposed to be the means for that obedience.