Friday, July 20, 2018

not actually our sponsor:
Receiving compensation for an injury that occurs on government property is possible but there are significant legal hurdles to be overcome. The experienced attorneys at Blackburn & Green will aggressively pursue your claim and help you receive fair compensation for your injuries. We offer free initial consultations at our office locations or at your home or hospital room. Call (800) 444-1112 or (260) 422-4400 to be connected with one of our 27 convenient office locations across Indiana, or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation.

    Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). Rule 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." However, "recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). As the Supreme Court has stated, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. Rather, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. at 1940 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint is facially plausible if a court can reasonably infer from factual content in the pleading that the defendant is liable for the alleged wrongdoing. Id. The
.. just a note i needed to leave to myself.

Stewart contends that this case is controlled by McIntyre. Stewart is correct.
The Supreme Court made clear in McIntyre that campaign literature in support of a candidate for elective office is "core political speech" that is entitled to the fullest protection of the First Amendment.

Discussion of public issues and debates on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. Although First Amendment protections are not confined to the exposition of ideas, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, of course including discussions of candidates. This no more than reflects our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. 

i like to remin myself of this occasionally.

i keep forgetting if it's 17 or 18.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

prev | next
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 196882 Stat. 75Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988102 Stat. 4396Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

Thursday, July 19, 2018

my bit of excitement this morning was i found out my kay summersby book was autographed.

my online friend ben sullins just earned his second tesla roadster. he is a shill, but a good one.

Thursday, July 12, 2018


Saturday, July 07, 2018

  • The end result of the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings involving motorist stops is that police have "virtually unlimited discretion to stop arbitrarily whomever they choose, arrest the driver for a minor offense that might not even be subject to jail penalties, and then obtain a broad inventory search of the vehicle—all without a warrant." So says the Iowa Supreme Court, holding the state's Constitution provides greater protections against such searches than the U.S. Constitution. (H/t: Andrew Fleischman.)

Born in 1927 in Pennsylvania, Ditko began making comics during the 1950s, beginning with small publisher Charlton Comics. But he first came to prominence as part of a group of comics creators who changed the industry in the 1960s with a succession of revolutionary characters, concepts and narrative changes created for Marvel Comics.
He first joined Marvel in 1955 when it was known as Atlas comics, where he contributed stories and art in a variety of genres for titles like “Amazing Adventures,” “Strange Worlds,” “Tales of Suspense” and “Tales to Astonish.”


Sunday, July 01, 2018

Koko, 1971-2018.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Gamble v. United States

Docket No.Op. BelowArgumentOpinionVoteAuthorTerm
17-64611th Cir.Not ArguedJun 28, 2018TBDTBDOT 2018

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
headline writers take note.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

free online oscilloscope.

Friday, June 22, 2018

Pageviews last month
Pageviews all time history
other blog
Pageviews all time history

i assume most of these visitors are robots.

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The “basic purpose of this Amendment,” our cases have recognized, “is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.”

In fact, as John Adams recalled, the patriot James Otis’s 1761 speech condemning writs of assistance was “the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain” and helped spark the Revolution itself.

On this score, our cases have recognized some basic guideposts. First, that the Amendment seeks to secure “the privacies of life” against “arbitrary power.”

- Carpenter v USA 6/22/18.

(“[E]very man’s house is looked upon by the law to be his castle”); 3 E. Coke, Institutes of Laws of England 162 (6th ed. 1680) (“[F]or a man[’]s house is his Castle, & domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [each man’s home is his safest refuge]”).

In Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029 (C. P. 1765)—a heralded decision that the founding generation considered “the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law,” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626 (1886)—Lord Camden explained that “[t]he great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.”

 (complaining that the writs were “‘expressly contrary to the common law, which ever regarded a man’s house as his castle, or a place of perfect security’” (quoting a 1768 letter from John Dickinson)). John Otis, who argued the famous Writs of Assistance case, contended that the writs violated “‘the fundamental Principl[e] of Law’” that “‘[a] Man who is quiet, is as secure in his House, as a Prince in his Castle.’”

Thomas dissenting in Carpenter

General warrants and writs of assistance were noxious not because they allowed the Government to acquire evidence in criminal investigations, but because of the means by which they permitted the Government to acquire that evidence. Then, as today, searches could be quite invasive. Searches generally begin with officers “mak[ing] nonconsensual entries into areas not open to the public.” Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U. S. 408, 414 (1984). Once there, officers are necessarily in a position to observe private spaces generally shielded from the public and discernible only with the owner’s consent. Private area after private area becomes exposed to the officers’ eyes as they rummage through the owner’s property in their hunt for the object or objects of the search.

Alito, dissenting in carpenter

 Physical destruction always lurks as an underlying possibility; “officers executing search warrants on occasion must damage property in order to perform their duty.” Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238, 258 (1979); see, e.g., United States v. Ramirez, 523 U. S. 65, 71–72 (1998) (breaking garage window); United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 817–818 (1982) (ripping open car upholstery); Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dept., 844 F. 3d 556, 572 (CA6 2016) (shooting and killing two pet dogs); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F. 3d 1341, 1350, n. 3 (CA10 1997) (breaking locks).
Id (alito)


camel milk latest indy foodie trend.


info about police brutality in  indy

Police Chief Zunk states that whenever the city loses a civil lawsuit involving an officer, it leads to a review of policies and procedures, but that the awarding of a large sum of money to a plaintiff "merely serves to give us less resources to use in our battle against crime."50 According to the city's Office of Corporation Counsel, in Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 there were seven settlements or jury awards paid, totaling $59,380; in FY 1995, there were eleven totaling $581,750, and in FY 1996, there were three totaling $104,294.51 (In 1996, there was a $3.55 million jury verdict award in favor of the family of Michael Taylor, which is now on appeal.) According to the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which files civil lawsuits against police officers, there is a usually a high level of sympathy among jurors toward officers, making pre-trial settlements by the city less common.52

Thursday, June 21, 2018

4 -1-1 v 4, the supreme court allows south dakota to tax internet sales.
a plurality reverses quill, which had said you couldn't tax out of state businesses.
i am oversimplifying a complex fact pattern.
thomas, as usual, rejects the dormant commerce clause.
what is interesting here is that gorsuch hints that he agrees.

this shows that like thomas, gorsuch is an out of the box thinking willing to go in whole new directions and disregard stare decisis when needed.

here, they are rejecting years of interpretation in favor of a return to the text,
continuing scalia's crusade.

i am thinking of doing a short article or long blog post about the Constitution in Exile movement, which EV denies exists, even though he is a major player in it.

Return of the Constitution from Exile?

IJ has litigated over 200 cases, including five before the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those five cases, IJ won four of the cases  before the Supreme Court and won the fifth case (the Kelo eminent domain case) in the court of public opinion.

ij now has a 6th case teed up, on the excessive fines clause.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

i missed this one yesterday. among the cert grants, ij.org was grated cert on a case about whether to incorporate the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment to the states via the 14th amendment.

this is very important in terms of supreme court doctrine. looking forward to gorsuch's take on it.

there is a pleading i'm working on atm, where i could probably toss in an excessive fines defense and counterclaim.

my health has been so bad lately that i can't work a regular physical labor kind of job, so i'm getting a lot closer to getting back into the practice of law, simply because its one of the few options left.


oh it's an indiana case!

Sunday, June 17, 2018


guy tweets he hopes senator will die, gets prison.
the article doesn't mention the text found to be a true threat.
call me skeptical. however, newspapers usually leave out key details, so who knows.

Friday, June 15, 2018

[–]H_C_Sunshine 13.4k points  
A dried baguette, sharpened to a point, coated with raw egg left to harden overnight.
[–]Mental_Greymon 5689 points  
I mean, a rye for a rye
[–]FrumiousBanderznatch 995 points  
Mutual crust is the foundation of lasting peace
[–]JacksLackOfSuprise 762 points  
Otherwise we're all toast
[–]Unique_YouNork 171 points  
You butter believe it


Wednesday, June 13, 2018


they spelled my name right. decent article.

For Robbin Stewart, being a lab rat has become a second career. About 15 years ago, feeling burned out, the free-spirited public interest attorney closed his law practice. Now he makes enough money as a test subject—$20,000 in a good year—to subsidize other pursuits. While sequestered in clinical trials, he’s used the time to write court briefs for pro bono cases and craft blog posts about politics and soup recipes.
He’s done about 40 studies, driving from his home in Indianapolis to clinics around the country, including at least five at AbbVie. “I never thought I’d do it for that long. But it’s such an easy habit to fall into when they are offering you that kind of money and you’re not really doing anything. You just hang out for a few weeks or a month or whatever and get a nice check.”
Stewart is similarly unconcerned about the risk. “Most people ask, ‘Aren’t you afraid?’ Apparently, I lack that gene to be cautious and sensible,” he quips. He, too, has had very few bad experiences. But there was that time at AbbVie when a doctor struggled to get a tube down his nose and into his large intestine. “They had kind of a tricky time threading it through the stomach, so I was in there for 45 minutes while they were playing with the tube, trying to get it right,” he recalls. He says the clinic didn’t adequately warn him about the pain that would be involved. So he wrote a complaint—and has never since been selected for an AbbVie study.

Participants are not always forthcoming about adverse reactions, Stewart says, for fear of getting booted from a study. (He got kicked out of one recently after developing a rash—not because of the test drug, he thinks, but because of a cheap detergent he’d used. And he’s not happy about it. “It cost me $1,000.”) “You can get banned at any time, for any reason,” he says. “So if someone is experiencing a side effect, they are not going to run and tell the doctor. It’s bad science and bad policy—and defeats the whole purpose.”

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?