He don’t get paid unless you get paid.
07.03.2026 04:56
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
He don’t get paid unless you get paid.
Of course not; Fancy was his middle name.
Sweet fancy Moses that brief is unhinged.
LA City Council’s City President Marqueece Harris-Dawson says he has been pulled over four times while a member of the council; the most recent was this week. He missed a committee meeting because of the stop, according to him.
Among the questions: “how do you have this vehicle,” according to him.
Updating: The woman is Sundas "Sunny" Naqvi, a current resident of Skokie who was born in Evanston
Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is investigating the death of Nurul Amin Shah Alam, a Blind Rohingya refugee who died in the cold streets of Buffalo days after Border Patrol dumped him without coordinating with his family or lawyers.
![In sharp contrast to the extraordinary harm to defendants, a stay will not substantially
injure the plaintiffs. For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and we do not
prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest.
“[T]here is virtually no risk” to any importer that they “would not be made whole” should they
prevail on appeal. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 2017 WL 65421, at *5 (Ct. Int’l Trade
Jan. 5, 2017). The most “harm” that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This
harm is, by definition, not irreparable. See Hughes Network Sys., Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns
Corp., 17 F.3d 691, 694 (4th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to refund, plus
interest, if the judgment is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the
Court’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of
goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after
appeal. Defendants have filed a stipulation to that effect with other importer-plaintiffs in
Princess Awesome v. CBP, No. 25-cv-78 (Ct. Int’l Trade) ECF No. 17.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:gqbrsb2cdeaz5ybuo3kk7vs7/bafkreiaddw2mbgy6c4k7jmsgr4se5e5u65ua5yw5e4y6tc3at7tk6ai3ve@jpeg)
In sharp contrast to the extraordinary harm to defendants, a stay will not substantially injure the plaintiffs. For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and we do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. “[T]here is virtually no risk” to any importer that they “would not be made whole” should they prevail on appeal. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 2017 WL 65421, at *5 (Ct. Int’l Trade Jan. 5, 2017). The most “harm” that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. See Hughes Network Sys., Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns Corp., 17 F.3d 691, 694 (4th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to refund, plus interest, if the judgment is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the Court’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal. Defendants have filed a stipulation to that effect with other importer-plaintiffs in Princess Awesome v. CBP, No. 25-cv-78 (Ct. Int’l Trade) ECF No. 17.
Remember 9 months and 6 days ago, when there was "virtually no risk to any importer that they would not be made whole"? Peperidge Farm remembers.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
YEP.
Yes hello this Vogue rhythm dance by the world’s top junior ice dance team is better than the Vogue rhythm dances done this season by two senior teams (including the Olympic gold medalist* French team). youtu.be/J17kF9nYAuc
Say what you will about the severe human costs of stagflation, but it is incredibly fun to say.
Bar graph showing responses to question "Would you support or oppose abolishing ICE?" from The Economist/You Gov from June 2025 and late Feb-early March 2026. Total support for abolishing rose 23 points, among Dems 30 points, among independents 23 points, among Republicans 14 points.
Public opinion is not fixed.
And it's the job of a campaign to move people.
i’ll always remember that Homer unaccountably knows who Philip Glass is and thinks that Marge will be impressed with his tickets to “an evening with philip glass“
“There are two short films currently casting actors from Alexandria. Unfortunately the roles are for people under the age of 35, so no one reading this is eligible.”
Ouch.
Isn’t “slutty Ben Franklin” redundant?
Celebrating the 25th anniversary of my partial victory over American Trucking Associations, Inc.
I am a land of contrasts.
I regret to inform you that all my skeets, including that one—like all skeets from all users on this website—are bad.
This bill is unworkable and likely unconstitutional for many of the same reasons that would arise if a legislature tried to ban Magic 8 Balls
*Gregwayne
The political version of the "what are you gonna do, stab me?" meme.
Not as interminable as your skeets. (Heyooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!)
Liz I just called The Hague on you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT I. The National Trust Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Claims that the Ballroom Project Is Ultra Vires of Any Authority the Defendants Have Under Statute A. The Ballroom Project Is Ultra Vires of Any Authority the Defendants Possess Under 3 U.S.C. § 105(d) and 40 U.S.C. § 8106... B. The Ballroom Project Is Ultra Vires of Any Authority the Defendants Possess Under the Redwood Amendment. C. The Ballroom Project Is Ultra Vires of Any Authority the Defendants Possess Under 54 U.S.C. §§ 100301-100302 and Pub. L. 87-286, 75 Stat. 586 (1961) to Reorganize the Executive Branch........ II. The Court Should Reconsider Its Conclusion that the National Trust Is Unlikely to Succeed on Its Constitutional Claims III. The Remaining Factors Favor Preliminary Injunctive Relief... CONCLUSION 1 4 6 14 16 19 22 25
Memorandum in support of PI request: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Enter the ~ultra vires~ case, as requested:
MINUTE ORDER. Regarding plaintiff's 51 Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction, defendants are hereby ORDERED to file a response no later than Thursday, March 12, 2026 at 5:00 PM. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, no later than Monday, March 16, 2026 at 5:00 PM. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion on Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 18 (In Person) before Judge Richard J. Leon. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/5/2026. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 03/05/2026)
NEW: With the amended complaint and preliminary injunction request filed in the National Trust's ballroom challenge, Judge Leon set a new schedule, with arguments set for March 17.
Complaint: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
PI request: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Sir Markwayne and the Green Knight. #NeverSkeet
More like the trademarkie guys amirite?
No jurisdiction for the former. No to the latter, but I was admonished to get a dog by my client, my local counsel, and a very nice Maryland lawyer who stopped to chat with us in the hall about our jursidictional issue.
I appear to have returned from a hearing in a dog custody case I’m handling. (Spoiler alert: The Maryland court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a NC resident’s lawsuit against my client, a DC resident, seeking custody of the dogs who live with her in DC.)
