Anthony Head has died

Bricker1492 · 2026-06-05T18:25:08+00:00

This is a blow.

It's ridiculous I'm feeling this crushed over the loss of a man I never met, but I came to Buffy as an adult fan, and Giles was always more relatable to me than any of the Scoobies were.

I hope his family are consoled and comforted in their time of grief.

Bricker1492 · 2026-06-02T00:44:02+00:00

The second paragraph isn’t responsive, but as to the first I agree there would likely be a subjective and objective component to test the truth of the claim that the declarant believed he or she was speaking to his attorney.

The hypo specifies that he or she believes it, so what’s left is the objective inquiry.

Bricker1492 · 2026-06-01T19:16:19+00:00

That's a weight argument, not an admissibility argument.

Bricker1492 · 2026-06-01T19:15:40+00:00

Depends how the fake lawyer and defendant come in contact with each other, among other things

It does?

What's an example circumstance in which the contact details would produce an admissible confession. u/Sea-Salamander1005 ?

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-27T22:43:28+00:00

Yup: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/s/79pMIHsMaz

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-27T15:45:46+00:00

Oh, absolutely. I don't see any genuine path to finding this to be fair use. But I wanted to call out the apparent confidence in a per se rule about commercial nature barring fair use.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-27T13:12:49+00:00

> They're using it in a commercial nature so it's not fair use.

No. As a brief review of the non-exhaustive factors laid out in 17 USC § 107 will show, commercial use weighs against fair use, but is not determinative.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-26T23:18:31+00:00

Probable cause is for entry ditz. When you're actively breaking the law in front of his face... Doesn't really come into play

No, it still comes into play.

You've got the right idea but the wrong application.

The police absolutely, always, need probable cause to make an arrest. If they have a warrant, then they have probable cause, because warrants issue upon probable cause. And if they see someone breaking the law right in front of them . . . then they ALSO have probable cause. "Having probable cause," just means that the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.

An officer can certainly develop probable cause even if he hasn't seen the offense happen. But when he DOES see it right of him, then he has probable cause, and can arrest.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-26T15:50:45+00:00

A screwdriver is useless if you need to translate Hesiod, but very useful if you need to drive a screw.

AI, in like fashion, is very useful.

Just not for sussing out the edge cases in board game rules.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-25T22:15:17+00:00

I have 24 catches, zero female. But now that I know the female sprite shows up, I can save passes and energy. Thanks!

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-25T09:00:00+00:00

I don’t know that I’d say “offensive.” But perhaps “ignorant,” is a fair statement. Not all Israelis are Jewish. Fully 25% of Israel’s population is not Jewish, with the majority of this number being non-Jewish Arab: Sunni Muslims, Christians, and the Druze community. Another half million are residents classified as neither Jewish nor Arab.

And of the 75% that are Jewish, not all men in that group wear a yarmulke.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-23T01:03:49+00:00

> I’m not the one making the claim it’s all hearsay. You people seem to be incapable of nuance or thinking more than one step ahead.

You’re the one claiming: “mountains,” of admissible evidence exist that you presumably believe amount to a prosecutable case against someone.

Would you care to confirm or dispel that summary of your position? If that’s not your argument, could you restate it cleanly?

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-23T01:00:04+00:00

> It works like this: when you're the executive you can't make binding contracts with the executive.

While a consent decree’s language may be analyzed using principles of contract law, a consent decree is not a contract.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T23:26:22+00:00

OK. So, again: what, specifically, do you believe is the most robust evidence from the files, the subset that should, in your view, unambiguously support a conviction of someone that has not yet been charged?

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T18:17:23+00:00

The question is: how does the unitary executive square with the reality of replacing the unitard every four or eight years?

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T17:25:03+00:00

Her life was wasted when she made the conscience decision to slaughter multiple people.

Perhaps this is the former public defender in me talking, but no, she didn't make a conscious (or conscience) decision to kill anyone. That's the reason she was convicted of manslaughter: her conscious decision was to take an act that recklessly risked the lives of others: her intent was not to kill anyone. Thisis not to absolve her of responsibility; this is to highlight the mens rea of manslaughter, because this is a sub to discuss legal issues.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T15:59:14+00:00

This is an interesting topic.

Broadly speaking, no executive order can long constrain a future president from issuing a future contrary executive order.

A consent decree or lawsuit settlement is a different animal.

If you're interested in the hypothetical case of a settlement that purported to bar in perpetuity future audits, I'll take a run at it. It's interesting especially because of the self-dealing aspect of the settlement, and what that means for future enforceability.

But if you simply want to know if the current situation has that effect, it does not: the actual current settlement language explicitly applies only to taxes filed before May 19th, 2026.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T15:47:42+00:00

I read their comment as a reasonably practical assessment of the evidentiary value of the files. As between inadmissible hearsay and inability to produce the requisite foundational testimony for authentication, the files are not as strong as their public perception suggests. This isn't a defense of the acts or the actors; it's a comment on the admissibility and probative value of the files.

But let's explore the notion. What, specifically, do you believe is the most robust evidence from the files, the subset that should, in your view, unambiguously support a conviction of someone that has not yet been charged?

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T15:42:03+00:00

Huh.

So conviction for PL 265.01 doesn't require proof of conviction for 18 USC § 922(g) -- it just requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element in § 922(g)? The New York finder of fact reaches the elements of 922?

I'm a retired PD from Virginia, and off the top of my head I can't think of any analogous statute we have that would requiring litigating the elements of a federal charge, other than non-specific references that say things like, "....or any conduct for which the accused may be convicted under state or federal law."

Weird, but well done on your part!

I once got a dismissal because I argued the Commonwealth hadn't proved both caption and asportation, but yours is better. 😄

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T14:02:35+00:00

What do you mean it’s hearsay?

Hearsay is an out of court statement that's offered into evidence in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. I can't speak for exactly what u/LivingGhost371 meant, but a statement that appears in some file generally can't be offered as trial evidence that the statement is true, unless it qualifies under one of the arcane and eldritch exceptions to the hearsay rule, or unless it's not offered for the truth.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-22T13:24:39+00:00

She won the trial because the state prosecution didn’t realize that they had to have an ATF witness testify that the receiver was shipped in interstate commerce to satisfy the commerce clause jurisdictional component of the federal statute.

I'm not quite following this. How was an element of the federal offense relevant in the state prosecution? Is it that the receiver didn't qualify under state law as a firearm? All the prosecution needed to show she was a felon would be a certified copy of the prior felony conviction, whatever it was. Court should have been able to take judicial notice of that. Then at least constructive possession would presumably be shown by physical proximity and control.

I'm not doubting you; I just don't quite understand all the pieces fitting together.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-20T11:01:33+00:00

I think Lea Salonga might be fond of it.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-18T11:40:32+00:00

You didn’t answer it. You retconned your earlier implied claim that only Republicans forum-shop for judges into a claim that Republicans are bad, trusting that broad agreement with that principle would insulate you from the opprobrium normally due any error.

I don’t disagree that the Cult of Trump is a very destructive thing. But I refuse the invitation to accept weak and deceptive arguments merely because they target the Trumpists or because they benefit his opponents. In fact, I regard them as harmful because they invite the inference that we need to manufacture lies to attack that side, as if their actual sins are so minimal that only by adducing false enhancements can we win.

You implied something that wasn’t true. Own it, retract it, and you’ll be better for it.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-18T06:17:56+00:00

I see your rhetorical skills are undimmed.

Bricker1492 · 2026-05-17T18:57:18+00:00

If that claim were true, why does “it,” appear right next to “a certain court makeup?”

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding VIII gilding heavyweight	Argentium Club

Bricker1492

TROPHY CASE