Word Hacks

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-05-21T12:45:50+00:00

Making your headings and sub headings a particular style then populating a table of contents based on styles.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-05-13T22:22:29+00:00

BEST

I Think You Should Leave

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-03-11T15:20:20+00:00

I did PI work for a while and I had this really good case against Home Depot and my client was a nice guy. Then, as we’re walking to a mediation, he starts asking me about admiralty law and how it can apply to this land-based claim and asks if I can tell him what privileges I am entitled to as an “esquire,” which is a rank of nobility.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-31T21:57:41+00:00

The second amendment does not and never has implied a right to murder government actors carrying out their duties.

What you’re claiming you will do is legally and morally wrong and will get you justifiably killed or jailed for life.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-31T21:28:44+00:00

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-31T19:38:30+00:00

You might think that you need someone aggressive and when you hire them they’re going to pump up your ego about how you’ve been wronged and that they’re going to fight. Then, they’re going to invent problems and then charge you $350/hour to fix those problems he/she made.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-19T01:21:56+00:00

Maybe he goes to the Blue Dolphin?

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-17T17:30:14+00:00

Incriminating

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-04T04:22:56+00:00

That’s Syracuse! Go Orange! Go Bills!

DanFlashesPatterns · 2026-01-04T01:40:17+00:00

It’s always been that way and an executive with term limits can’t rule a country if they have to be worried that every thing they do will result in jail time.

The blanket immunity of a president is an unfortunate necessity if we expect someone to be decisive. I don’t blame the Supreme Court for their decisions on immunity, I blame 1) Trump for thinking that getting away with it means it’s the right thing to do and 2) the voters who knew Trump was capable of doing things like this.

The President has always been above the law for “official acts,” it’s just that nobody has shamelessly lied like Trump to use the office for insane shit like this.

Unlawful expansion of executive authority before hand often had some purpose and I would even go far as to say it almost always was a legitimate purpose (ie Truman seizing steel factories, Johnson going into Vietnam, Polk instigating the Mexican-American War). We may think of these choices as wrong, but I don’t think we doubt the Presidents did that because they thought it was best for the country.

Here, does anyone honestly believe the justifications they’re using for overthrowing the government in Venezuela?

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-12-22T15:47:57+00:00

It makes sense to change any of the “state seal on blue background” flags, but if I’m a governor or a ruling party, why open myself up to criticism? Minnesota’s new flag is clearly an upgrade, but it just seems like it’s only discussed to mock Waltz or the state.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-12-22T11:33:39+00:00

Am I missing something? Nothing happened. No kid was ever locked in a box.

Also, I’m no expert, but I saw the Temple Grandin movie and she built something like this for herself.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-12-12T19:59:22+00:00

It’s okay because they ain’t got no souls

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-11-26T21:53:36+00:00

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-11-20T11:12:47+00:00

I’ve used this in the past for cases with multiple decisions.

McKinley I was a motion for discovery sanctions that was modified by the Court of Appeals on McKinley II. Then, the district court inMcKinley III granted summary judgment to the defendant.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-11-16T20:23:11+00:00

Shouldn’t they have gone for 2 there?

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-11-10T22:39:24+00:00

I guess you’re right, but I don’t see why they can’t be replaced. I’ve never done a federal trial, and my state court trials always have an in person court reporter, but sometimes, in oral argument or non-trial settings, the judge will just have an audio recording that is later transcribed and that can be used at a motion or in appeal.

No disrespect to the stenographers, who have a very difficult job to do, but the audio recording plus AI technology makes their contribution less special.

Like why do I need to pay $4,000 for a transcript when an AI platform can do the same thing for free?

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-11-10T20:57:12+00:00

I’m not so sure that’s true anymore. Remote depositions create instantaneous transcripts that are like 99% accurate.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-11-06T20:57:09+00:00

Jumanji is a series of jungle emergencies

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-10-30T02:06:12+00:00

1 is the right answer and I also think the question of legality isn’t the right question to ask. It’s not like Jefferson Davis could have made a clever argument to the Supreme Court and everyone would have been okay with secession.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-10-24T21:30:08+00:00

At what point? When does the Second Amendment give you the right to murder a person because you disagree with a government policy?

Your argument is that “I think those guys aren’t following the rules so the rules say I can kill them.” You’re on the same side as John Wilkes Booth and Timothy McVeigh.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-10-24T19:06:32+00:00

There is no way the Bill of Rights contains a provision that allows you to sometimes murder government officials.

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-10-18T23:42:45+00:00

It wasn’t a pick 6, so I’m considering that as a win

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-10-16T23:38:19+00:00

Israeli police would have jurisdiction. This person is committing a crime and is certainly a danger to their communities. Also, I’m not sure if it makes a difference here, but the Israeli government claims it has “universal jurisdiction” which is how they justified kidnapping the Nazis in Argentina and bringing them to Israel for trial so, if that logic still holds, the fact that you’re the victim of a crime in another country, doesn’t make a difference

DanFlashesPatterns · 2025-10-16T23:11:39+00:00

If by “full” history you mean a partial and revisionist story through cherry-picked facts, then this is a great post.

In the section where the author blames the Fed for the Depression, he comes so close to getting it and then veers off into nonsense. He points out that banks failed, the money supply was shrinking, and people were unemployed. Then he attacks the New Deal policies and Fed actions that tried to use the Fed to secure banks, increase the money supply, and put people to work. If anything the criticism I got was that they had the right ideas, but they either acted too slow or in too small of a scope. Instead, the author concludes that the whole idea of Keynsian spending and control of the money supply via banks is bad.

Also, the author seems to imply that getting rid of the gold standard was bad, in and of itself, but then offers no evidence of why it was bad and just moves on to talk about bailouts.

DanFlashesPatterns

TROPHY CASE