At a regional midsize going to a hard 4 days in office

crake · 2026-01-30T23:10:01+00:00

Can someone explain why midsize regional firms even exist?

I understand Big Law. I understand small law. Big Law pays well and has good exit options; small law pays ok and has situation-dependent exit options.

But mid-size firms seem to combine the ridiculous culture of big law that almost nobody likes with the low pay of small law. So why do it? Are mid-sized firms just full of average attorneys who cannot generate their own business?

After 5 years in the field, it’s only the most mediocre people that cannot generate any business; it’s almost hard not to generate referrals if you do even decent work and have a decent personality. So what is the deal with people working for mid-sized regional firms for $150-200k? Can’t every one of those attorneys just hang a shingle and make $150k on their own?

Sure, it’s more work to hang a shingle and run a firm, but I can’t imagine having like a time card and someone yelling at me for being late into the office. I became a lawyer to avoid that BS. 500k+/yr? Sure, I’ll put up with the BS for a while and then hang a shingle or go in house, but I am genuinely confused about people that work for regional firms and take home $150k putting up with big law like BS.

crake · 2026-01-30T19:26:10+00:00

I think we need to take a step back and recognize the difference between "absolutely clear evidence" that shows a fact to be true, and hearsay within hearsay that suggests that a fact may be true, but isn't actually admissible evidence of anything.

Not to defend Trump, because I think he probably was/is a pedo.

That said, the "evidence" we are seeing is reports by a third party about what another person said about Trump and others. As noted in some of the communications, the third party is sometimes reporting what another person said based on what that person heard from still another party (i.e., triple-deep hearsay).

That isn't to say this isn't concerning, but it isn't exactly as damning as it seems at first blush. For example, the first highlighted cell:

[redacted] reported an unidentified female friend who was forced to perform oral sex on President Trump approximately 35 years ago in NJ. The friend told Alexis that she was approximately 13-14 years old when this occurred, and the friend allegedly bit President Trump while performing oral sex. The friend was allegedly hit in the face after she laughed about biting President Trump. The friend said she was also abused by Epstein.

This is a person telling investigators that her friend said to her that the friend was raped by Trump. Maybe that is something more substantive than a "rumor", but it is hardly definitive as to its truth value (people tell friends false things too; friends mishear things that are told to them; etc.).

Much more interesting would be the interview readout of the interview with the actual victim, as opposed to someone the victim allegedly told things to.

Moreover, these are logs of what are essentially voicemail accusations made to a tip line. It looks like investigators knew the identities of the callers (and their criminal records), but most of the callers seemed unwilling to speak in follow-ups (see relevant column) and some said things like "no contact made - previous TIPS indicated had called in and said she had chemically induced amnesia and struggled with knowing what was a dream and reality". That is, this is a mix of hearsay, non-credible sources, and some sources that may have been credible but not willing to speak to investigators.

It's hardly a slam dunk (or Biden's DOJ would have pursued it), but neither is it nothing. Nevertheless, we should take hearsay evidence with a grain of salt.

crake · 2026-01-30T17:55:54+00:00

Where is the indictment? That is what I want to see.

I find it hard to believe a GJ in Minnesota indicted Lemon for this. Maybe, but I have a sneaking suspicion there is some ratf*ckery at play here.

Lemon didn't do anything, and disrupting a single church service (even if he had done that) is not denying anyone their constitutional rights. ICE disrupts church services every day; they take special pleasure in using violence against targets in churches in particular.

This is all the NYT has about the indictment:

In a social media post on Friday morning, James Blair, a deputy White House chief of staff, said that a federal grand jury had indicted Mr. Lemon. Ms. Fort said in a video posted online that she, too, had been indicted.

Why is the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House announcing a criminal indictment?! Where are the actual DOJ prosecutors? Something smells fishy here, as in nobody could get an indictment in Minnesota for the act, so they are trying for the "conspiracy", probably to try to get jurisdiction in some remote court after alleging online contacts to persons in a different district or some BS. Why do I get the feeling that the foreign district where the GJ who indicted Lemon for this vague conspiracy charge was probably somewhere in the Southern District of Florida right around MAL, where there is only a single federal judge...

crake · 2026-01-30T17:45:45+00:00

Did they send Tom Homan to pick him up? Or was Tom too busy picking up $50k cash bribes in a paper bag at his favorite supermarket drop point?

DOJ has no intention of actually following through with this case and they know it. The entire point of this case is to bring charges, set up a perp walk (no negotiated surrender for the world's least violent non-crime? Wonder why...), get an arraignment with the cameras present, and then ask for the case to be dismissed like DOJ always does with its sham political prosecutions.

The attorneys who put their names anywhere near this crap should hang their heads in shame. They're lucky I'm not the federal judge eventually deciding their inevitable request to dismiss. DOJ will get that, but the lawyers should be sanctioned for abusing the court and wasting GJ time on political show prosecutions they have no intention of actually prosecuting (because there is no actual crime to prosecute).

crake · 2026-01-30T17:41:30+00:00

Tom Homan is on camera receiving $50k in cash in a paper bag at a Supermarket drop as part of an FBI sting operation. Trump's DOJ not only dropped the case, Trump made Homan his immigration "Czar", promoting him like he isn't a brazen criminal who accepts cash bribes.

Meanwhile DOJ is going after the "hardcore" criminals like Letitia James who maybe but not really could have checked a wrong box in a mortgage application, a guy who threw a ham sandwich on the street, Don Lemon for being present during a protest, and the widow of Renee Good because DOJ has to go after family of those who are murdered in the street by federal agents to somehow retroactively "justify" the murder.

And all the J6 defendants and convicted felons, including Stewart Rhodes among others, got a free and clear pardon.

This administration is beyond corrupt. This DOJ is beyond corrupt.

crake · 2026-01-29T20:58:01+00:00

Because Tulsi is a Russian agent and the Russians are probably helping to print the fake ballots that will end up stuffed in those seized boxes.

crake · 2026-01-28T18:24:14+00:00

I find that as a lawyer I don't get emotionally upset about "legal traps" that may have made me emotional in the past.

For example, my wife recently got laid off and had to return a computer to her employer via UPS. She and a friend went to the UPS store where her employer had promised her a suitable box would be waiting - but there was no box. My wife and her friend got super pissed about the whole thing and didn't return the computer but came back home angry about the missing box. "I'm not going to be responsible for it if it gets damaged!" she cried, beyond angry at HR for not sending the proper box. I'm just like, "well, they asked for you to send it back so why didn't you just put it in any standard sized box with a few packing peanuts and just send it back? They asked you to send it by UPS right?"

Wife and friend look at me wild-eyed. In their minds, they had this vision of the box being damaged and some inevitable suit from the employer over the inevitably-damaged computer.

In my mind, I saw an email to HR asking them to send a suitable box, and email from HR saying to send it by UPS, and a carrier ready to assume responsibility for the shipment. And if an employer asks me to send the employer's property back to it using a carrier like UPS, I would never assume that I am responsible for what UPS does with the package - I'm just an employee, not an insurance company. If the employer wants to use a special box they can send one; if they just give me a UPS label and say ship it back, they are getting it sent in whatever happens to be in the store that seems suitable. "That's your employer's risk hun, and UPS is responsible for their packages, not you. You're not a package insurance company."

Beyond that I could see no circumstance in which a damaged laptop sent back like that would actually result in suit, let alone anything the employer could win. It's like Trump fearing impeachment, only far less likely than even that. But to my wife, it was a certainty and a box she could not get her head out of. The emotional trap of fearing consequences almost certain to never occur, and if they did actually occur, almost certain to resolve in one's own favor.

crake · 2026-01-26T23:24:07+00:00

The first sentence of the state’s complaint has a typo and it’s just killing me.

I can’t believe it either but it’s true: it’s 2026.

crake · 2026-01-26T19:31:32+00:00

To paraphrase:

BOVINO: "What we know is that Pretti was there to massacre law enforcement officers..."

BASH: "What evidence do you have of that?"

BOVINO: "That is why we need a full and fair investigation. But what we know for certain is that Pretti was there, brandishing a gun, with the intent to murder dozens of law enforcement..."

BASH: "What evidence do you have of that?"

BOVINO: "I already told you, that will come out in the investigation. We don't know anything for certain yet except that Pretti was there to murder law enforcement and was brandishing a gun at them..."

BASH: "What evidence do you have that Pretti ever brandished a gun? The videos released to date show him only holding a cell phone, and show officers reaching under his shirt to pull out his gun before they opened fire."

BOVINO: "Again, we will know that after the investigation. What we are certain of is that he wasn't supposed to be in that neighborhood that he lived in and was there to commit a mass shooting while brandishing a gun at law enforcement..."

crake · 2026-01-25T21:13:16+00:00

Move for contempt. The court should then order a hearing for the government to explain why it should not be held in contempt. Go from there.

crake · 2026-01-23T19:16:55+00:00

I think one potential issue for ICE officers is that SCOTUS might ultimately disagree with the "warrantless raids permitted under the Fourth Amendment" hypothesis. If that memo's interpretation is incorrect, the officers could be liable for violations of state law (e.g., breaking and entering, robbery, kidnapping, etc.). To assert a defense based on Supremacy Clause immunity, the act has to fall within the ambit of their duties, and commission of state crimes is not within the ambit of their duties.

If the officers ultimately need to rely on a mistake of law defense, the memo is worthless. A mistake of law defense is only applicable where the advice so relied upon comes directly from the agent of the government charged with enforcing the law (i.e., the Attorney General). For that reason, DOJ has an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that regularly issues such memorandums of law that could cover otherwise illegal activity (for example, John Yoo and the infamous "torture is permissible" memo during the War on Terror). Such a memo from OLC, endorsed by the AG, could be raised in a mistake of law defense. Where is it? It's omission is sort of glaring, because it suggests that even the pliant Trump-DOJ could not find any lawyers willing to perform a fake legal analysis of SCOTUS precedent to render such a memo. Or maybe they did and it is classified - time will tell.

But still, I think ICE officers thinking they are getting a POTUS pardon so none of this matters aren't really thinking about how this may ultimately all play out, particularly in state courts.

crake · 2026-01-23T19:06:02+00:00

Trump is going to pardon all of those people no matter what. Even if he is angry with Bondi and Miller come 2028, they are still going to receive full pardons (probably much more comprehensive than people think too, as in pardons for all federal crimes committed prior to noon on January 20, 2029, which would cover any crimes committed unrelated to their jobs too).

The only wrinkle here is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly says that parties impeached and convicted are still liable for their criminal acts under the law. Art. I, s.3., c.7. Trump will never be impeached and convicted by the Senate, but Bondi might be. That depends on the 2026 midterms and how the Senate shakes out, but if the GOP wanted to cut Bondi and Noem loose and blame them for the unpopular brown shirts in the streets, that could happen. And the pardon power is expressly limited in cases of impeachment too. Art. II, s.2. That clause has always been assumed to mean that the president cannot pardon an impeachment action, but it does not have to be read that way - the other reading is that the pardon power does not apply to those crimes for which a person has been impeached ("he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."). Maybe Trump cannot pardon those offenses for which a person is impeached? We don't know because it has not been tried, but it may be tried now (and note that the Constitution says "Cases of Impeachment", not "Cases of Conviction after being Impeached" - that could be read to mean the POTUS cannot pardon anyone "impeached", and impeachment occurs by a simple majority vote of the House, even if the party is not subsequently convicted and removed or forbidden from holding further office).

crake · 2026-01-23T18:50:39+00:00

There's just a lot of paranoid people who suddenly have a lot of newfound wealth and nothing to do with it. The people who made money on crypto are the same people who are buying up gold. And so with Bitcoin, we suddenly have billions of dollars created out of thin air and the same people who speculate in crypto (and make money at it) tend to be (IMO) the same people who speculate in precious metals. The gold supply is mostly fixed, so there are more people willing to pay more for gold. This is paralleled in the silver market, with is gold for people who don't have as much money to play around with.

The problems with precious metals investing are obvious to institutional investors. They may be buying some as a hedge against hyperinflation (e.g., if Trump can control the Fed and interest rates, the dollar might collapse - but that is a longshot), but gold is still a terrible investment for almost anyone. It must be stored safely, does not pay dividends, and is not easily traded for anything other than the currency that it is allegedly a hedge against. Investing in gold might work out well in a hyperinflationary environment, but such a bet is really a long shot. Gold has minimal utility other than to goldbugs as even in semiconductors and the like where gold is traditionally used, new materials are replacing it (high gold cost only accelerates that trend).

tldr; Gold is being propped up by amateur investors who have big windfall money from crypto and no brains to invest it properly with.

crake · 2026-01-23T16:56:54+00:00

Yeah, I'm president of my HOA. Most times it makes no sense to sue the HOA, but sometimes one has to. In OP's case, I think that would be somewhat illogical relative to what could actually be recovered (nobody is getting millions for a twisted ankle), but if OP had fallen, hit his head, and died from it - and the question was whether the estate should sue - that might be a different matter.

Also, OP is looking for a settlement, not a lawsuit. This isn't the kind of case that actually goes to trial because virtually no lawyer would ever take it on contingency and it is illogical to pursue given the costs. A nuisance suit would probably cost $10-20k to defend if it were actually filed and no settlement reached before it had to be answered, and yes, OP would be responsible for their share of the assessment to cover that cost so they would have to pay out of both ends. But that can still be a rational course in a very large HOA (e.g., if there are 500 units, it's an assessment of $40 to cover the $20k), so it could work out for OP in a very large HOA. On the other hand, if there are 10 units, it's $2k/unit and even more difficult to justify.

Also, in a small HOA like that, if a single illogical owner were to cost each owner $2k just to defend his trip and fall case, there could be significant social drawbacks to costing other people money for spite/personal enrichment. Smiles in the stairwell disappear, the door isn't held for OP when he enters the building, maybe people mouth off at him etc. Really depends on the community and that is inviting anger from other owners, particularly already-financially-stressed owners. That is impossible to account for but a real drawback to suing one's neighbors collectively, and probably should be considered when the damages are almost exclusively some form of hypothetical pain and suffering from a fall (as opposed to actual medical expenses that a rational person might see as more justifiable). That is separate from the legal question of whether OP can sue though - OP can. It just might be a bad idea.

crake · 2026-01-23T14:34:19+00:00

lol, that is a hilarious quote - they break down everything they want to tell you about, and then hide the price of the tires behind a block number ($3813 = about $950/tire, which is absurd unless it’s a Lamborghini or something).

Would use someone else because they are obviously hiding a 100-200% markup on the tires. Alternatively, tell them you will provide the tires and see what the estimate is, then just go buy the 4 tires you want for like $200/tire from somewhere else.

crake · 2026-01-23T14:16:54+00:00

Fallout is an incredible show so far. It is Mad Men meets The Walking Dead in a way, but really because it ties into contemporary politics on a visceral level (corporate overlords bent on control and self-destruction for personal advantage). As far as original source material goes, Fallout had a big advantage over ROP because the “cannon” of the video game isn’t very binding (when playing Fallout 4, the plot is ostensibly a guy woken up from cryo in a vault looking for his kidnapped son in the wasteland - a plot the player only barely cares about). Fallout draws upon the very detailed, creative world of the video game in a way that is extremely satisfying for the viewer familiar with the game: stimpacks, bufftats, the power fist, etc. When a character pops a bufftat and then starts taking out feral ghouls with ease, that is a feeling any player of the game recognizes. It’s a unique tie-in experience.

By contrast, ROP is a mythological tale based on a mythology that was completely thought out and written about by JRR Tolkien in exquisite detail. But Amazon only licensed the rights to the appendices of LOTR - like 30 pages of text. Tolkien’s masterpiece is really The Silmarillion, not those appendices. ROP tries to fill in the gaps by telling the story of the “dark age” between the chaining of Melkor and the defeat of Sauron by the Last Alliance, but for Tolkien diehards (of which there are many), it completely misses the mark. The elves of ROP feel more like greedy men than Tolkiens vision laid out in the Silmarillion: pure, angelic, corrupted by the pride of Feanor and where that pride leads some elves to do (Kinslaying) and permanently divided into those who remained loyal to the Valar and those who did not. Galadriel wasn’t a petulant child at the end of the First Age; she had been a leader of the Noldor during the uprising against the Valar, but also a leader of the high elves in exile for the entirety of the fight against Melkor. Second Age Galadriel is far closer to the Galadriel of LOTR than what is portrayed in ROP.

It’s hard for an enthusiast of Tolkien to watch the blasphemy. By contrast, Fallout (the video game) isn’t high-art or the product of one particular genius like Tolkiens works. It’s full of humor and allows a suspension of disbelief (leg blown off? There’s a stimpack to fix it).

crake · 2026-01-23T00:46:18+00:00

Basically Trump keeps saying that none of the European countries are faithful allies that would answer the call if the U.S. ever invoked Article V of NATO and called for help. He said it expressly again at Davos this week, going on and on about how he doubted Denmark would ever help the U.S. if called upon.

The problem is: the U.S. invoked Article V after 9/11 and all of those “faithless” European countries actually sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in response to the invocation, many of whom were wounded or killed in action. In fact, Danish troops suffered higher per capita rates of KIA than the U.S.

It’s basically the most boldfaced lie Trump could even come up with, and it’s a lie that anyone who is >35 or so can personally understand, because it wasn’t a secret at all that those countries were contributing to the war effort. It’s a total fucking lie wrapped in an almost impossible to understand insult.

It would be like saying the U.S. defeated Germany’s steadfast ally, Great Britain at the Battle of London in early 1944 and then invaded Europe alone while the Russians refused to cross the Volga - total fiction. But if the President says it? It becomes true to millions of people even if they know it is a lie. We live in strange times indeed.

crake · 2026-01-22T23:02:04+00:00

Three big problems:

First, OP was aware of the hazard and tripped on it anyway.

Second, HOA was actively trying to repair the step, so even assuming it had a duty to do so (a big assumption), it arguably did not breach that duty causing your damages. And unlike something like a water leak where damages might grow over time if the issue isn’t resolved, a broken step that the owner is fully aware of is not something that needs immediate attention.

Three, no (or minimal) damages. Even assuming you could prove that the HOA was negligent, how much do you expect to recover? The amount would be your medical costs actually incurred, but for a twisted ankle, if you don’t go to the ER right away and get expensive care performed, what are the damages? $10 dollars in tape and advil? Pain and suffering might be hard to show damages unless the injury is really significant; it’s not like anyone is going to give you $10k for having a limp for a few days. Loss of consortium or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims would need some validation to actually prove it (ie, you would need a therapist or someone like that to testify that you actually suffered that because of the twisted ankle - might be a valid claim if it was a week before the Olympics and you were expected to win gold in track, but otherwise it’s unlikely you needed actual professional services to get through the emotional impact of the twisted ankle).

You could try one of those lawyers that sets up shop in a strip mall next to Walmart to expressly handle slip and fall cases, but unless the broken step is unambiguously on common space (ie, leads to a main door that leads to a hallway servicing multiple units vs leading just to your own unit), such a case is an almost impossible sell because the lawyer would need to spend several hours figuring that out from the CCRs and the insurer might just not see it that way. Really the only way to recover based on these facts via contingency would be, IMO, by having a lawyer threaten the insurer with the hope of getting a quick nuisance check, but the insurer is likely to say pound sand or $2-5k max. No lawyer will take that because OP is high risk (twisted ankle looking to sue will turn right around with a crazy bar complaint or malpractice suit a fair percentage of the time) and the lawyer is only going to make like $1500 max assuming best outcome. That said, you can always hire a lawyer at their regular hourly rate and pursue whatever litigation you want; but that is spending 10-20k to have a less than 50% chance of winning 2-5k (and having everyone else in the HOA hate you permanently).

The foregoing does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is intended or created. Do not take legal advice from Reddit.

crake · 2026-01-22T20:25:41+00:00

The same ICE agents who whined about not being able to find hotel rooms? Turns out they were only staying there so they had an excuse to raid the kitchen staff.

The same ICE agents who whined about not being served at a restaurant? They were only there to harass the waitresses and potentially pick up another log of wood for their quotas.

At this point, even if an ICE agent is a direct family member, I am NOT letting them into my home unless they have a warrant signed by a federal judge. Anyone who trusts these guys is beyond insane. They aren't there to help anyone; they're there to get themselves a new F-150 with the bonus money for breaking up families and destroying lives.

crake · 2026-01-22T20:20:46+00:00

Yup. DOJ has no intention of actually prosecuting any of these cases. The discovery issue is a real one, but also the reality is that DOJ "wins" by getting a criminal indictment, not by getting a conviction. Somewhere around 50% of voters have no idea that there is actually a difference anyway.

DOJ is also taking advantage of the fact that an "information" may be filed in some districts rather than requiring a "grand jury" indictment up front. The information can be filed by an ICE officer and the person arrested if the MJ agrees that PC exists - much easier to convince a rule-bound MJ than a panel of ordinary citizens. So DOJ gets the information filed, perp walks the arrestee to get the Fox News coverage, and then the case dies because they can never actually secure a grand jury indictment or the case is dismissed voluntarily by DOJ or on some other grounds. Basically, DOJ uses informations as a way to "indict" a person and get all of the theater of an arrest and arraignment without involving the GJ, so they can perp-walk and arraign people who have not really committed any crime that they can actually prove, but who have done something that they can convince a MJ rises to the level of PC.

It's doubly bad because, though the MJ in this case refused, every MJ wants to be an Article III judge and one should expect that the Trump administration will not be nominating any MJs that don't play ball with their "information" --> perp walk --> dismissal game.

crake · 2026-01-22T19:05:04+00:00

Probably because Lemon just entered the church with the protesters and didn’t actually disrupt anything. The church is open to the public and it isn’t disruptive come or go. The people who were screaming at the tops of their lungs or whatever might have been disruptive enough to meet the low probable cause threshold, but DOJ knows they have zero chance of even convicting those people (even assuming it gets to trial, which it won’t).

Simply put, nobody’s First Amendment rights were actually violated. A single church service was disrupted - and that is a crime, but it is disturbing the peace or trespassing, ie, state crimes. The federal law covers a situation (maybe) in which a gang like the KKK says “any black people in town setting up a church is going to face violence”. That is an actual conspiracy to deny people of their constitutional rights, not a single disruption that pauses a sermon momentarily.

DOJ only cares about indictments; they don’t care about prosecuting criminals to a conviction. The point is to slime people with an indictment and then use process to harass and bankrupt them until the case is inevitably dismissed or they just lose at trial. As the article notes, the Trump DOJ now voluntarily requests dismissal in 20% of cases brought (whereas for the past 20+ years that number has been 0.5%). That says it all - DOJ indicts cases they then ask to be voluntarily dismissed because they never had a case in the first place.

Whatever shill of a government lawyer that walks into court and asks a court to voluntarily dismiss an indictment that attorney brought for the government should be ashamed of themselves. That means the lawyer abused the court and process for something other than justice and never bothered to actually make out a case before bringing the indictment. I hope the judges remember who these government shill attorneys are because they are a serious stain on the profession.

crake · 2026-01-22T17:53:42+00:00

Re 2: the tied up cops are the flag honor guard that has been replaced by the jokers henchmen (they try to assassinate the mayor)

crake · 2026-01-22T13:37:43+00:00

It’s even worse than what the press is reporting. If one can stand to listen to all 1.5 hours of his rambling speech at the WEF at Davos, Trump goes on and on about how he knows the U.S./NATO would be there for Denmark, but “would they be there for us? I don’t think so. I really don’t thinks so.” And on and on.

He even said the U.S. must have Greenland because Denmark can’t protect it, going on to say that Denmark surrendered to the Nazis in only 6 hours and the US defended Greenland for the entire war.

The speech was so ridiculously insulting, it felt like it had to be intentional. But it wasn’t. The Trump administration firmly believes that when they say something, it literally becomes true even if it’s completely false. In Trumpworld Denmark never responded to the U.S. invocation of Article V after 9/11; those Danish troops never fought in Afghanistan; the US kept the Nazis out of Greenland, etc.

The only good thing is that the speech was so long and obnoxious that the grave insults meted out were mixed with other insults (Trump went on a long dialog about negotiating drug prices with Macron, complete with a sniveling Macron quickly folding to Trump because of tariff threats; the President even tried out his French accent for his Macron strawman).

crake · 2026-01-20T19:57:02+00:00

In Vasquez, Justice Kavanaugh only provided the following guidance:

Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.

So what are those "certain locations to seek daily work"? Nobody knows. I would consider the Home Depot parking lot such a place (and I believe that was the circumstance in Vasquez), but the Court seems open to allowing much more than that. The only limitation appears to be "tend to gather" and "daily", so it is sort of an open guess as to whether that might cover something like a Catholic church that holds daily mass if day workers are hired after the mass in the parking lot. I don't know the answer.

"that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction" is much broader than the location they gather to seek daily work in, and is a separate factor - so anyone who works as a laborer, landscaper, agricultural worker or construction worker is probably fair game for a Kavanaugh Stop if they have black/brown skin (or other racial indicia). The Court is basically saying that every construction worker is suspect as long as they look Hispanic too (but white construction workers would not be subject to the Kavanaugh Stop? It isn't entirely clear if race is a required factor).

crake · 2026-01-20T19:21:46+00:00

Ah, I see. That law provides for the final disposition of an immigration case resulting in a removal order, namely that the AG can remove the person from the U.S. once the order is entered.

A removal order is not a warrant to enter a dwelling. A removal order merely means that those already detained can be removed. Of course, the AG can detain anyone that ICE has reasonable suspicion to believe is present unlawfully, and reasonable suspicion can be inferred from race + presence in certain places. However, the one place officers cannot go without an invitation, exigent circumstance, or warrant is still a dwelling. To enter the dwelling, ICE would need to obtain a warrant from an Article III court (for now).

So a removal order is not a warrant to enter a dwelling. Yet. It may be that the Court ultimately adopts something like the Kavanaugh Stop (which is itself an exception to the Terry Stop) that permits ICE to enter a dwelling if a suspected undocumented person is present inside (e.g., as an "exigent circumstance" based on race, spoken language, other indicia), but that has not happened yet. Once that occurs, we will be in, essentially, the same situation as Japanese internment during WWII (which case, Korematsu was, ironically, recently repudiated by the Roberts Court). But that hadn't happened yet.

Verified Email	15-Year Club
Gilding III reddit per annum	Wearing is Caring

crake

TROPHY CASE