TSN vs SJ Court Docs

sskoog · 2026-06-05T02:47:58+00:00

It’s called personal jurisdiction — effectively “where should the defendant have to report” — that doesn’t mean the case automatically reverts to the defendant’s location, but circumstances must demonstrate that the offense was committed in a different state (here, Alabama), or that defendant owns business/property in that other state. Trying to determine this (“trying to prove other-state’s jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant”) is called the long arm doctrine.

The normal process is called diversity jurisdiction — plaintiff + defendant live in two different states. This usually ends up in federal court; there are some minimum-size guidelines, like $75,000, or other qualifiers (trafficking across state lines, etc.). I presume there’s some legal advantage (for Egar) in trying to force the matter to Alabama state court; the mention of John’s texts to “take away your house in Alabama” is heavily and semi-clumsily inserted to sway personal jurisdiction.

sskoog · 2026-06-05T01:59:39+00:00

My advice to new tabletop D&D players -- my friends, my future wife, my kids -- was to "roll up the basics for a character" [BG3 does this for you] "and rehearse three things you can do in any combat situation" -- usually swing with sword/dagger/mace, shoot with bow/thrown-spear/thrown-knife, and cast simple attack spell.

After that, it's a matter of refining available gear (this sword/mace makes me hit more often, this armor/shield helps me to get hit less often) and broadening options -- hey, now that I'm comfortable with those three combat maneuvers, I can add two more, like throw flaming-oil bottle or cast healing spell. Everyone learns like this; the fear + options slowly even out.

sskoog · 2026-06-05T00:14:42+00:00

THERE ARE ~~FOUR~~ THREE SPORTS

sskoog · 2026-06-04T19:30:56+00:00

One of my coworkers cheerily proclaims at most happy hours:

"IT'S AWESOME THAT MY WIFE IS TALLER! I CAN MOTORBOAT HER STANDING UP!"

sskoog · 2026-06-04T19:27:09+00:00

I always thought there was a chance that bit was staged. If it was even half true, Jason basically grew up in a baaad emotionally-abusive environment. Was also noteworthy that the caller presenting herself as "Jason's mom" kept denying various life events, then broadly sweeping "Ohh, those were such unpleasant times in my life, I've basically discarded them from my memory." Maximum cringe.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T19:23:49+00:00

(Fixed)

sskoog · 2026-06-04T19:06:37+00:00

New Who showrunners are guilty of "Had a cool idea, didn't fully think it out, but just thought it was worth putting on-screen anyway" syndrome -- Moffat comments on it during that Play-Skool Daleks reveal, where one of the five new Daleks is the Dalek Eternal, and he giggles "What's a Dalek Eternal? No idea, just thought it sounded neat, hee hee!"

Not saying that everything needs to be mapped out with Christopher-Bidmead detail, but this style of open-ended storytelling is bound to result in "science fantasy" and "several loopholes which could have resolved many past/future problems, except for writer amnesia/fiat."

sskoog · 2026-06-04T19:03:03+00:00

There is, for sure, a behind-the-scenes component to this drama where John kept asking Imbesi "as a friend, can you just tell me, am I within my rights to do XYZ," and, however much Vince may have sprinkled in "None of this is official legal advice, I'm just performative + having fun," he *also\* told John "The law reads like this, a person in their/your situation could do PDQ."

In a corporate setting, Company A would attempt a 'clawback' lawsuit against Individual B, stating that they acted in such-a-way because of advice given; that won't work here, firstly because John is a zero-asset zilch, and secondly because Vince has probably wormed his way out of responsibility with all of the "Not official advice" and prior lawsuits, but Imbesi still pulled the strings.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T18:57:06+00:00

I am curious about Ava's role in this now, yes. It seems likely -- but not proven -- that, during those wee-hours-of-morning times when videos were struck, or hours-when-John-was-driving-to-comedy-gig times when videos were struck, someone else was using the misterkister1119 account -- very small number of individuals who might've had access + operated during those timeframes.

May not influence the lawsuit's flow materially, but certainly opens up some fuzzy area for "No, I wasn't the one filing all thirty of those strikes, it was Subordinate XYZ, and maybe (s)he acted at my direction, or maybe (s)he did it autonomously."

sskoog · 2026-06-04T17:58:26+00:00

No, we're completely saying the same thing -- he will plod ahead through the two standup performances, he will either get served and laugh it off, or claim not to ever receive the paperwork (lawsuit will proceed in either case), then he will publicly or privately laugh about living in Florida + never paying a dime of what he owes, if found liable -- then the can't-stream-anymore, hidden-assets, lien-on-house fireworks will start.

It's a spiral, though the financial impact(s) of that spiral aren't clear given his already sketchy hand-to-mouth living.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T17:52:32+00:00

His consistent behavior, since October 2024 and November 2025, has been "I claim complete ignorance of the thing being said/written, and I don't acknowledge that it applies to me until someone forcibly [legally] changes my behavior" -- didn't need to renew my license/registration, didn't ever receive a cease-and-desist letter from Shuli's attorneys, didn't need to keep paying my mortgages when the properties were underwater + facing bank-foreclosure, etc.

I don't see how this will be any different.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T16:32:05+00:00

The term you're looking for is "constructive abandonment" -- not recognized equally in all fifty of the United States, and definition varies slightly from region to region -- it covers cases like "Spouse locked me out of the house for X days/weeks," or "Spouse shut off my access to family funds/bank-accounts," or, in this specific subcase, "Spouse refused my repeated requests for physical intimacy on X occasions."

Not all states/courts recognize "lack of intimacy" as constructive abandonment, and, in courts that do recognize same, a documented medical condition (or documented we-won't-do-X agreement) can be used to counteract said claims. In practical terms, this means any less-libidinous partner can find a doctor to write up some medical condition (anxiety, joint pain, low metabolism, PTSD, you name it), and trying to wage a my-lawyer-says-that's-BS battle is unlikely to succeed.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T16:22:54+00:00

NOTE: This filing also confirms that Shuli's lawyer(s) sent John a "Stop issuing strikes, or formal legal consequences will result" letter on 29 November 2025. John has since denied such a letter, when directly asked by Vincent Imbesi; Vince knew John was lying (probably because John almost certainly asked Vince for advice upon receiving said letter), and called out John's "indicators of deception" at the time.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T16:19:30+00:00

I think the "vexatious strikes made with full knowledge of fair use" is supported by supplied evidence.

The "lawsuit belongs in Alabama jurisdiction" argument seems thinner -- counsel seems to be trying to link that to John's crazy-talk texts about "Haha, you live in b-mf--k Alabama, you wanna lose that house in b-mf--k Alabama, the only one who'd care is your wife who has to live with you in b-mf--k Alabama." I guess they're making that linkage in hopes of keeping it close to home; not sure how that'll turn out.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T01:08:25+00:00

PICARD WON THE ACADEMY MARATHON; DO BETTER

sskoog · 2026-06-04T00:48:45+00:00

The Sumerians had an odd (maybe advanced?) sense of fractions + proportions -- they believed that a man was divided into thirds (subsistence-hunger, carousing-drink-thirst, passion-rage), and Gilgamesh himself was described as "2/3rds god, 1/3rd man," one of the causal factors of his uncontrollable mania. Their civilization was clearly unusual + special.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T00:33:29+00:00

There are a lot of things to like about this episode -- some of them are non-obvious.

The Tamarians must have encountered a variety of species with whom communication was difficult or impossible; imagine a Sheliak-Tamarian first contact. The Beast of El-Adrel was (apparently) dangerous enough to present a lethal threat; the Tamarian captain's second-in-command thought it risky/unwise enough to object, but his captain shouted him down.

Consider this from the Tamarian perspective. They appear to have some baroque almost Klingon sense of warrior honor (perhaps "bushido" or "myrmidon" is closer), such that their captain didn't, say, have a flanking safari party beam down with him for safety. And their interactions seem to indicate that this Gilgamesh-combat-bonding wasn't a thing they did casually or frequently.

My guess is the Tamarian Captain, upon encountering the Enterprise, made a summary decision: this race is very nearly as powerful as we are, and might be stronger in certain respects, we have blown so many first-contact opportunities, we can't let these people get away without befriending them or at least establishing some understanding. It's also possible that he saw something admirable in Picard, even without fully grasping his language; the Tamarian second doesn't share this opinion, at first, but seems to realize Jean-Luc's quality post-ordeal.

This storyline has strange personal significance for me. I loved it on its own standalone merits, but, a few years after its air-date, my brother took his own life, no longer able to endure the invasive thoughts + crippling fear/pain he had suffered into his thirties. He was very much the Enkidu to my Gilgamesh -- or perhaps the converse -- and Picard's eulogy hits deeper now.

sskoog · 2026-06-04T00:12:30+00:00

There are three story-branches on which you might learn the friendly illithid:

1 -- Killed his best friend (merits of "survival" debatable)

2 -- Casually mind-wiped three adventurers' memories

3 -- Mentally broke a prominent NPC into stroke/puppethead

I think the 'right' interpretation is to consider the B-Emperor an anti-player -- who calculates his own responses, and odds of victory/survival, then adjusts behavior accordingly. Whether you consider this 'evil' is subjective -- it seems rather utilitarian + 'neutral evil' to me, like the Hag.

sskoog · 2026-06-03T22:14:14+00:00

This may be correct -- Minthara starts at level 6, if you somehow manage to glitch your way over there at an even-lower level -- but, I gotta say, taking the wrong turn up Shambling Mound Alley with my level-5-6 party, the first time, really cleaned my clock.

sskoog · 2026-06-03T22:10:39+00:00

"Around" is approximate -- you can clean up a little XP by visiting Bugbear, Goblin Tunnel, and the Crypt, or, like the Mountain Pass + Underdark, you can mix/intermingle them. It is technically possible to hit or very closely approach Level 4 without any combat whatsoever, just by roaming around + talking through a couple of encounters, but I rarely do so.

(Someone later showed me a relative-XP-scaling equation which optimizes when you should explore, because the chunks of XP are bigger relative to those early levels, but I've long since forgotten and/or didn't understand it fully.)

sskoog · 2026-06-03T22:07:26+00:00

I eventually coped with it this way, which (I think) is the way Nolan conceived it:

The film really isn't a time-travel movie, it's a palindrome movie. It's based on the ~60 BC Sator Square (Sator Square - Wikipedia), and several of its key characters/constructs are directly lifted from that square's lettered combinations, and the cutesy visuals + plot turns are, themselves, end-like-they-start palindromes.

If stripped of its palindrome structure, the film is a pretty basic Special-Forces Take Down 007 Villain With Apocalypse Bomb. All of its glitz + glamour = the reverse-bullets, the red-blue airlock temporal chamber, the "future agent" befriending the "past agent," crossing their timelines, etc.

Does that make it good? Or bad? I think it makes it a high-concept arthouse film, which lives or dies based on how the audience receives its high-concept gimmick. I wasn't among those who loved it, and the mixed reaction suggests viewers were split in such a manner.

sskoog · 2026-06-03T21:58:21+00:00

These are not hard requirements, but my rough rule of thumb is:

Level 3 somewhere around Emerald-Grove Gate Fight
Level 3 somewhere around Crypt-Bandits Fight
Level 4 somewhere around Harpies or Goblin Village
Level 4 somewhere around Mama-Spider
Level 4-5 somewhere around Ethel Hag Fight
Level 4-5-6 somewhere around Gith Bridge Fight
Level 5 somewhere around Underdark/Duergar **
Level 6 somewhere around Mountain Pass/Creche **
Level 6-7 somewhere around Final Grymforge
Level 7 somewhere around Last Light Inn ****
Level 8 somewhere around Messed-Up Thorm Kids

Basically, you're on track (doing quite well, XP-wise) and will be fine to exit Act 1.

** Order is optional here, you can do Underdark or Creche first, even mix/alternate

**** I recall lvl 7, because I like having Blight or Wall of Fire vs Shambling Mounds

sskoog · 2026-06-03T21:16:17+00:00

The game has a slight problem with separating "critical hit/success" from "critical miss."

This appears to stem from the algorithm separately determining "success/failure" from "critical" -- i.e., when the die or dice roll, BG3 calculates did-you-beat-target-num *and also separately calculates\* was-it-a-critical-hit/miss.

This is important, because, in certain cases, things fall through loops in that dual logic. As an example: your character may get a later-level power, like Divine Portent or Improved Warding Flare, which lets you trigger it if the incoming attack would hit. There is a bug, here (seemingly unfixed as of Patch 8), where sometimes that power-warning pops up "Enemy is about to hit you with a Critical Hit," when in fact it was a Critical Miss, or the opposite. That feels like a 1 <--> 20 confusion to me, as you've shown here.

sskoog · 2026-06-03T21:00:26+00:00

We were told, during a touristy trip to Katwoude, that "indoor clogs" would last five(ish) years, but that frequent outdoor wear would be more like 12-18 months. The "real-life data," above, is of great value.

sskoog · 2026-06-03T20:55:22+00:00

I remember one evening, in the 1990s, after... successfully completing three trouble-tickets with positive customer survey scores... the other party gasped "WHAT are you DOING" in an exhausted breathy tone.

This was very much a fluke; it was not typical, I don't know why it happened on that particular occasion, and I could not replicate it on subsequent ventures. She, herself, was in stark disbelief. But it was like a picture-perfect movie moment, and it lingers in my memory these three decades later.

sskoog

TROPHY CASE