Saturday, November 01, 2025

JoJo

 



Meet Cute in Hell

They Fell in Love Over Child Separation and Never Looked Back.

There’s a metric fuckton of shit I wish I didn’t have to think about.

But my brain didn’t get the memo.

It hums, it churns, it pokes at things that should probably be left alone. Even when I tell it to shut up, it just smirks like it’s on salary and keeps going. I’ve always been that way, ever since I was a kid. I was that little goblin in class who asked too many questions and answered every answer with “But why?” Teachers hated it. It’s not curiosity; it’s compulsion. I can’t not know. So I end up thinking about things no one should have to think about.

Like, I wish I didn’t have to think about how sausage is made.

Somewhere in human history, some unhinged caveman looked at a pig and thought, “You know what this needs? Let’s grind it up and shove it back inside itself.” That was someone’s idea of progress. And some other lunatic nodded along and said, “Hell yes, Chad, that’s cuisine.” It’s a pork ouroboros, a meaty middle finger to God, and I wish I didn’t have to picture it.

And don’t even get me started on Chicken McNuggets. Whatever the fuck those things are, they’re not chicken. They’re beige, breaded cubes of existential dread, the edible equivalent of a midlife crisis. I don’t want to think about what’s in them. I really, really don’t.

Someone once told me there’s a legally acceptable amount of rat hair in a McNugget. Rat. Fucking. Hair. Somewhere in a government office, a bunch of exhausted bureaucrats sat under migraine-inducing fluorescent lights and debated how many stray rodent follicles the American public could choke down without rioting.

“Two? That’s fine. Three? Gentlemen, we’re playing God now.”

There’s a PowerPoint out there titled Acceptable Levels of Mammal. Someone has a pension because they spent their life counting rodent garnish in Happy Meals.

For me? One hair. That’s my personal apocalypse, but I digress…

Yesterday was Halloween. I meant to publish this last night, but I went to a party and got—let’s call it—enthusiastically festive. I’m writing this through a Category Five hangover, which honestly makes what’s coming even harder to stomach. If you too overindulged in Barolo, bad decisions, or the belief you could still do Thriller without pulling a hamstring, I’m sorry. Misery loves company, and my haunted-house stomach doesn’t want to suffer alone.

Like I said, there’s a metric fuckton of shit I wish I could bleach from my brain.

Microwaved fish. The stench of wet Crocs festering in July. A used Band-Aid drifting toward me in a piss-warm public pool.

But somehow, my mind bypasses all that gourmet nightmare fuel and fixates right on them.

Because really, what kind of concussed, masochistic creature looks at Stephen Miller, tilts her head, and thinks, “Yes. That one. That’s the man for me.”

Who surveys that translucent haunted-doll energy and decides to saddle up for a lifetime subscription to night terrors?

Who spreads their legs and says, “Make me Rosemary’s Baby, you alabaster crypt keeper.”

I really, really, really don’t want to have to think about that.

And yet, here we fucking are.

If you think their unholy union is revolting, just remember, they didn’t stumble into each other, they bonded over inflicting misery on kids. They got off on the child-separation policy. While toddlers screamed for their parents, this demonic little power couple were sexting each other memos dripping with cruelty. It wasn’t a meet-cute, it was a meet-cruel. Bureaucracy as foreplay, trauma as dirty talk. Their idea of romance is spreadsheets, zip ties, and a PowerPoint titled “Maximizing Childhood Suffering: Q2 Projections.”

What happens between them isn’t sex, it’s a war crime with mood lighting. When they fuck, angels file restraining orders, the Geneva Conventions start drafting new amendments, and even hell’s customer service blocks their number. You can practically hear Satan pounding on the wall, yelling, “Hey, keep it down, you freaks, some of us are trying to run a respectable underworld down here.”

And at the center of this unholy spectacle is her.

She’s always been an enigma in the same way black mold is: toxic, relentless, impossible to get rid of, and somehow multiplying every time you hit it with bleach and a string of curses. Now that she’s clawed her way onto a public platform—because apparently America hasn’t been humiliated enough—I know her far too well.

These days she’s everywhere: seeping into cable news, contaminating podcasts, and probably leaving a greasy smear on Elon Musk’s sex chair.

Katie Miller cares deeply about relevance, because relevance means oxygen. Influence means validation. A platform means someone’s still listening while she spews her special brand of bile into the public bloodstream. She doesn’t crave power to use it; she craves proximity to inhale it. She wants to feel its pulse under her fingernails, to taste it when she talks. It’s not ambition, it’s dependency. If hierarchy came in powder form, she’d cut it into lines and rail it off a government-issued desk.

She wants to be the poster child for bureaucratic cruelty: dead-eyed stare, whiny voice, and a smirk that could curdle oat milk. Every time she opens her mouth, you can hear the Constitution wince like it’s bracing for a colonoscopy. She’s smug, petty, and utterly convinced that oppression is a designer label. For Katie, being an asshole isn’t a flaw, it’s the whole fucking operating system.

When Cenk Uygur called her and her husband what they are—fucking liars—she didn’t even blink. She went full fascist cosplay. “You better check your citizenship application and hope that everything was legal and correct,” she hissed. “Because you’ll be just like Ilhan Omar.”

That wasn’t a slip. That was a threat.

Katie and Stephen aren’t human, hell, they’re not even in the same phylum. They’re what happens when spite raw-dogs a bottle of drain cleaner. Two ambulatory hate-crimes in discount skin suits, running on espresso, malice, and the last dregs of America’s collective will to live. Cruelty isn’t just their hobby; it’s their fucking cardio. Their kink is making strangers miserable. Their love language is weaponized humiliation. Watching them together is like hearing a root canal try to out-scream a fire alarm—pure, unfiltered agony for anyone within earshot.

Katie once bragged, after visiting the border, “DHS sent me to see the separations to make me more compassionate. It didn’t work.”

Yeah, no shit it didn’t. Compassion fucking flees the room when she walks in like it’s got a goddamn restraining order. Crack open her chest and you’ll find a dried-up Sharpie, a bingo card of other people’s misery, and a crusty IOU for basic human decency. Empathy wouldn’t just die near her; it’d set itself on fire and jump out the fucking window.

They’re not a couple; they’re a haunting. He’s the human equivalent of a DMV line… soul-sucking, endless, and guaranteed to ruin your week. She’s distilled malice in lipstick, the type who’d show up to your birthday party just to read your Amazon order history out loud. Together, they’re the political equivalent of Bloody Mary—say “build the wall” three times into a bathroom mirror, and these two appear behind you, clutching a Bible, a taser, and a Fox News sponsorship deal.

He’s Nazferatu, the ideological vampire draining this country of conscience one executive order and hate speech at a time. She’s the syringe, sliding the poison in with a smile. He builds the cruelty; she brands it. Together they’ve turned governance into a blood sport and empathy into contraband.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are counting quarters for groceries while Dark Hands fattens on the chaos. The prosperity-gospel Jabba the Hutt. The grifter messiah of cheap greed. The guy who preaches thrift to the poor while deep-throating the national treasury like an oyster shooter. He calls it patriotism. She calls it heritage. Everyone else calls it what it is—obscene.

Government has become Dinner Theater for Sociopaths, a Vegas residency called Cruelty! The Musical, starring Steve Bannon in a grease fire and a chorus line of demons tap-dancing on the First Amendment.

And the call? It’s not coming from outside the house—it’s coming straight from the fucking Oval Office, oozing through the vents and belting out a drunken “God Bless America” while the wallpaper curls away in horror. The air reeks of self-tanner, cheap cologne, and that sticky, sour stench of moral decay you can’t wash off, no matter how hard you scrub. Every draft carries the faint, labored wheeze of democracy on its deathbed, flatlining to the thump of Kid Rock and the wet rip of the Constitution being torn up in the next room.

The rot’s gone full nuclear. It’s oozing off the Resolute Desk in greasy orange streaks, seeping through the gold-plated vents like ghost jizz made of canned hair and bullshit. His advisors aren’t whispering, they’re tongue-fucking his earholes with ASMR nightmare porn. “Sign it, Daddy. Ruin the world for us.” Meanwhile, in the corner, democracy’s dry-heaving, popping a cyanide Tic Tac, and frantically Googling “how to fake your own death.”

And that is the horror show.

Forget your sexy nurse costume or that discount vampire cape. The real nightmare is what’s still parked behind that desk: anthropomorphic aspic in a shitty blue suit, the consistency of regret and Miracle Whip, signing executive orders with a crayon and calling it vision.

They’re not running a country; they’re running a haunted hellhouse that reeks of halitosis, hubris, and hate. Every hallway’s a jump scare, every chandelier’s fueled by taxpayer tears and the haunted howls of history teachers. We’re all trapped inside, clutching emotional-support booze while these ghoulish goons hurl horrors like T-shirts at a monster truck rally for maniacs. It’s Halloween every hellish day, and these assholes are the headliners, waving from a float made of shredded statutes and sleaze.

The scariest costume isn’t in your closet, it’s hunched in the Oval Office, grinning for cameras while monsters hiss hot garbage into his ear. A choreographed clusterfuck. The cruelty isn’t a glitch; it’s the goddamn game plan. The evil isn’t accidental; it’s the entire enterprise.

Donald Trump isn’t the architect of anything. He’s the delivery system, the DoorDash of depravity. He’s the cholesterol-clogged fever dream of late-stage capitalism: a lurching tub of expired mayonnaise crammed into a suit that reeks of casino carpet and broken promises. Picture a gelatinous homunculus, stitched together from fast food wrappers and late-night infomercial regrets, wobbling through history like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man after a three-day bender in a gold-plated porta-john.

Every step leaves a slick of melted dignity, ketchup, and half-digested chicken nuggets as he hurls Big Mac boxes stuffed with the Bill of Rights into the crowd like confetti at the orgy of a dying empire. The air stinks of burnt ego, cold grease, and the slow death of shame. Somewhere, a bald eagle’s projectile-vomiting into the nearest flag while Lady Liberty lights a cigarette and stops pretending to care.

And waiting in the wings, grinning like stage parents at a school play from hell, are the Millers, two alabaster parasites who built the cruelty he only knows how to perform. They wrote the script; he just drooled on the cue cards. Every policy, every nightmare, every raid that drags parents out of school drop-off lines and courthouses is their love language made law.

He’s the grotesque puppet, but they’re the hands that learned how to make America flinch.

And that’s the horror story we’re living in.

Not monsters in masks.

Monsters in charge.

Friday, October 31, 2025

COMEY

 

Comey seeks to have indictment tossed, arguing senator's questions were "confusing," "ambiguous"

By 

Melissa Quinn

Updated on: October 30, 2025 / 4:50 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Former FBI Director James Comey is urging a federal court to dismiss the two federal charges brought against him over allegedly false testimony he gave to Congress in September 2020. He's arguing that the questions he answered, which were asked by GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, were "confusing" and "fundamentally ambiguous."

In a new filing with the court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey's lawyers argued that his testimony in response to Cruz's questions was "literally true" and cannot support a conviction. The former FBI director's legal team suggested that the government is attempting to try Comey on "cherry-picked statements" given during a four-hour long Senate hearing without specifying which parts of his testimony it believes were false or misleading.

They argued that while the government has the authority to prosecute witnesses who mislead federal investigators by giving false answers to clear questions, "it does not authorize the government to create confusion by posing an imprecise question and then seek to exploit that confusion by placing an after-the-fact nefarious interpretation on the ensuing benign answer."

Comey's lawyers also asserted that "basic due process principles in criminal law require that the questioner frame his questions with clarity so that a witness does not have to guess."

A federal grand jury in Alexandria indicted Comey late last month on charges he lied to Congress and obstructed a congressional investigation. The alleged offenses stem from testimony Comey gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020. He has pleaded not guilty to both counts.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

Comey has already filed one tranche of motions with the court that argue the indictment should be tossed out on the grounds that it is based on a vindictive and selective prosecution. He is also challenging the validity of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan's appointment to that role. 

Comey's lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in one of those filings that he would seek to dismiss at least the first count of the indictment — the allegation that Comey lied to Congress — because of Cruz's questioning.

In addition to his latest bid to have the charges dismissed, Comey's lawyers are asking for more details about the conduct underlying the two counts. They are claiming the indictment is "sparse" and has a "total absence of factual allegations."

The indictment against Comey references an exchange the former FBI director had with an unnamed senator, believed to be Cruz, during the Judiciary Committee hearing more than five years ago. During the questioning, Cruz asked Comey about testimony he gave in May 2017, in which the former FBI chief was questioned about whether he had ever been an anonymous source or authorized anyone to be an anonymous source about matters relating to investigations into President Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.

Cruz then referenced comments from Andrew McCabe, who was Comey's deputy at the FBI, and claimed McCabe publicly said that Comey authorized him to leak information to the press.

"Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true; one or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?" Cruz asked Comey.

Comey said in response, "I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what, the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017."

Cruz reiterated that Comey was testifying that he "never authorized to leak. And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"

"Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today," Comey replied.

But prosecutors have claimed that Comey's testimony was false because he authorized Daniel Richman, a longtime friend of his, to serve as an anonymous source in news reports about the FBI investigation involving Clinton.

The government confirmed to Comey's lawyers that an unidentified individual referred to as "Person 3" in the indictment is Richman. A Columbia University law professor, Richman is a former federal prosecutor who also served as a "special government employee" at the FBI when Comey was director.

Richman has not been charged with any wrongdoing. His name also did not come up in the exchange that appears to have led to the charges against Comey.

In their bid to have the indictment dismissed, Comey's lawyers said that any false-statements charge that rests on an interpretation of a "fundamentally ambiguous question" must be dismissed.

"Fundamental to any false statement charge are both clear questions and false answers," they wrote. "Neither exists here."

Comey's lawyers argued that a "reasonable person" would've interpreted Cruz to be asking only about whether the former FBI chief had authorized McCabe to be an anonymous source, rather than broadly inquiring about Comey's interactions with anyone at the FBI.

"The indictment contains no allegations that Mr. Comey's answers were false: it never alleges that Mr. Comey made a false statement regarding Mr. McCabe," they wrote. "On the contrary, the indictment omits Senator Cruz's statements about Mr. McCabe, obscuring the context necessary to understand both the questions themselves and Mr. Comey's responses."

Comey's legal team reiterated that he maintains that his 2017 testimony was truthful, but was also argued that his "statement that he stood by his prior testimony was truthful regardless of whether that prior testimony was itself truthful."

A Little Judicial Schadenfreude ALLISON GILL

 A Little Judicial Schadenfreude

One of my favorite things in court filings are little turns of the knife - especially when it has to do with Caesar himself. Allow me to explain.


If you know me at all, you know I take pleasure in obscure, justicey things. Whether it’s a bench slap from a judge against Trump in his role as either a defendant, a plaintiff, or as president - little things like bringing up his own arguments against him tend to bring me immense joy. After all, in these dark time, we have to microdose happiness.
There are many examples of this. Last week, we saw Jim Comey argue that he’s been selectively prosecuted as evidenced by the fact that others in similar circumstances had not been indicted. One example they used was Jeff Sessions and his famous plea to Congress that while he had “been a surrogate for the Trump campaign at a time or two,” he did not have “communications with the Russians.” I imagine that any mention of Russia causes Trump’s cankles to swell another inch like an inverse version of the Grinch’s heart growing three sizes.
Or when Comey used the example of Steve Mnuchin - who lied under oath about having used an autopen when he worked at a bank. Given Trump’s parochial jabs at Biden’s use of the autopen, that makes me a little bit giddy. Comey also listed Scott Pruitt’s lie to congress about his use of a personal email account. Given Trump’s relentless bashing of Hillary and his indictment of John Bolton for doing the exact same thing, those kinds of little nudges are fun to read.
Representative LaMonica McIver mentioned the fact that Trump pardoned January 6th rioters who beat cops in her motion to dismiss charges against her alleging she assaulted federal agents (which she did not.) I imagine Kat Abughazelah will make the same argument over charges that she somehow impeded officers. Or Milwaukee Judge Dugan citing Trump’s immunity case to illustrate that she, too, enjoys immunity (a motion she lost, but an issue that could come up later at trial beginning December 15th.)
Today’s little bit of legal schadenfreude comes from a new motion to dismiss the charges against Jim Comey, arguing that he can’t be charged for statements that are literally true. That precedent comes from a case called Bronston v United States.
Before we get into who Bronston was and what his case entailed, I want to mention the obsession that MAGA and the Broligarchy have with The Roman Empire. You’ll understand why in a minute.
Steve Bannon - for example - has the bust of Julius Caesar on his desk when he records his podcast. MAGA essayist and Trump supporter Michael Anton wrote an essay decrying diversity using the pen name Publius Decius Mus - after the ancient Roman Consul - defending Trump’s use of “America First.”
Elon Musk depicts himself as an AI generated gladiator, and posted on twitter “anyone feeling late stage empire vibes?” JD Vance says the US is in a late republican period like Rome was when it transitioned to an empire. Curtis Yarvin compares the US to the Roman Empire all the time.
They all contend that Rome fell because of immigrants, diversity, and wokeness - a failure to keep their blood pure, and a loss of masculinity and the warrior ethos. All of which necessitates the rise of a Caesar, or an authoritarian one-man rule.
That brings us back to Jim Comey, and his Bronston literal truth motion. Samuel Bronston was a movie producer in the 1950s and 1960s who filed for bankruptcy. In bankruptcy court, he was being asked about Swiss bank accounts to determine whether he was hiding money. Bronston did have a personal Swiss bank account for five years, but had closed it, and his movie production company had a Swiss account for about six months that had also been closed.
Bronston was asked “Do you have a Swiss bank account,” to which he replied “No.” That was true because at the time of the question, his Swiss account had been closed. He was then asked if he ever had a Swiss bank account, to which he replied “The company had one for about six months.” Also, literally true. The prosecutors never followed up to ask if Bronston ever had a personal Swiss bank account, but he was charged with and convicted of perjury nonetheless. The appeals court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court overturned it.
Justice Berger famously wrote in that opinion: “Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury,” ruling that the burden is on the questioner to be specific.
In Comey’s case, Comey testified in 2020 that he stood by his 2017 testimony, and even if his 2017 testimony was bullshit, him saying he stands by it is literally true. Therefore, his lawyers argue that because Ted Cruz’ questions were ambiguous, and because Comey literally stands by his 2017 testimony, he can’t be charged with making a false statement. (Perjury and false statements fall under two different statutes, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Bronston literal truth defense includes false statement charges under Title 18 USC §1001.)
The part of all this that gave me a good laugh?
The movie that flopped and caused Bronston to file for bankruptcy was The Fall of the Roman Empire.
So here we are, with Trump ordering the prosecution of his political enemies - a very authoritarian thing to do - on the precipice of those charges possibly being brought down by a case about a guy who went bankrupt over a film about the fall of the Roman empire. It’s kind of poetic.
Sic semper tyrannis, motherfucker.

LAW DORK

 

 



Trump admin ordered to distribute SNAP benefits, using contingency fund

A pair of rulings both found the effort to suspend SNAP payments is likely illegal, with one judge issuing a TRO on Friday. Also: Appeals court rejects court's Bovino check-in order.

Chris Geidner

Oct 31

 

 

 

 

A document with text and a black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A federal judge Friday ordered the Trump administration to pay SNAP benefits for November out of a congressionally approved contingency fund, blocking the administration’s efforts to suspending the key food payments that are essential to more than 40 million people across the country.

Two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration’s effort to suspend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments due to the ongoing government shutdown is likely illegal, with the second judge issuing a temporary restraining order from the bench blocking the effort.

Under the order, the Trump administration must use the $6 billion contingency fund to continue SNAP payments in November.

Under U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell’s TRO in a federal case brought in Rhode Island, per the minute entry entered following the hearing, “the Court order[ed] the USDA to distribute contingency funds; report to the Court by 12:00 PM on Monday, November 3, 2025, regarding the status of the distribution; and to honor the existing waivers.”

The order from McConnell, an Obama appointee, followed a Friday hearing in the case, which was filed on Thursday by a coalition of nonprofit organizations, cities, and other groups and included a TRO request and accompanying brief.

Although no opinion has been issued, the docket in the case reflects the hearing and order:

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The lawsuit, and TRO, address both the SNAP payments — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — and the less-covered early termination by the administration of waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents (referred to in the litigation as ABAWDs).

In the TRO request, and because the case was brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the plaintiffs asked for the administration’s directives suspending payments to blocked under the APA. That is the mention of 5 U.S.C. 705, and it permits a judge to “postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.“ In this case, that means stopping the suspension of payments from going into effect. (Importantly, June’s Supreme Court ruling on “universal injunctions” specifically did not directly address such actions under the APA, leaving nationwide orders a possibility under the APA, at least for now.)

A white text with black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

At the same time, however, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, issued an opinion in a multistate challenge brought on October 28 in Massachusetts, which also included a TRO request and supporting brief. Talwani’s opinion provided a more in-depth explanation as to why she concluded the Trump administration’s effort is likely illegal.

Describing the contingency fund, Talwani, also an Obama appointee, noted “the mandatory nature of SNAP benefits” under law:

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Talwani then rejected DOJ’s argument that “suspension” is permitted by noting that it is only permitted “when there are no funds“ — not when the contingency funds remain available:

A close-up of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Unlike McConnell, however, Talwani gave the Trump administration until Monday to reverse course — keeping the TRO request under advisement while allowing the Trump administration to decided whether it would authorize November payments in light of the court’s opinion.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Ultimately, however, Talwani’s timeline is — for now — superseded by McConnell’s timeline in Rhode Island, where distribution of benefits was ordered and where DOJ must report back by noon Monday on the “status of the distribution” of those benefits.


Seventh Circuit rejects Bovino report-in order

A close-up of a court of appeals

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a district court’s order from earlier in the week that U.S. Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino report in daily at the federal courthouse in Chicago because the appeals court concluded the lower court’s order “infringes on the separation of powers.

The district court’s order that Bovino report in about “the use of force activities for each day“ had been issued in an ongoing lawsuit about such use of force and other treatment of protesters and journalists in connection with protests at the Broadview ICE facility outside Chicago.

Importantly, the rest of the TRO in the case — including this week’s modifications, aside from the Bovino check-in requirement — remains in effect.

The Seventh Circuit’s order was simply issued “by the court,” with no information provided about what judges decided the matter or who authored the three-paragraph order granting the “extraordinary” relief of a writ of mandamus against a federal district court judge.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis had issued the modified TRO requiring Bovino’s check-ins on October 28 in response to allegations raised by the plaintiffs in the case about whether the Trump administration — including Bovino personally — was violating the TRO issued by Ellis in the case.

The next day, the Justice Department went to the Seventh Circuit seeking the writ of mandamus — an order to a court or other public official — and an administrative stay relieving Bovino of the report-in obligation while the appeals court considered the request. That administrative stay was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to file a response — which they did on October 30.

In Friday’s order, the appeals court stated:

While this litigation presents very challenging circumstances, the district court’s order has two principal failings. First, it puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch. These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers. Review by appeal at the end of the case would not solve the problems created in the interim, which justifies review by a prerogative writ.

Although different courts have different procedures for when orders are issued “for the court” or “by the court,” as opposed to by a named panel, I don’t think it’s too much to think that a court should at least have to say who is voting to issue such an extreme remedy as granting a writ of mandamus against a lower-court colleague.

Total Pageviews

GOOGLE ANALYTICS

Blog Archive