Well this isn't very good: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45611403

oooo that's ... okay yeah that one is funny haha

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-court-kavanaugh/u-s-senates-grassley-sets-saturday-deadline-for-kavanaugh-accuser-ny-times-idUKKCN1M11MJ

Morning Patriots

Hopefully yes 😃

Hello ya'll!
Me and Xrindahl were going over the upcoming cases on the SC docket for October - we found some possible interesting cases
We split up the cases between us one pdf for each of us - and made a list of summaries - I love team work! 😃
Found the HOG!
1. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/republic-sudan-v-harrison/ Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by holding – in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 5th and 7th Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States – that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs “via” or in “care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability. CVSG: 05/22/2018.
2. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-1275-BIO.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/virginia-uranium-inc-v-warren Issue: Issue: Whether the Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here, uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings). CVSG: 04/09/2018.

3. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/knick-v-township-scott-pennsylvania/ KNICK V Township of Scott

This was a joint effort of me and @Xrindahl

4. GUNDY V US http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gundy-v-united-states/ Issue: Issue: Whether the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation of authority to the attorney general to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 violates the nondelegation doctrine.

5. Stokeling v US http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/stokeling-v-united-states/ Issue: Whether a state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), when the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.

6. Frank v Gaos

Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/frank-v-gaos/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-961

-found by Xrindahl

{6 A} Facts of the case
In a group of consolidated class actions, three plaintiffs sued Google on behalf of internet users who claimed that their privacy was violated under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq., and California law by the company’s disclosure of their internet search terms to third party websites. The case went to mediation, and the parties reached a settlement which they submitted to the district court for approval in July 2013.

Among the terms of the settlement were that Google would pay $5.3 million of the $8.3 million total to six cy pres recipients, provided that they agreed to dedicate the funds to promoting education and initiatives relating to internet privacy. The district court certified the class for settlement purposes, and preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice was sent out to the class in 2014, with 13 class members opting out and 5, including Thomas Frank, filing objections (“the Objectors”).

{6 B} The district court approved the parties’ settlement in 2015, and with regard to the objections, found that: (1) the cy pres award was appropriate because the award was non-distributable, (2) Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement was not affected by whether the award was cy pres, (3) there was a substantial nexus between the cy pres recipients and the interests of the class members, and there was no evidence that the parties’ preexisting relationships with the recipients influenced the selection process, and (4) the amount of attorney fees was commensurate with the benefit to the class.

The Ninth Circuit approved the district court’s ruling approving the settlement, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion with regard to any of the four findings described above.

{6 C} Question of the Issue:
Does a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members support class certification and comport with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and if so, in what circumstances?

{6 D} Definition of Cy-pres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy-près_doctrine : The cy-près doctrine (/ˌsiːˈpreɪ/ SEE-PRAY) is a legal doctrine that first arose in courts of equity. The legal French term literally means "so near/close" and can be translated as "as near as possible" or "as near as may be".[1] The doctrine originated in the law of charitable trusts, but has been applied in the context of class action settlements in the United States.

7. Nielsen v Preap http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nielsen-v-preap/ Issue: Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

8. GARZA v IDAHO http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garza-v-idaho/ Issue: Whether the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies when a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver. Please see related case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1441

Argument preview: Justices to consider enforceability of arbitration agreements for transportation workers


All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. A business signs contracts with its workers (or its customers, or suppliers, or anybody else for that matter), in which the workers agree that they will resolve any disputes before an arbitrator rather than a court. Employees often do not like arbitration, in part because they worry that the arbitrator will be more favorable to the employer than a court. The lower courts hold the agreements unenforceable (reflecting a longstanding judicial suspicion of a contract premised on the notion that employers prefer to limit judicial scrutiny of their behavior). The Supreme Court grants review and in a closely divided decision holds that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that the disputes be sent to arbitration. It would be easy to predict such a fate for New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, on the argument calendar for the first Wednesday of the new term. But Oliveira presents some powerful arguments that should give pause. Most obviously, when you look to the actual text of the FAA, you will notice that it does not exempt all transportation “employees.” Rather, it exempts the “contracts of employment” of transportation employees, which is not quite the same thing. The difference might be significant because the term “contracts of employment” was commonly used at the time of the FAA’s adoption (the presidency of Calvin Coolidge) as a general term to describe both contracts with employees and contracts with independent contractors. And so, a textualist, applying the FAA in accordance with the common understanding of the text at the time of its adoption, might be persuaded that the exempted “contracts of employment” include all contracts with transportation workers whether the workers happen to be employees or independent contractors.

{9} Madison v. Alabama http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/madison.aspx Facts: The petitioner in Madison (Vernon Madison) has been on death row for over 30 years. In that time, he suffered numerous strokes and was diagnosed with vascular neurological disorder, or vascular dementia. As a result, he no longer remembers the offense for which he was sentenced to die, nor his trial or arrest.

{9} http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/justices-grant-four-new-cases/ : Virginia Uranium v. Warren, Jam v. International Finance Corp., Royal v. Murphy, Culbertson v. Berryhill, and in addintion: The Supreme Court once again did not act on Azar v. Garza, in which the federal government has asked them to nullify a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that allowed a pregnant teenager to obtain an abortion.

Hey, @JonJon

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Abortion

Ka­vanaugh ruled in favor of abor­tion re­stric­tions in at least one case.[70][71][72] In Oc­to­ber 2017, Ka­vanaugh joined an un­signed di­vided panel opin­ion which found that the Of­fice of Refugee Re­set­tle­ment could tem­porar­ily pre­vent an un­ac­com­pa­nied alien minor in its cus­tody from trav­el­ing to ob­tain an abortion.[72] Days later, the en banc D.C. Cir­cuit re­versed that judg­ment, with Ka­vanaugh dissenting.[72][73] The girl then ob­tained an abortion.[74] In his dis­sent, Ka­vanaugh crit­i­cized the ma­jor­ity for cre­at­ing "a new right for un­law­ful im­mi­grant mi­nors in U.S. gov­ern­ment de­ten­tion to ob­tain im­me­di­ate abor­tion on demand".[75] In Azar v. Garza (2018), the girl's claim was ul­ti­mately dis­missed as moot after the en banc D.C. Cir­cuit's judg­ment was va­cated by the U.S. Supreme Court.[76]

Affordable Care Act

Appointments Clause and separation of powers

In Au­gust 2008, Ka­vanaugh dis­sented when the cir­cuit found that the Con­sti­tu­tion's Ap­point­ments Clause did not pre­vent the Sar­banes–Oxley Act from cre­at­ing a board whose mem­bers were not di­rectly re­mov­able by the President.[85][86] In Free En­ter­prise Fund v. Pub­lic Com­pany Ac­count­ing Over­sight Board (2010), the Supreme Court re­versed the cir­cuit's judg­ment by a vote of 5–4.[87]

In 2015, Ka­vanaugh found that those di­rectly reg­u­lated by the Con­sumer Fi­nan­cial Pro­tec­tion Bu­reau (CFPB) could chal­lenge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of its design.[88][89] In Oc­to­ber 2016, Ka­vanaugh wrote for a di­vided panel find­ing that the CFPB's de­sign was un­con­sti­tu­tional, and made the CFPB Di­rec­tor re­mov­able by the Pres­i­dent of the United States.[90][91] In Jan­u­ary 2018, the en banc D.C. Cir­cuit re­versed that judg­ment by a vote of 7–3, over the dis­sent of Kavanaugh.[92][93]

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

In Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2007), Ka­vanaugh dis­sented when the cir­cuit court al­lowed a law­suit mak­ing ac­cu­sa­tions of Exxon­Mo­bil human rights vi­o­la­tions in In­done­sia to pro­ceed, ar­gu­ing in his dis­sent that the claims were not jus­ti­cia­ble.[104][105] Ka­vanaugh dis­sented again when the cir­cuit court later found that the cor­po­ra­tion could be sued under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789.

{What is the Alien Tort Statue? } The Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350; ATS), also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section of the United States Code that reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.

@Converge did you find the link?

In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc D.C. Circuit found that the Free Speech Clause did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label on their products.[111][112] In United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC (2016), Kavanaugh dissented when the en banc circuit refused to rehear a rejected challenge to the net neutrality rule, writing, "Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule".[38][113][114]

Fourth Amendment and civil liberties

In No­vem­ber 2010, Ka­vanaugh dis­sented from the de­nial of re­hear­ing en banc after the cir­cuit found that at­tach­ing a Global Po­si­tion­ing Sys­tem track­ing de­vice to a ve­hi­cle vi­o­lated the Fourth Amend­ment to the United States Con­sti­tu­tion.[115][116] The cir­cuit's judg­ment was then af­firmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones (2012).[117] In Feb­ru­ary 2016, Ka­vanaugh dis­sented when the en banc cir­cuit re­fused to re­hear po­lice of­fi­cers' re­jected claims of qual­i­fied im­mu­nity for ar­rest­ing par­ty­go­ers in a va­cant house.[38][118] In Dis­trict of Co­lum­bia v. Wesby (2018), the Supreme Court unan­i­mously re­versed the cir­cuit's judgment.[119]

Facts of the case
Antoine Jones was arrested on Oct. 24, 2005, for drug possession after police attached a tracker to Jones's Jeep -- without judicial approval -- and used it to follow him for a month. A jury found Jones not guilty on all charges save for conspiracy, on which point jurors hung. District prosecutors, upset at the loss, re-filed a single count of conspiracy against Jones and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard. Jones owned the "Levels" nightclub in the District of Columbia. Jones and Maynard were then convicted, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court specifically stated in a 1983 case regarding the use of a beeper to track a suspect that the decision could not be used to justify 24-hour surveillance without a warrant.

In Klayman v. Obama (2015), Kavanaugh concurred when the circuit court denied an en banc rehearing of its decision to vacate a district court order blocking the National Security Agency's warrantless bulk collection of telephony metadata.[120][121] In his concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote that the metadata collection was not a search, and, even if it were, no reasonable suspicion would be required because of the government's special need to prevent terrorist attacks.[122] In Klayman I, the plaintiffs, subscribers of Verizon Wireless, brought suit against the NSA, the Department of Justice, Verizon Communications, President Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, and General Keith B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency.[3] The plaintiffs alleged that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications" and that the program violates First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and exceeds statutory authority granted by Section 215.[3] In Klayman II, the plaintiffs sued the same government defendants and in addition, Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T, Apple again alleging the bulk metadata collection violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and constitutes divulgence of communication records in violation of Section 2702 of Stored Communications Act.[4]

Law clerk hiring practices and controversy

More than half of Ka­vanaugh's law clerks have been women (25 of 48) and more than a quar­ter have been peo­ple of color (13 of 48).[70] A num­ber of Ka­vanaugh's law clerks are the chil­dren of other judges and high pro­file legal fig­ures, in­clud­ing Clay­ton Kozin­ski (son of for­mer fed­eral Judge Alex Kozin­ski), Porter Wilkin­son (daugh­ter of Judge J. Harvie Wilkin­son III), Philip Alito (son of Jus­tice Samuel Alito), Sophia Chua-Ruben­feld (daugh­ter of Yale Law Pro­fes­sor Amy Chua), and Emily Chertoff (daugh­ter of for­mer DHS Sec­re­tary Michael Chertoff).[139][140]

On Sep­tem­ber 20, 2018, The Guardian re­ported that two promi­nent Yale pro­fes­sors had ad­vised fe­male law stu­dents at Yale that their phys­i­cal at­trac­tive­ness and fem­i­nin­ity could play a role in se­cur­ing a clerk­ship with Ka­vanaugh. Amy Chua re­port­edly stated that fe­male law stu­dents should exude a "model-like" fem­i­nin­ity and "dress out­go­ing" in their job in­ter­view with Ka­vanaugh. Jed Ruben­feld re­port­edly stated that Ka­vanaugh "hires women with a cer­tain look".[141] In a state­ment to The Guardian in re­sponse to the re­port, Chua re­leased a state­ment in which she de­nied the no­tion that Ka­vanaugh's hir­ing was im­pacted by the at­trac­tive­ness of fe­male clerks. She stated, "Judge Ka­vanaugh's first and only lit­mus test in hir­ing has been excellence."[141] Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken has stated that the al­le­ga­tions re­ported by the Guardian "are of enor­mous con­cern to me and the school", and Yale is cur­rently in­ves­ti­gat­ing the allegations.[142]

https://wiki2.org/en/Brett_Kavanaugh

https://www.dreshare.com/christine-blasey-ford/

http://www.corcept.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corcept_Therapeutics

http://methods.sagepub.com/book/how-many-subjects-statistical-power-analysis-in-research-second-edition

@KΙΜΒΛҞΛT Do you have the original YT link?

Well then that would explain the difficulty you are having

Sometimes using the Way Back machine can retrieve deleted youtube videos, but you need the link - I know.. catch 22 there

https://wiki2.org/en/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates

https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-says-it-has-started-delivery-of-s-300-to-syria/

http://www.gopusa.com/christine-blasey-ford-remembered-in-dewey-beach-bar-scene/

I just found that entertaining

https://am-tv.com/tv/audio-orrin-hatch-calls-kavanaugh-accuser-dr-christine-blasey-ford-attractive-and-pleasing-iSz9Kp_EN0M.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

https://splinternews.com/dianne-feinstein-has-always-been-bad-1821399794

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=jA1Lj04k-so

hey where that post go, I was reading it

The more I sit here and look at Q drop: 2199 - 'Have faith, Patriots' - considering that drop was dated the 27th of September - in retrospect, I now can see that perhaps the Flake turn was anticpated thus 'Have faith, Patriots' meaning that maybe Q is part of or close enough of the ultimate plan master?

Also, the chan post that @Smiley posted - piecing that together - i can see it

Booker groped a girl's boob

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/cory-bookers-imaginary-friend-eliana-johnson/

I'm surprised that he didn't speak about tbone when he was giving his autobiography eariler today at the hearing

As Garth's internet life has been scrubbed, then for her not to show up on the database would fit I think?

I'm searching anyway, cause I have no life haha

@Kathryn44 Okay I dug - and nope she isn't on there

Garth - on the DCA License search - if she is registered as a licensed shrink or not - look at Celtic's post at 1:25AM timestamp (I'm in EST) @Born to know

@Kathryn44 Yep, excatly

https://web.archive.org/web/20180916213114/https://www.ajc.com/news/report-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-over-sexual-assault-1980s-reveals-identity/eGjhm5PkYgCX0qaVAD8XbJ/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-devils-triangle-boofing-renate-ralph-club.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17909644/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-christine-ford-yearbooks

https://gyazo.com/1077c0097b0120a232deacc551c80364

https://www.biography.com/people/jeff-flake-102717

I can't find anything on the nose:/

Name this baddie! https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=jA1Lj04k-so

http://www.abcnews.live/2018/09/29/dick-van-dyke-1925-2018-just-left-59-million-to-trump-foundation/

This YT link shows the video linked from Q's drop: 2296 within the timestamp reference that Q pointed out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZJLK9-0BE

@Breaking Spectre In retrospect 2286 makes total sense and has come to pass

It's been going around since yesterday - I know I posted that on my twitter yesterday

@Conscience Abe That doesn't even look like Garth in the first one you posted - def a fake - good call and change;)

_is a female @Conscience Abe_

Uh... I think it was Thumper as well

I muted them - not worth even responding too

#WWG1WGA

They left! 😃

Maybe down the road the whole -world- will be wondering as well

https://www.aclu.org/news/rare-move-aclu-oppose-kavanaugh-supreme-court-0

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-christine-ford-caught-in-major-lie-photos-prove-house-updates-occurred-much-earlier-than-senate-testimony/

Hey @ʙɪɴᴀʀʏ ᴀɢᴇɴᴛ🐉🦋

And having a moral code too

Living under EU reign is even more to hate:-p

Junker and Merkel are both vile - though Junker is the worst Merkel became more worse when she said, 'All is Welcome, All is Welcome' But she'll be gone soon:)

There is so much that has been hidden from us for so long - it will take generations to find truth

@Texas Nick I lived in England for 16 years before having to flee to refuge in Germany with a friend and their family for three months whilst I waited for my mom to get the money to send me a plane ticket back to the states. I've only been back for little over a year and a half now. So, yup, I know how furious the Germans are

Especially the 'great swarm' across Europe

Of course we are - that's what we do

Why not just use the word geek?

I'm not saying you can nor suggesting it

We need to make the English Language great again - that's for dang sure!!!!!!!

The amount of people I've seen that think the letter 'U' is a pronoun... sickens me

I know - poor gay

Remember when the word 'bad' was used for 'good' like 'Man! That's bad!!!'

and sick for 'that's awesome'!

I was meaning the word 'gay' the word itself @Smiley

Yes I don't use the word 'gay' to denote something that is bad especially in Virtual Worlds, like Second Life because... wow... the tears and rage start rolling, yet those of a homoeseuxal natural, will often use the phrase 'that's gay'