elmcitymaven

I think people should stop having sex in cars. 

The difficulty is proving intent. Let's look at the text (emphasis mine):
Intent is difficult to prove in the absence of overt statements like "unless you find Jack Sprat innocent, we're going to dig up your prize rose bushes" -- a mild threat, but a threat made with the intent to influence a judge who loves his rose bushes. At that point, you're looking for objective, circumstantial evidence to prove subjective intent. This is a little more straightforward when you're dealing with, say, extortion, and a little less when you're treading into what resembles more closely First Amendment activity. Keep in mind that federal prosecutors haaaaaaaaaaate bringing charges they think they can't get a conviction on. When you're wandering into First Amendmentland, the ground is uncertain if the government is trying to curtail speech. Restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, even when not content-based. Remember: this is a good thing. 
 
I looked yesterday at the line of cases which deal with 18 USC 1507 and to be honest, there's not much out there. 32 cases on Westlaw, in fact. This should tell you something! Protesting at a justice's home isn't in and of itself a crime. It comes back to "the intent to influence" which -- though I admit to some bias here -- is kind of nebulous in the current circumstances. If the protestors are demonstrating not to change the minds of justices but rather to express their disgust and dismay at the draft opinion, this is protected speech, end of, cops there only to keep the peace, etc. If the protestors are there with the intent to change the justices' minds so that the opinion is redrafted to favor the position of the demonstrators, then potentially yes, there has been a violation of the statute. How do you delineate between those in the former category from the latter? What happens if many people are charged with violation of the statute who fell into the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore so I'm going to tell you you suck" camp, and all those charges are thrown out? That's a whole lotta civil rights lawsuits coming down the pike, and potentially beaucoup bucks that Uncle Sam will have to pony up.
 
Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors. The hassle of charging hundreds of people with petty crimes of speech-based civil disobedience -- in the absence of damage to property or persons -- is outweighed by the potential exposure to civil liability. Cops should be there to keep the peace, and protestors should understand the limits of their freedom of expression.

The difficulty is proving intent. Let's look at the text (emphasis mine):
Intent is difficult to prove in the absence of overt statements like "unless you find Jack Sprat innocent, we're going to dig up your prize rose bushes" -- a mild threat, but a threat made with the intent to influence a judge who loves his rose bushes. At that point, you're looking for objective, circumstantial evidence to prove subjective intent. This is a little more straightforward when you're dealing with, say, extortion, and a little less when you're treading into what resembles more closely First Amendment activity. Keep in mind that federal prosecutors haaaaaaaaaaate bringing charges they think they can't get a conviction on. When you're wandering into First Amendmentland, the ground is uncertain if the government is trying to curtail speech. Restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, even when not content-based. Remember: this is a good thing. 
 
I looked yesterday at the line of cases which deal with 18 USC 1507 and to be honest, there's not much out there. 32 cases on Westlaw, in fact. This should tell you something! Protesting at a justice's home isn't in and of itself a crime. It comes back to "the intent to influence" which -- though I admit to some bias here -- is kind of nebulous in the current circumstances. If the protestors are demonstrating not to change the minds of justices but rather to express their disgust and dismay at the draft opinion, this is protected speech, end of, cops there only to keep the peace, etc. If the protestors are there with the intent to change the justices' minds so that the opinion is redrafted to favor the position of the demonstrators, then potentially yes, there has been a violation of the statute. How do you delineate between those in the former category from the latter? What happens if many people are charged with violation of the statute who fell into the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore so I'm going to tell you you suck" camp, and all those charges are thrown out? That's a whole lotta civil rights lawsuits coming down the pike, and potentially beaucoup bucks that Uncle Sam will have to pony up.
 
Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors. The hassle of charging hundreds of people with petty crimes of speech-based civil disobedience -- in the absence of damage to property or persons -- is outweighed by the potential exposure to civil liability. Cops should be there to keep the peace, and protestors should understand the limits of their freedom of expression.

The difficulty is proving intent. Let's look at the text (emphasis mine):
Intent is difficult to prove in the absence of overt statements like "unless you find Jack Sprat innocent, we're going to dig up your prize rose bushes" -- a mild threat, but a threat made with the intent to influence a judge who loves his rose bushes. At that point, you're looking for objective, circumstantial evidence to prove subjective intent. This is a little more straightforward when you're dealing with, say, extortion, and a little less when you're treading into what resembles more closely First Amendment activity. Keep in mind that federal prosecutors haaaaaaaaaaate bringing charges they think they can't get a conviction on. When you're wandering into First Amendmentland, the ground is uncertain if the government is trying to curtail speech. Restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, even when not content-based. Remember: this is a good thing. 
 
I looked yesterday at the line of cases which deal with 18 USC 1507 and to be honest, there's not much out there. 32 cases on Westlaw, in fact. This should tell you something! Protesting at a justice's home isn't in and of itself a crime. It comes back to "the intent to influence" which -- though I admit to some bias here -- is kind of nebulous in the current circumstances. If the protestors are demonstrating not to change the minds of justices but rather to express their disgust and dismay at the draft opinion, this is protected speech, end of, cops there only to keep the peace, etc. If the protestors are there with the intent to change the justices' minds so that the opinion is redrafted to favor the position of the demonstrators, then potentially yes, there has been a violation of the statute. How do you delineate between those in the former category from the latter? What happens if many people are charged with violation of the statute who fell into the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore so I'm going to tell you you suck" camp, and all those charges are thrown out? That's a whole lotta civil rights lawsuits coming down the pike, and potentially beaucoup bucks that Uncle Sam will have to pony up.
 
Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors. The hassle of charging hundreds of people with petty crimes of speech-based civil disobedience -- in the absence of damage to property or persons -- is outweighed by the potential exposure to civil liability. Cops should be there to keep the peace, and protestors should understand the limits of their freedom of expression.

I have to say that I really appreciate the way you phrase that. A "commitment to the pleats" rather than just stating that I have no fashion sense. I feel like a rebel.

Thank you, and yes, I am now an old. Not quite old enough for the AARP yet, but they sent me a threatening postcard last year along the lines of: Get ready, gurl. We know where you live.
 
But what we all really need to know is -- B_J, how are your pleated khakis these days? I always respected your commitment to the pleats in a flat-front society.

Thank you, and yes, I am now an old. Not quite old enough for the AARP yet, but they sent me a threatening postcard last year along the lines of: Get ready, gurl. We know where you live.
 
But what we all really need to know is -- B_J, how are your pleated khakis these days? I always respected your commitment to the pleats in a flat-front society.

Two things - go do a walk-in for biometrics - should've done that as soon as he received the notice. 
Secondly, get in touch with your congressperson/senator's immigration aide - they can shake things loose as they have direct line of communication with USCIS. 

 

Congratulations on the relationship progress, both ring and home.
 
I'd also like to point out that, with the progress and a young colleagues looking up to you,  I think you are now officially an "old". Welcome to the club. 

Very few of us from that era are still active, Maven ma'am.
Tortfeasance!  Reported!!!

Yes, y'all are definitely high. I'd say don't bogart that but alas, I do not partake.
 
Recently noted that my 15th VJ-aversary was last month. Shocking. Quite pleased to report that Mr U and I are about to hit 11 years in early June -- we're disgustingly, sick-makingly in lurrrrvvvvve. This week a young woman in my office told me he and I are "relationship goals" which is both charming and revolting. THANKS LADY!
 
Mr U has also put a ring on it, at last. No wedding is imminent as we're finally buying a home together this year, which takes precedence over nuptials. But VJ's most eligible bachelorette will very soon be off the market, and no further applications will be accepted.

Yes, y'all are definitely high. I'd say don't bogart that but alas, I do not partake.
 
Recently noted that my 15th VJ-aversary was last month. Shocking. Quite pleased to report that Mr U and I are about to hit 11 years in early June -- we're disgustingly, sick-makingly in lurrrrvvvvve. This week a young woman in my office told me he and I are "relationship goals" which is both charming and revolting. THANKS LADY!
 
Mr U has also put a ring on it, at last. No wedding is imminent as we're finally buying a home together this year, which takes precedence over nuptials. But VJ's most eligible bachelorette will very soon be off the market, and no further applications will be accepted.

Yes, y'all are definitely high. I'd say don't bogart that but alas, I do not partake.
 
Recently noted that my 15th VJ-aversary was last month. Shocking. Quite pleased to report that Mr U and I are about to hit 11 years in early June -- we're disgustingly, sick-makingly in lurrrrvvvvve. This week a young woman in my office told me he and I are "relationship goals" which is both charming and revolting. THANKS LADY!
 
Mr U has also put a ring on it, at last. No wedding is imminent as we're finally buying a home together this year, which takes precedence over nuptials. But VJ's most eligible bachelorette will very soon be off the market, and no further applications will be accepted.

Yes, y'all are definitely high. I'd say don't bogart that but alas, I do not partake.
 
Recently noted that my 15th VJ-aversary was last month. Shocking. Quite pleased to report that Mr U and I are about to hit 11 years in early June -- we're disgustingly, sick-makingly in lurrrrvvvvve. This week a young woman in my office told me he and I are "relationship goals" which is both charming and revolting. THANKS LADY!
 
Mr U has also put a ring on it, at last. No wedding is imminent as we're finally buying a home together this year, which takes precedence over nuptials. But VJ's most eligible bachelorette will very soon be off the market, and no further applications will be accepted.

According to the uscis website, 9.5-12.5 months https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/

Incorrect. The court even took pains to say that this isn't what they were considering. Here's a bigly chunk of their opinion (emphasis mine):
SCOTUS didn't touch executive privilege. Read again. The question as to whether a former president may exercise executive privilege remains an open one. The eminently readable (and shock! horror! mostly lefty but not always!) Lawfare has a good rundown on the issues: https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-loses-big-executive-privilege Look, if I read some of the more outré articles linked here while stuffing my fist in my mouth laughing, you can return the favor. 
 
There's a legitimate legislative purpose in receiving the documents -- Congressional oversight of the executive branch. Now, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean anything has been trampled. The bar is pretty low here, and it was relatively easy to step over it.
 
Please to note: if the Supreme Court says X is acting in a constitutional manner, then X is, for the time being, until the Court changes its mind. There are more than a few Supreme Court rulings I vehemently disagree with while still accepting the reality that the rulings are ab initio constitutional because of the source of the ruling. 
 
I was answering your point about separation of powers, by the way, but you seem to have missed that. That's okay, we all have our moments. You appeared to be making a point about whether SCOTUS even had the power to determine this dispute, and I was saying yes, they do, because while Article III courts may not hear purely political questions, if a case arising in the legislature is otherwise justiciable, the courts are empowered to hear the case. This is not a purely political question. I wasn't surprised by this ruling in the slightest.
 
I genuinely have no idea what will turn up, but it's likely to be "interesting," which is the adjective I used, rather than depicting it as a "great revelation" as you would have had me say. All sorts of things can be interesting without being great revelations.

OverSIGhT Is litEraLLY CoNgResS's joB. See, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Federalist No. 51. But, like, what would James Madison know about any of this stuff?
 
Oh wait, are you talking about whether SCOTUS has the right to make a ruling? Nah brah, totally their wheelhouse. This isn't a political question, it's a constitutional one, and otherwise completely justiciable. Soooooooo... also their job.
 
Just because you don't like it don't mean it ain't legal.
 
Fees waived.

Incorrect. The court even took pains to say that this isn't what they were considering. Here's a bigly chunk of their opinion (emphasis mine):
SCOTUS didn't touch executive privilege. Read again. The question as to whether a former president may exercise executive privilege remains an open one. The eminently readable (and shock! horror! mostly lefty but not always!) Lawfare has a good rundown on the issues: https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-loses-big-executive-privilege Look, if I read some of the more outré articles linked here while stuffing my fist in my mouth laughing, you can return the favor. 
 
There's a legitimate legislative purpose in receiving the documents -- Congressional oversight of the executive branch. Now, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean anything has been trampled. The bar is pretty low here, and it was relatively easy to step over it.
 
Please to note: if the Supreme Court says X is acting in a constitutional manner, then X is, for the time being, until the Court changes its mind. There are more than a few Supreme Court rulings I vehemently disagree with while still accepting the reality that the rulings are ab initio constitutional because of the source of the ruling. 
 
I was answering your point about separation of powers, by the way, but you seem to have missed that. That's okay, we all have our moments. You appeared to be making a point about whether SCOTUS even had the power to determine this dispute, and I was saying yes, they do, because while Article III courts may not hear purely political questions, if a case arising in the legislature is otherwise justiciable, the courts are empowered to hear the case. This is not a purely political question. I wasn't surprised by this ruling in the slightest.
 
I genuinely have no idea what will turn up, but it's likely to be "interesting," which is the adjective I used, rather than depicting it as a "great revelation" as you would have had me say. All sorts of things can be interesting without being great revelations.

So who, then, is in charge of justiciating tortfeasin'?
Traitoress to the profession!  Bad Maven ma'am!  Bad, BAD Maven ma'am!   

Yah, like those leftists in South Carolina and Texas that have set the threshold for felony theft at higher levels than California (respectively $2,000, $2,500 and $950). Clearly the commies running those states should be taken behind the woodshed for encouraging theft by making it so hard to get charged with a felony! 

By all means, the OP should report this attorney to the appropriate bar, but bear in mind that complaints rarely go much of anywhere. Attorneys are allowed ample opportunities to respond to complaints, and the table is tilted in their favor. Fraud is something that is pursued aggressively, but poor calendaring and useless admin support is unlikely to result in no more clients suffering the same harms as the OP. 
 
This isn't to dissuade the OP from making a complaint -- he or she should! -- but it is said to dispel the myth that I see on VJ again and again that making complaints will actually result in suspension or disbarment without much, much more.

Funny how the only Justice who would have blocked it is married to a person who has ...  problematic ties to the events of January 6th but hey, I guess he's ride or die so there's that. Gotta respect a man who loves his wife.
 
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/trump-supreme-court-records-527421
 
Order here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21182369-order-21a272
 
I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.

Funny how the only Justice who would have blocked it is married to a person who has ...  problematic ties to the events of January 6th but hey, I guess he's ride or die so there's that. Gotta respect a man who loves his wife.
 
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/trump-supreme-court-records-527421
 
Order here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21182369-order-21a272
 
I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.

Funny how the only Justice who would have blocked it is married to a person who has ...  problematic ties to the events of January 6th but hey, I guess he's ride or die so there's that. Gotta respect a man who loves his wife.
 
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/trump-supreme-court-records-527421
 
Order here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21182369-order-21a272
 
I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.

Funny how the only Justice who would have blocked it is married to a person who has ...  problematic ties to the events of January 6th but hey, I guess he's ride or die so there's that. Gotta respect a man who loves his wife.
 
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/trump-supreme-court-records-527421
 
Order here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21182369-order-21a272
 
I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.