@Caps_Nut@GovernorVA Actually I’ thought VA had done exactly that in 2018, but now that I look at that law, what they did was something halfway in between. It’s no longer a state agency, but rather an “authority,” which is a private/public hybrid entity. It controls liquor, but licenses beer & wine.
@Caps_Nut@GovernorVA In general those differ from state agencies in that the state loses most control & they’re not included in state budgeting & procurement processes but the public gets the benefit of their profitability. Whether the state retains any control depends on the enabling legislation.
@Caps_Nut So whether the gov can -by edict - tell them not to buy Russian spirits is an interesting question. Probably not likely, but not necessarily impossible. It will depend on exactly how much control the state gave up over the authority.
@Caps_Nut You notice he couches his directive in terms of tax dollars used in the state procurement process to purchase goods & services. The ABC authority is outside of that process. That was one of the reasons they converted it to an authority.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
CNN announcing that Ketanji Brown Jackson is Biden’s pick for SCOTUS.
Judge Jackson is undoubtedly in the liberal camp in terms of her legal philosophy. She will move the left wing of the Court more to the left than where it was with Breyer in that seat. /1
She’s pretty young (51) for a SCOTUS seat, as that’s the way both parties do it now to try to control the makeup of the court for longer. But it also means she has a slightly less developed judicial track record than was historically true. That being said, there’s no doubt. . ./2
of her philosophy from her overall legal career, so the shorter judicial record is of lesser importance than it would’ve with a different nominee. She was a federal trial judge for 8 years & on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals since March 2021. /3
If you are coming to DC - for any reason - please be advised that DC has extremely restrictive gun & weapon laws. It will not honor your state’s carry permit, for example. It would be wise to leave your weapons at home. If you do get charged, you can contact me via my website. /1
I take any & all gun cases. Unlike many defense lawyers here, I will litigate the Constitutionality of DC’s laws if the case has a good argument for it & the client’s willing to - which often requires rejecting a plea & going to trial. That requires committing more resources- /2
Time, Money, Energy, Travel back here, Emotional & Psychological Toughness. It’s not cheap -in any way- to fight these. If you’re not willing to do that, save yourself the trouble & leave your weapons at home. People think they will fight, but many don’t when faced w/the costs./3
Latham's pleading isn't terrible. It's not fairly arguing the law or the facts, but it's polished work product, the prose is clear, it's clean in terms of grammar & citations, etc. It's just full of malarky arguments. But, it's obviously not written by DC lawyers. /1
It's got a table of contents, which few if any of us here use in memoranda for motions in the district court. The judge will likely notice that. And, the proposed order is attached to the document, it should be file separately. The clerk might complain about that. /2
I think the real goal of it is to start educating the judge on the defense theory of materiality rather than expecting him to dismiss on that basis. He'll have to give a jury instruction on it. Materiality is a frequently contested issue in false statements cases. /3
So apropos of my question last night about who paid for the GATech researchers, I remembered that @ProfMJCleveland had sent FOIA requests to the University, so I asked her if any related to when the billing to DARPA began, & one did. See her tweet here 👇
Since the USAF wouldn't concur w/DARPA to let GATech bill on to contract before it was officially awarded, that most likely means GATech paid for the research work. This is important for the issue of whether there was mis-billing to the federal govt by Joffe; it appears not./2
That would support my analysis yesterday that Joffe appears to have off-loaded the costs of the research he was doing to his company that doesn't have a govt contract & to someone else - turns out it was GATech. This helps him avoid a criminal false claim charge. /3
Reading the indictment again it seems clear that Joffe affirmatively tried to structure the project to avoid a false billing (to the govt) problem. He had to use Neustar’s data but he offloaded the actual work to GATech & employees of a sub that only had private sector clients./1
And to their credit, I will say, & good for them, even they questioned it & said it wasn’t really a use to which that the data should be put. /2
This is Company-3. The indictment specifically says they had private sector clients. (Good prosecutors don’t put things in indictments for no reason.) These were the employees Joffe used to write some of the reports, not Neustar’s.
/3
According to Durham, Joffee “tasked” researchers to find the data that was given to the feds. How did the research time get billed?
That could potentially be a fruitful avenue - fraudulent billing, (apropos of what criminal statutes are available.)
You can’t bill the govt for work that doesn’t benefit the govt customer under your contract or grant with them.
Lorenzen also. (Originator-1) She was a researcher at GA Tech & guided the 2 researchers for Joffe's "tasking." Who paid for the time spent on that? GA Tech? DARPA? Won't be surprised if it was the latter, tho it might be the former as the K wasn't final yet.