Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
alexandriabrown Profile picture
@alexthechick
May 12 • 12 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
🧵 I went looking for the actual text of the EO on prescription drug prices since no one is actually linking that and I have to do everything around here and I found this that was issued on Friday and I missed it.

I cannot stress how important this is.

whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…Image
What does this do? The most important part is that every agency has 365 days to list out all the regulations that have a criminal penalty and then that report has to be made public. Right now, there is literally no one on this planet that knows this information. No one. Image
Image
That report must be made public and must be updated annually. Image
Image
Image
All future regs have to state criminal offenses clearly. Mens rea is back on the menu! The default will be to require mens rea. What that means in English is that you have to know you are committing a crime, strict liability is highly disfavored. Image
Image
Each agency has 45 days to publish guidance on how criminally liable regulatory offenses will be handled. Then clarification that this doesn't apply to immigration regs and generic catch all language. Image
Image
This is everything I have ever wanted on this topic. Everything. I never ever ever, not in the history of ever, thought that there would be a requirement for a report from each agency mandating that the regs with criminal liability be listed, let alone that it would be public.
The shift to pursue civil over criminal first is, obviously, significant. See re: the issue of people fighting over property lines with the US government who all of a sudden were being charged with major Federal felonies.

foxnews.com/us/ranching-fa…
And then there's the mens rea requirements. Mens rea means guilty mind. It is the doctrine that you have to have criminal intent to be charged with a crime. Let's say you grab a coat off a rack. If you thought it was your coat, that's not theft, that's a mistake.
Strict liability means if you take the coat, you're guilty no matter what. Substantial portions of regs with criminal penalties attached are strict liability. Did you do the action? You are criminally liable, even if you did not know the reg existed and you had no criminal intent
This EO is tremendously important and will have direct, and hopefully immediate, affect on more or less everyone in America. And did you hear anything about it? Anything at all?
This is one of my areas of keen interest and I missed this. This should be being shouted from the mountain tops as to how it is restoring the rights of Americans to know when they will be criminally charged, for what, and that you can't be held criminally liable for a mistake.
Again, this is all I could have dreamed. This is amazing. Everyone, no matter your politics, should be rejoicing over this. Have a red panda and a corgi in celegration. /fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with alexandriabrown

alexandriabrown Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @alexthechick

alexandriabrown Profile picture
May 12
🧵When I see the "Is this what you voted for" posts re: immigration, my response is well, yes, it is. It is, however, not in the way the person posting that means. I mean that this is what I have voted for in every election since 1988, the first year in which I could vote.
The laws which make up Title 8 of the US Code are those which have been negotiated in Congress, voted on and passed by Congress, and then signed by whichever President was in power at the time. While those laws obviously are not all to my liking, they are the ones duly passed.
Those laws represent what the duly elected representatives negotiated and passed into law. So, yes, I voted for that. So did everyone else. In a representative democracy, the laws represent that actions of those who were voted to represent the public.
Read 16 tweets
alexandriabrown Profile picture
May 8
🧵In all the discussions of amnesty re: immigration, there is a fundamental question I basically never see asked, let alone answered: what are those who are advocating for amnesty offering as a compromise to get support for that position? What, specifically, is the deal?
That's how compromises work. You want something that I don't want to give you. In order for me to give you that, you have to give me some incentive. If not, all you are making is a demand for pure capitulation on my part. If you want it all your way? All you are is Veruca Salt.
So what's the deal? What, with specificity, is the deal being offered by those who seek amnesty? And, and this is the more important bit, why should those of us on the other side believe that bargain will be kept. After all, there's nearly 40 years that proves it won't be.
Read 12 tweets
alexandriabrown Profile picture
Apr 24
Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we will be discussing disparate impact, the insane Sheetz case, and yet another attempt to win via judiciary that which cannot be won via legislation. Grab caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it.
So what is disparate impact? Disparate impact is the legal doctrine by which discrimination can be shown not by specific actions against specific people but rather by a statistical showing that group B does worse than group A under what appears to be neutral criteria.
The point of disparate impact is that no actual discriminatory actions have to be shown and no discriminatory intent has to be proven. If B does worse that A, then that's enough to at least get into court.
Read 22 tweets
alexandriabrown Profile picture
Apr 23
🧵1986 was 39 years ago. I do not mention this for my usual wailing about the passage of time. I mention this to point out that we are now on two generations of people old enough to vote who have no living memory of the 1986 amnesty bill because they were not alive then.
Let me be very generous and set 14 as the age when a person starts paying attention to and at least somewhat understanding politics. That means anyone under the age of 53 really and truly does not understand, other than academically, what the 1986 reference means re: immigration.
Millennials & Gen Z have no concept that the argument that we have to have some kind of amnesty due to the impossibility of deporting millions of people, it's inhumane to do otherwise, people have built lives here, of course this will be the only time have already be had.
Read 15 tweets
alexandriabrown Profile picture
Apr 21
🧵Long thread with story times. All of these happened at my last firm. First is one I've told before. Client's insane ex wife, and by ex I mean they'd been divorced for several years when this happened, got a protection order saying he hit her.
She also filed for criminal charges against him. Cops showed up to serve the order, the summons, and to take his guns. He said this is impossible, I was out of state the day this supposedly happened. Cops said don't care, we are just here to serve the papers and take the guns.
He called Boss who told him to get all the proof he was out of state. He did, Boss sent to DA who said look we'll deal with this at the hearing, I'm not dismissing. Hearing came, she didn't show, it was dismissed due to failure of complainant to appear. He asked for guns back.
Read 23 tweets
alexandriabrown Profile picture
Apr 17
🧵Arguments as to what level of due process is owed to those who entered the country illegally and/or are remaining in the country illegally after removal orders assume that some level of due process is owed. That fundamental assumption is now being questioned, as was inevitable.
I state, routinely, that due process is nigh to a miracle which has taken centuries for mankind to even approach respecting as it flies in the face of human nature. I also state, routinely, that people should stop running around waving lit flares in rooms full of kerosene.
I say that because those sparks will ignite a firestorm wherein the very concept that people are owed due process at all will be questioned. Again, this is inevitable. This is obvious. And it is very much a fair question.
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(