🧵I'm going to use this, with permission, as a starting point for a discussion about IEPs, the use of the "model peer", the abuse of confidentiality, and the abrogation of parental consent in the education context. Get caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it.

https://twitter.com/BodietheParrot/status/1942618465208242335

What is an IEP? An IEP is an Individualized Educational Plan. This is a plan developed under the IDEA statute (20 USC 1400 et seq.) to meet the educational needs of a child with some kind of physical or emotional disorder or disturbance.

🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we'll be doing a very high level overview of what is medical malpractice, what is the standard of care, and what is informed consent. Get caffeine conveyance of choice, a nice little nosh, and let's get it. Very important caveat here: this is going to be a very generalized overview. Every state has different laws and rules on med mal. This is a very generalized overview that, of necessity, is not going to get into much nuance. This is merely to provide a conceptual framework.

🧵A significant problem in modern life, both in and out of politics, is the refusal to accept that both sides of an agreement must be honored or people will no longer be willing to agree. When only one side of a bargain receives the benefit of that bargain, why bargain at all? I'll start with the obvious - immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed in 1986 with explicit statements that the amnesty would be the only one ever done and that enforcement would be implemented promptly and fully. We've seen how that's worked out.

🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Let's chat about the FBI and the DOJ, Brady violations, the hiding of evidence, and why this has all happened before, it will all happen again is clear to anyone who has paid attention at all. I'll use the Bundy ranchers case. Let's start with what a Brady violation is. The Supreme Court decision in Brady vs Maryland made very clear what should have been obvious all along: the prosecution's withholding of evidence material to a determination of guilt or punishment is a due process violation.

🧵Here is an exchange on whether James Comey was the lead prosecutor for the John Gambino trial which shows why I do not trust a thing that Grok says.

Here is a link to the entire conversation. Below are screenshots of each question and answer.

grok.com/share/c2hhcmQt… Methodology: I did a google search for the following: white house archives james comey john gambino

The first response was the following link:



screenshots of search and where the link leads - note this is an official White House archive site. georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/com…

🧵I'm going to use an article that reports on a tragedy with an outrageous outcome to illustrate just how many questions a person has to know to ask to determine if the outcome was improper. I chose this because it's not a complex issue. The article.
cbsnews.com/colorado/news/… Screenshots of the article in the next two tweets.

🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we are going over civil liability vs criminal liability and then strict liability and mens rea. Get yourself caffeine conveyance beverage of choice, a nice knosh, and let's get it. Let's start by defining terms. Civil liability is a legal obligation that one party owes to another for damages. It requires that the liable party owe some kind of legal duty to the harmed party. This is a private cause of action, though a government entity may bring civil suit.

🧵 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… 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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵Somewhere I have a copy of a letter sent to the Psychopaths signed by all three judges of an appellate court panel stating that the appellate brief and oral argument were among the finest that the panel members ever saw. Collectively, the panel had over 90 years on the bench. I did all the research and wrote about 95% of the brief. One of my bosses did the oral argument. It is surpassingly rare for an appellate panel to send a letter like that. Why is this not framed and hanging on my office wall even 20 odd years later? Because we lost the appeal.

🧵If US companies have off shored manufacturing due to US laws and regulations, why is it acceptable for those same companies to import the goods back to the US with impunity? The companies are point blank avoiding US laws in doing so. That's what's at issue. When you drill down, all the way down, into the matters that people flatly refuse to address directly, that's what is going on. It's too expensive to make whatever in the US due to the US laws so we'll go somewhere those laws don't exist and then just bring the stuff back.

🧵Yesterday there was another round of oh look the Girls on SCOTUS ruled together, what did you expect. I couldn't help but notice the minor bit about Justice Barrett who joined in portions of the dissent. Thus I went to see what Barrett actually did. Here's the link to the decision. There's no need for PACER, it's nicely publicly available, anyone can go and look at the original source to see what, exactly, Barrett did. Here you go.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…

🧵 In the Era of the Golden Scalp Weasel came the Great Unmasking.

What do I mean by this? Well, get yourself a snack and beverage of choice and I shall explain.

All set?

Let's get it. The Golden Scalp Weasel is Trump's hair. I thought this was obvious, however, I've had questions. So. That.

What, however, is the Great Unmasking?

The Great Unmasking is that people are being forced to state their actual positions, not simply make mouth noises about issues.

🧵 Since oh noes Trump and Elon are going to cut and destroy Social Security and Medicare is going around, no matter how many times both of them deny planning or wanting to do any such thing, I am reminded of one of the many reasons I call the Psychopaths, the Psychopaths. The Managing Partner, hereinafter B, got it in her head that I did a certain thing that not only did I not do, it was not possible for me to have done this, as I was not in the office when this occurred. Despite this, she was adamant I did this thing.

🧵I do not know how to type this gently so I'm just going to type this. American judicial legitimacy is already gone. It does not matter how SCOTUS rules on the various and sundry cases addressing Article II powers. Whatever side loses will consider the rulings illegitimate. I will also say this, I have no idea how those rulings are going to turn out and neither does anyone else. I know how at least 4 justices are likely to rule due to Alito's dissent in the USAID TRO issue. I can WAG about what Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett will do.

🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School where I discuss how the legal profession very much needs to take seriously concerns of the Normies (here used in a non pejorative sense to mean those without a legal background) as to the speed of appeals. Get caffeine and let's go Since Roberts decided to make let the appellate process play out the official commentary by SCOTUS on *gestures wildly* what the District Courts are doing, it is rather incumbent on those in the legal profession to understand why that sounds like kicking the can down the road.