Conversation

Notices

1. 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘 (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:54 JST 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘
   If you only knew has bad it really is.
   • 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘 (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:50 JST 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘

     in reply to

     • Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺
     • Quentel
     I really need to start a proposition initiative to make depublication illegal. Maybe I could sneak a line in making it a felony fot any judge to issue any such order. 😏
   • Quentel (quentel@nightshift.social)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:51 JST Quentel

     in reply to

     • Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺
     > They'll typically next try to depublish the case under the rules of court, so it supposedly can't be cited.
     
     This happens often and it prevents a certain level of accountability. As you said, they can then bring the judgements back up when it's beneficial to their cause.
     Machismo repeated this.
   • Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺 (ned@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:52 JST Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺

     in reply to

     @Humpleupagus That's what you get for not having suitable writing comprehension.

   • 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘 (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:52 JST 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘

     in reply to

     • Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺
     The shittier side that if you're fighting the government, the court will always use a purpose based test to not only agree with the government's position, but also to end run existing precedent in this state, and in turn make shitty jurisprudence. They'll typically next try to depublish the case under the rules of court, so it supposedly can't be cited. The problem is that the California constitution says that the rules of court must comply with statutory law, so any smart lawyer then just uses the evidence code to force the court to judicially notice the unpublished case, which can then be cited despite the rules of court saying otherwise. 😒
   • 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘 (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:53 JST 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘

     in reply to

     • Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺
     You should read the shit that comes out of our legislature. We used to be a strict statutory construction state — if the legislature messed up, interpret it as literally written, to effectively send it back for amendment — but have recently shifted to "purpose" based interpretations to make up for the legislatures inability to write and amend law, which means that courts get to make shit up, like the purpose and the resulting law.
   • Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺 (ned@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Dec-2023 17:58:54 JST Sir Nedwood - Sydney 🇦🇺

     in reply to

     @Humpleupagus

     Some line in the California Endangered Species Act defines fish as including invertebrates. So spiders, worms, centipedes, and butterflies as all fish too. Why don't they just change the Endangered Species Act to include all animals? Who the fuck writes these things?

     https://www.ocregister.com/2022/07/08/heres-why-bees-are-classified-as-fish-in-california/