The best way to put it is, you can't starve children because the school respects individual rights.

He's really quite dead set on those Alaskan work camps. Maybe he's got some business interests up there.

lol this person has a half baked idea and is running to the bank with it

Well my vote is for work camps in Alaska building public housing for the inuit, (the melting permafrost has destabalized the foundations of their buildings,) as I am against the death penalty as excercized by the state especially.

Is it more rational to let yourself be enslaved to a corrupt oligarchy that seized control of your courts to overthrow liberal democracy? Yeah you are the rational one clearly, rational as far as you can stretch your hand from your face, you can't see past that apparently.

So kill all the lawyers, and then... train more lawyers?

Yes, this is rational.

My alternative is the only one that will save us, razing and burning the legal system, then growing a new one in a restoration the law in the charred wreckage.

Obviously the razing and burning needs to go well beyond the legal system. And of course I am speaking figuratively and advocating for such things with due process of law.

Your alternative is, what, mob justice? Government fiat? Anarchy?

Because of lawyers we are desperate for lawyers yes. Rather circular logic if you ask me but you guys like to repeat that in defense of your parasite lawyer class that is hired by the oligarchy to overthrow the republic and enslave us all.

they are parasites, a drain on society, they comprise over 90 percent of future lawmakers, and the worst and most craven and unpatriotic of them will become judges and prosecutors.

And if you find yourself in a court room accused of something you are going to be desperate for one to help you.

Or you could fuck stephen miller's wife like Steve Bannon has done, and Eric Swalwell, and others.

Stephen Miller is a fucking cuck, I normally don't use that word, (only because the right has overused it,) but I am making an exception in his case.

Everyone hates lawyers for good reason. Idk what shakespear did about them, but this isn't 1200 ad or whatever, this is 2026, and at least 90 percent of all lawyers at best should be sent to work camps on the north slope of Alaska building public housing for the fucking Inuit, they are parasites, a drain on society, they comprise over 90 percent of future lawmakers, and the worst and most craven and unpatriotic of them will become judges and prosecutors.

That said, obviously the administration is trying to cement control and getting rid of the bar would allow them to subordinate the legal system, making it impossible to stay in the club if you go against powerful interests. Making it impossible for there to be consequences for powerful interests' lawyers that break the rules themselves and behave like the trecherous cunts they are.

This is Stephen Miller bullshit. Fuck that guy.

Or history just repeats itself.

Shakespeare was ahead of his time.

In Act 4, Scene 2 of Henry VI, Part 2, Dick the Butcher utters the line "The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers" during a rebellion led by Jack Cade.

Cade, a pretender to the throne, hopes to destabilize the existing social order and the line serves as a recognition that lawyers are impediments to his rule. It's a widely misinterpreted line that's usually used to express anti-lawyer sentiment.

He needs lots of lawyers stupid enough to take the fall for him.

That's all we need is millions of unqualified lawyers practicing law. Sure this won't bite us in the ass /s.

Scouts is where it's going to matter

While its great these are being shot down now, I think the real push is going to be another similar executive order closer to the election that will completely demolish several states entire election apparatus (via mail-in ballots). Additionally, there will be one authorizing poll watchers and ice goons to purposely disenfranchise the minority vote. The real question is how and how fast will the SC respond. I’d imagine they will drag their feet but ultimately 5-4 in favor of the obvious constitutional right for states to run their elections, but can easily see them pulling some bs like their VRA rulings on the poll watchers. Going to use the whole Kavanaugh stop logic and pretend its no big deal.

Direct link to the ruling at CourtListener: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.54507/gov.uscourts.ca1.54507.00108481937.0_1.pdf

Is he being held in custody until any of this is ruled on?

To begin, the indictment document can be found here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71998357/united-states-v-tunick/

For the moment, I'm going to skip over a discussion of the government's incredibly nebulous assertion that a US Citizen on US soil is somehow not entitled to protections from warrantless search/seizure of the phone, in stark contravention of settled law.

What I wish to highlight is the peculiarity of the charge, because it's quite novel. The single indicted offense is one count of 18 USC 2232(a). That section reads:

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.— Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(my emphasis)

The "lawful" part is what Tunick's attorney will argue is missing, because this statute is clear that it only applies if the government is acting per the law. But I want to zoom in on the "takes any action" part, because although this case is about the digital contents and not the physical phone.

Very obviously, he did not attempt to physically take back the phone, which is what this statute has historically criminalized. When it comes to the digital data, it is understood that the statute is about the copies that are stored on that particular phone. So as an example, if someone's phone is synced up to Google Photos, then there are now two copies: one local on the phone and one on Google's servers.

The statute is understood to only affect the destruction of the local copies on the phone, once it has been seized by the government. The copy on Google's servers is not subject to thus statute, because Google's servers was not seized. Under 18 USC 2232, it would be a crime to remotely wipe a phone. But not to clear out a Google Photos account, although this could be a separate crime of obstructing justice. IANAL.

So the question here is whether divulging a false unlock code is "knowingly" destroying evidence. Is it reasonably predictable that an agent will immediately try that unlock code, thus activating the erase feature? In an alternate world, the agent could have written down the code, kept the phone (which they did), and then allow Tunick back into the country, meanwhile the cybercrime division of the FBI determines whether they want to download the phone contents or not.

That is to say, if government action (typing in the false unlock code) is additionally required to complete the crime, can that really be ascribed to Tunick?

Consider that when the government inadvertently destroys evidence on their own, they cannot use 2232, such as failing to keep a computer powered up after seizure, resulting in all the RAM being lost. With that in mind, now imagine a phone where after entering a false unlock code, it starts a gacha game where failure to achieve a certain minimum score results in the phone being wiped. Can a phone's owner be charged with a crime because the agent lacks mobile gaming skills? What if there were an entire maze of steps, where any failure resulted in erasure? In the alternate, what if there was no auto-erase mechanism and it's just a simple "erase after ten wrong guesses" policy, and the agent already tried nine times?

I have a suspicion that this will turn on how "knowlingly" means, when applied to a feature in GrapheneOS that is explicitly meant for this exact situation, and whether just saying any code would be grounds for the charge. It might be different if the agent asked him to type it in himself, since that's a direct action. But telling someone a code and then they choose to type it in, eh.

On a separate note, what's telling is that the US Attorney did not charge him with lying to an agent. By definition, a false unlock code is not the code to unlock the phone. But who can say whether US Attorneys are still becoming of their office anymore.

You mean he exercised his 4th amendment right.

To be replaced by loyalists

The fact that New York had to answer the suit -- thus entering the adversarial phase -- with a motion to dismiss means that they had something they wanted to ask from the court, which the federal government contested. In this case, New York State won their motion to dismiss with prejudice, on the grounds that the federal government failed to state a claim.

All federal district courts are of limited jurisdiction, meaning they have to satisfy jurisdiction at the earliest onset. That the court is already looking into the sufficiency of the claims means that standing wasn't a barrier here. Indeed, the federal government -- if only they would competently follow the statute's requirements -- would definitely have standing. It's just that they had no case.

New York State made an ask (motion to dismiss) and got it with flying colors. This cannot be construed as anything but a successful defense. Aka, a win.