Virgil Abt

Kirk does Judo chops, Spock just fucking punches the guy lol

The Windrush scandal was a British political scandal that began in 2018 concerning people who were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and in at least 83 cases[1][2][3] wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office. Many of those affected had been born British subjects and had arrived in the UK before 1973, particularly from Caribbean countries, as members of the "Windrush generation"[4] (so named after the Empire Windrush, the ship that brought one of the first groups of West Indian migrants to the UK in 1948).[5]

I know little about it, but per Wikipedia, Windrush apparently had a big awareness-boosting event in 2018.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrus...

Amtrak 1970s ad shows a train coming out of the business end of a fuel pump labeled "U.S.A. RAIL PASS". There is a green cum-splash at the tip of the pump nozzle, which is also seen in a reflection on the pump's side.

Looks like they were using an illustrator who habitually worked a cum splash into everything.
energyhistory.yale.edu/1970s-amtrak...

Excellent live-tweeting thread here about the E.D.N.C U.S. Attorney's office's AI-assisted fraud in their briefs.
Things are going great for the two AUSA's in court today, at least one of whom has been lying to the judge's face.
bsky.app/profile/rand...

Excellent live-tweeting thread here about the E.D.N.C U.S. Attorney's office's AI-assisted fraud in their briefs.
Things are going great for the two AUSA's in court today, at least one of whom has been lying to the judge's face.
bsky.app/profile/rand...

I don't think Trump nor anyone else in the administration ever said Noem had left office or would be leaving before the end of March, and yet everybody reported it as something that had already happened. It's driving me nuts.
truthsocial.com/@realDonaldT...
bsky.app/profile/abtn...

How interesting. You say there was no final ruling on the merits, so if (God forbid) Charles, William, and George all died tomorrow, it would be an open question whether Canada's monarch was Charlotte or Louis?
Did AU and NZ make the change more cleanly, or would things be muddled down there, too?

Protip: in a phrase like "Crashes Per Million Miles (IPMM)", you can replace the "Per" (or the "P") with a "/", and then you'll notice that what's to the right of it is a denominator.

Seems to have been a bit of an underestimation of the danger after the court's first order.
bsky.app/profile/abtn...

No. 2:25-cv-00041-M-RN DERENCE FIVEHOUSE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD [DE 82; DE 83] Defendants, through undersigned counsel, hereby submit this surreply to address the specific issue of erroneous case citations raised by Plaintiff in Plaintiff's reply, [D.E. 89], to Defendants’ response in opposition, [D.E. 86], to Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative record, [D.E. 82]. In its prior response in opposition, see [D.E. 86], Defendants inadvertently included incorrect citations to case law from this Circuit. Defendants sincerely apologize to the Court for this error. The error was clerical in nature and resulted from the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft document. Defendant takes full responsibility for this error. While the citations themselves were erroneous1, the cases 1 Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants’ citation to Ohio Valley at the top of page 3 is erroneous is without merit. The citation attributed to Ohio Valley for the statement that APA review “is limited to the administrative record that was before the agency at the time of its decision[]” is found at Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 201 (2009) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973) (per curiam).

were actual cases from this Circuit and the legal principles they were cited to support remain sound and have been well-established by precedent in this Circuit. Based on the above, Defendants would respectfully request that the Court either 1) strike the erroneous case citations identified by Plaintiff or, alternatively, 2) accept for filing the attached exhibit which is a redlined version of the document Defendants intended to file as a response. See [Exhibit 1]. Respectfully submitted this 20th day of January, 2026. W. ELLIS BOYLE United States Attorney BY: /s/ Rudy E. Renfer RUDY E. RENFER Assistant United States Attorney Civil Division 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2100 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-4530 Email: rudy.e.renfer@usdoj.gov N.C. Bar # 23513 Attorney for Defendants

My god, they really tried to get away with responding to this almost that briefly.
ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/doc1/1311105...

Today in Making United States Attorneys Get Attorneys.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:25-CV-00041-M Derence V. Fivehouse, Plaintiff, Show Cause Order v. United States Department of Defense et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Derence V. Fivehouse has challenged decisions by the United States Department of Defense regarding veterans’ health care benefits under the Administrative Procedure Act. In opposing Fivehouse’s motion to supplement the administrative record (D.E. 82), Defendants filed a response signed by Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer (D.E. 86). In his reply, Fivehouse asserted that the response brief contained fabricated quotations and misstated the holdings of several cases. Reply at 4–5, D.E. 89. The court directed Renfer to respond. In a surreply, he stated that he “inadvertently included incorrect citations to case law from this Circuit,” attributing the errors to the “inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft document.” Surreply at 1, D.E. 109. He asked the court to strike the disputed quotations and misstatements or to accept what he described as the finalized version of the brief. Id. at 3. Having reviewed the filings in this matter and other submissions by Renfer, the court has serious concerns about the accuracy of certain quotations and representations in Renfer’s filings, and the explanation offered for their inclusion. Case 2:25-cv-00041-M-RN Document 119 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 4

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and the court’s inherent authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys appearing before it, the court orders Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The conduct at issue includes: 1. The inclusion of fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings in Defendants’ response to Fivehouse’s motion to supplement the administrative record (D.E. 86), including citations to Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009), Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 637 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2011), and Sierra Club v. United States Department of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018). 2. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation in Defendants’ response opposing Fivehouse’s motion concerning compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 16 (D.E. 79), citing South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance Commission v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 129, 130 (4th Cir. 1990). 3. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation in Defendants’ response opposing Fivehouse’s motion asking the court to take judicial notice of certain matters (D.E. 80), citing South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance Commission v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 129, 130 (4th Cir. 1990). 4. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation from 32 C.F.R. § 199.21(d) in Defendants’ response opposing Fivehouse’s motion for a preliminary injunction (D.E. 39). 5. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation from 32 C.F.R. § 199.21(d) in Defendants’ response opposing Fivehouse’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 90).

6. Making false or misleading statements regarding how and why the fabricated quotations and misstatements appeared in D.E. 86. If established, such conduct may implicate North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). If a violation is established, the court may impose any sanction authorized by Rule 11, its inherent authority, or other applicable law. Potential sanctions include, but are not limited to: • Monetary sanctions, including payment of a fine to the court; • Payment of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of sanctionable conduct; • Mandatory continuing legal education; • Referral for disciplinary proceedings under this court’s Local Civil Rules; • Referral to the North Carolina State Bar for disciplinary proceedings; • Suspension from practice before this court; • Initiation of contempt proceedings; or • Any other appropriate sanction. Rule 11(c)(1) provides that a law firm must be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its attorneys absent exceptional circumstances. The court therefore orders that a representative of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina appear and show cause why, if the court determines that Renfer violated Rule 11, that Office should not also be held jointly responsible. The show cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. at the Terry Sanford Federal Building and Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Because of the seriousness of these issues, the court requests that one or more members of the leadership of the United States Attorney’s Office attend and participate. The court also encourages the United States Attorney to review this matter in advance of the hearing and to take any corrective action deemed appropriate. The court will consider any such action in determining whether sanctions are warranted and, if so, their nature. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order by email to: • The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina; • The First Assistant United States Attorney; and • The Chief of the Civil Division. Fivehouse may attend the hearing but is not required to do so. Dated: ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: ______________________________________ Robert T. Numbers, II United States Magistrate Judge

I just recapped the show-cause order:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nced.221403/gov.uscourts.nced.221403.119.0.pdf

Ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urges Trump admin to ‘take care’ of Iran for good: ‘Render them incapable’ “If you can render Iran essentially incapable of military action against us and against our allies thats worthy, and I think what they’re trying to do is to neuter Iran as a military power in the r…

Unfortunately, Rice seems to be completely unappalled here and has adopted the We've-been-at-war-with-Iran-since-1979 line.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvFi...
nypost.com/2026/03/04/u...

Heather Dinich Feb 26, 2026, 09:21 PM ET Follow Share LikeLike Open Extended Reactions LikeLaughWow 1.7K The Power 4 conference commissioners are expected to join dozens of sports celebrities and dignitaries on March 6 at the White House in a roundtable discussion with President Donald Trump about the future of college athletics, multiple sources confirmed to ESPN on Thursday. President Trump will chair the group, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and New York Yankees president Randy Levine are listed as vice chairs, according to a source who provided a list of 35 people who received invitations. The list also includes: Golfer Tiger Woods Former college football coaches Nick Saban, Mack Brown and Urban Meyer Former secretary of state and College Football Playoff selection committee member Condoleezza Rice

She's just there as a sportsball official, not a war advisor.
www.espn.com/college-foot...

And why did she need his name "so she could press charges"? Did she make a police report and they just laughed at her or something? In a functioning system, I would expect the police to ask Tesla for the assailant's identity.

If you don't pass laws like this you'll get people one simple tricking their way around UPL and other professional requirements claiming that it's the magic software and not them. It's pretty straightforward statutory consumer fraud and it doesn't become censorship because software is involved.

And timeline-wise, it should be "to remove" not "removes" when someone announces intent to do something a month from now.

Circuit Rule 42 Voluntary Dismissal in a Criminal Case In a criminal case, counsel must submit a motion to the court requesting dismissal, with service on opposing counsel. If the appellant was the defendant in district court, the motion must be accompanied by an affidavit from the appellant, stating that the appellant has been fully informed of the circumstances of the case and of the consequences of a dismissal, and wishes to dismiss the appeal. The affidavit must also recite the appellant’s satisfaction with the services of counsel. See Circuit Rule 27(f) (Dispositive Motions).

They should probably expand D.C. Cir. Rule 42 to cover other vulnerable, unsophisticated parties, like POTUS.
www.cadc.uscourts.gov/sites/cadc/f...

Circuit Rule 42 Voluntary Dismissal in a Criminal Case In a criminal case, counsel must submit a motion to the court requesting dismissal, with service on opposing counsel. If the appellant was the defendant in district court, the motion must be accompanied by an affidavit from the appellant, stating that the appellant has been fully informed of the circumstances of the case and of the consequences of a dismissal, and wishes to dismiss the appeal. The affidavit must also recite the appellant’s satisfaction with the services of counsel. See Circuit Rule 27(f) (Dispositive Motions).

They should probably expand D.C. Cir. Rule 42 to cover other vulnerable, unsophisticated parties, like POTUS.
www.cadc.uscourts.gov/sites/cadc/f...

On the one hand, you have the appellees who have been inconvenienced by appellants' about-face, and on the other you have no reason at all given for why appellants wish to get to make a decision twice rather than the usual once. Isn't that good enough cause to side with appellees?

It's pretty amazing that they're giving no reason at all for the court to make a discretionary decision to cut them some slack, instead apparently contending that the court *must* grant the motion to withdraw, because of their "prerogative", for which they cite absolutely no authority.

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS APPEALS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2), Defendant-Appellants respectfully move to voluntarily dismiss these consolidated appeals, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs. Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellees have authorized Defendant-Appellants to state that Plaintiff-Appellees consent to this motion.

Does yesterday's motion and the appellees' "authorization to state [they] consent" count as a "signed dismissal agreement"? I don't think it quite suffices, and appellants were correct to cite 42(b)(2), rather than (b)(1).
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military

Appears to be from here:
jonathanlarsen.substack.com/p/us-troops-...

No, and I haven't been using the non-pdf pages much, either. Weird. But it does seem like this is maybe just a problem for me, and I expect to soon be changing my computer and my ISP, so I'll just wait and see if that fixes things. Thanks for the responses.

Not at all. And I'm using a residential Comcast connection and not knowingly adding any proxy layers. Are you using Cloudfare or something that is somehow pooling me in with many others? How is the server deciding what makes two requests come from the same "you"?

... Or are my http requests coming in from an IP address also being used by many others? What sort of numbers are you having to limit each IP address to?

Hi, You have hit this error because you attempted to gather too many documents from CourtListener during a given block of time. Unfortunately, it costs us money every time somebody downloads something, so we have to be careful that folks don't run up our bills too much. It's easy to forget in this digital era that computers are made of sand and metal and that real electrons course through their veins. But it's true, and when you have as many documents as we do, it's a real possibility that somebody might come along and use more of that raw matter than you can afford. If you are an individual that is hitting this error, please know that it will automatically reset within a few minutes. Sorry about this. If you are a partner or a data scraper that needs enhanced access to our data, let's talk if we haven't already: info@free.law. Sorry for the trouble, The Bots at Free Law Project

@michaeljaylissner.com I keep getting messages like this when "too many" was three documents and "block of time" was 24 hours, which seems extremely paltry for a project that "seeks to provide free access". Are you really limiting IPs that retrieved fewer than a dozen docs in the last day? ...

Paragraph 4 and the "or otherwise left" in paragraph 3 seem contradictory to me. Should have at least started paragraph 4 with a "But".

§ 240.10b5-1 Trading “on the basis of” material nonpublic information in insider trading cases. (a) Manipulative or deceptive devices. The “manipulative or deceptive device[s] or contrivance[s]” prohibited by Section 10(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78j) and § 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5) thereunder include, among other things, the purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence that is owed directly, indirectly, or derivatively, to the issuer of that security or the shareholders of that issuer, or to any other person who is the source of the material nonpublic information.

But the person must also be breaching "a duty of trust or confidence that is owed" to the company, which is why an outsider who overheard something isn't considered an insider.

But I see at the end there is that "or to any other person". I guess the "other person" could be the U.S.?
@ejacobslaw.com

Aren't "insider trading" laws all directed at company insiders? I think it would have to be charged as some kind of public corruption offense.