Average Joe SCOTUS: Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

So, this shitty ass bank, United Western Bancorp, Inc. (UWBI) had several subsidiaries, including United Western Bank. They apparently sucked at what they did, because they were losing money like they stored it in a toilet that just kept getting flushed.

Anyway, when you own several companies as a parent company, you can file one big ass tax form each year for the parent company instead of a bunch of little forms for each of your subsidiaries, so that’s what these assholes did.

Well, one of their branches United Western Bank (UWB) lost so much damn money, they qualified for a $4,000,000 tax refund. So the parent UWBI was like, “gimme that money, bitches.” Rodriguez, they’re Chapter 7 attorney, and the petitioner here, filed one big ass return for all of UWBI, claiming the losses of UWB, and getting that big ass refund as a result.

However, the FDIC had closed down UWB (the subsidiary), and took them into receivership because they were the shittiest bank that ever banked.  Now UWBI (the parent) was told that the FDIC was taking UWBI’s refund, because they argued it went to UWB since they were the source of the loss, and therefore the FDIC would use that money to pay its debtors.

But UWBI was like, “Fuck you, you government pricks. We need that money.” So one court agreed, another court didn’t, as is usual. And eventually, these assholes found their way to SCOTUS.

In 1973, the courts had ruled on a previous case where they decided that a refund of this nature, absent any other agreement, belonged to the parent company. They call this the Bob Richards rule, because that’s the case it was named after in 1973.

But the FDIC is arguing that they did have an agreement between the subsidiary and the parent, and therefore the Bob Richards rule does not apply.

You can read about the case and hear oral arguments here.

Also, a pretty detailed analysis here and here.

So SCOTUS is now being asked whether state law or federal law determine who gets a tax refund. Because state law would mean Rodriguez wins. SCOTUS being keen on state’s rights determined that the state can and should handle this shit, and unanimously decided for Rodriguez, telling the FDIC to go eat a bag of dicks.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Peter v. NantKwest

So this dude, Dr. Hans Klingemann was doing some work on immunotherapy, and discover what was termed natural killer cells, as an effective method for going after and killing cancer. So he worked with the company NantKwest to patent this shit.

Problem for Doc Lingemann, was this comes form the patient’s own blood, and not necessarily something Klingemann makes himself. So the Patent Office was all like, “You’re joking with this shit, right? Get the fuck out of here.” His Patent claim was denied as “obvious.” You don’t get to patent naturally occurring shit, and try to take credit for mother nature’s work.

Klingemann and NantKwest were persistent fucks, because they appealed, and their dumb asses lost again. So then they appealed to the U.S. District course, and lost the fuck yet again.

You’d think this would be over, but no.

You see, the Patent Office had to pay motherfuckers to justify their position through all these hearings and appeals, and so the USPTO was like, “You cost us $113,000 you motherfucker. We want our money back for you wasting our time.”

According to 35 U.S.C. § 145, “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” of these hearings are recoverable by the PTO if they win their judgement. But a district court was like, “Seriously, PTO? It’s bad enough you denied this guy his patent, you want him to pay your legal fees, too? Come on with this bullshit. In this country, you pay your attorneys, and I pay mine. That’s how it fucking works. Now piss off. Your recoverable expenses are paying for expert witnesses and shit, nothing more.” Judgement for NantKwest.

But now the PTO are the persistent fucks, because they’re like, “Fuck you, you lower court motherfuckers, we’re going to SCOTUS. We want our fucking money.”

So, here were are at SCOTUS to determine if the 35 U.S.C. § 145, “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” statement trumps all the legal precedent in U.S. history and considers legal fees are part of the expenses or not.

SCOTUS unanimously ruled in favor Nantkwest, telling the USPTO to go fuck themselves. You pay your legal fees, and they pay theirs. Nuff said.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Monasky v. Taglieri

Michelle Monasky, the petitioner, decided American men just weren’t for her, and so she decided to marry this Italian prick Domenico Taglieri. They were married in the US, but after a couple years later, moved to Italy.

Taglieri was an abusive fuck, but apparently in a moment of intimacy, got Monasky pregnant. Monasky and Taglieri split up in Italy for work reasons, and resided a couple hours from each other. While she was pregnant, she eventually decided she’d had enough of Taglieri’s bullshit, and began considering coming home to the USA.

Once the baby was born, she applied for a visa for the tyke, and came home.

Taglieri, didn’t find this funny at all. So he sued in an Italian court to have the child returned.

The Hague Convention that most civilized countries are a part of, has rules against one parent taking a baby out of its home country, to get away from another parent, without expressed permission. However the wording is a little vague, because they don’t say, “from the country the child was born in” or a very objective term like that.

Instead, they wrote it as “under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal.”

Since the kid was only a couple months old, it wasn’t even old enough to have a fucking habit. It was in Never-Never-Land as far as it knew.

A district court agreed Monasky must return her child to Italy, according to Hague rules. But, she’s fighting it as you might expect, arguing that her child wasn’t old enough to be “habitual” at anything.

And besides, Taglieri is a physically abusive prick, remember?

So now she’s asking SCOTUS to tell the district court they’re a bunch of morons, and rule in favor of her, saying that she didn’t violate Hague Convention rules, and allow her to keep her child here in the USA.

SCOTUS reviewed and unanimously sided with Taglieri. A child’s habitual residence is based on the all the information about their residence, not some bullshit agreement between the parents or something. For his short ass little life, the kid was Italian. So he is to be returned to Italy until this shit can be settled otherwise.


Argument preview: Justices return to international child-custody convention




Average Joe SCOTUS: McKinney v. Arizona

All around piece of shit, James McKinney, had a horrific childhood fraught with abuse. He started drinking and smoking weed by age 11, dropped out of school, ran away from home, shit like that. You kinda feel for the guy, but still, as an adult, he’s a total douchebag.

Anyway, he eventually committed robbery with his half-brother and two people were killed. So McKinney was convicted and sentenced to death.

No one wants to die, including McKinney. So because of the PTSD he suffered as a young kid, he believes that to be a mitigating factor in why he’s such a piece of shit now. Which is maybe true, but so long as you’re not delusional, you fucking know it’s wrong, and that you shouldn’t do it. So I’ve personally got little sympathy.

However that’s not important, I’m not trying this case.

So why are we here at SCOTUS? Well, SCOTUS in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), determined that any mitigating evidence should be considered in a death penalty case, and therefore McKinney thinks his PTSD diagnosis is mitigating, and therefore would like not to be executed, please and thank you.

And also, in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), SCOTUS ruled that Death Penalty must be imposed by a jury sentencing hearing, and not by a judge. But Arizona was like, “Fuck you, that ruling happened after this mother fucker was convicted.”

But McKinney’s lawyer is nothing but creative. He wants a resentencing based on Eddings, which he believes must consider McKinney’s PTSD. Then he thinks that resentencing must be held to today’s standard as a result of Rings, that a jury must award the death penalty.

So now SCOTUS must determine whether this prick gets a needle in his arm or not.

The “liberal” justices agreed with McKinney. They make a fairly compelling argument that if SCOTUS makes a constitutional ruling, that the constitution shouldn’t be subject to timing. In other words, if it’s unconstitutional, it was always unconstitutional. It shouldn’t be deemed only unconstitutional after they hand down their ruling. Thus, they believe all such ruling should be retroactive and applied as such, to any relevant case.

However, Ginburg and her merry band of left-leaning cohorts are in the minority. The right-leaning majority decided that an appellate court can decide if they fucking want, and there’s no reason to retroactively change this. Ruling for Arizona, and goodbye McKinney.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma

This dude Sulyma worked for Intel from 2010-2012, and as such was involved in their retirement plan.

Because government hasn’t found an industry it can resist regulating, taxing, or both, it passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which sets standards as to how investments are supposed to be diversified and other shit like that.

Intel had run afoul of these guidelines, and as such, Sulyma potentially lost potential income/gains in his retirement plan. It should be known, that had they diversified better, it’s not a guarantee that the other funds they might’ve invested in, would have done any better whatsoever. So Sulyma’s argument is purely hypothetical, versus having an objective understanding of the different in performance he might’ve expected.

So Sulyma decided to sue Intel in 2015, because fuck it, suing people is the American way, right? I have a shiny dollar that says he got his dumb ass fired, and was merely seeking revenge, but ahh well, that’s not important.

ERISA has a 3 year time bar, which says, ““from the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation.” 2012-2015 is the time we’re discussing, so  guess what? This dude is just over his three years. But Sulyma and his ambulance chaser are nothing if not creative.

So these assholes are saying, “Sure, you sent us like all kinds of paperwork that told us precisely what you invested my retirement money in. Sure, I should have read through it. But I’m lazy AF, and I didn’t. Fuck you. So that means, I didn’t know shit. And therefore, I had no knowledge that Intel was fucking up until I did read that shit. Therefore, it hasn’t been three years since I knew you were in breech, you motherfuckers. The law says “actual knowledge” not a possibility of knowledge.”

So here we are at SCOTUS deciding if Sulyma’s neglect, is a good enough excuse to allow him to sue past the time bar.

SCOTUS decided that the wording of the law is pretty clear. Even if Sulyma’s a dumb fuck who screwed up, the law is written with the phrase of “actual knowledge” and there’s no fucking way you can define that as anything other than this dumb fuck actually knew it. Not, that he had the opportunity to know it.

Unanimous decision for Sulyma.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Holguin-Hernandez v. United States

SCOTUS must be bored AF to take on this one. But anyway, basically this Holguin-Hernandez dude (We’ll call him HH because I don’t feel like typing that shit out again) got his dumb ass busted with a little weedy-weed in his pockety-pocket. Enough weed in fact, the state assumed he meant to sell some of it.

HH got 2 years in jail, and 2 years supervised release. So anyway, this dumb fuck gets out, and goes straight back to slinging hash. We all know weed makes you stupid, right? Well he got busted again. So the judge revokes his release and re-sentences him for his new crime.

His lawyer asked the sentences be concurrent. Which basically means, they wanted whatever time he had left for his old crime to be served at the same time he served for his new crime. So if he had 12 months left on his old clock, and his new term was another two years, he’d just be in prison for two years. Get it?

But the judge told them to shove that concurrent option straight up their ass, and sentenced him to consecutive sentences instead. Which means he’ll serve one after the other. When sentenced, he didn’t raise any objection, he just bent over and took it like a man. But later, he tried to appeal.

On appeal, the courts were like, “If you were going to appeal, you should have objected at trial, and you didn’t. So fuck you and your appeal.” But HH was like, “Dude, my lawyer was an incompetent fuck, and he didn’t tell me that.”

But the courts were unsurprisingly without sympathy. So here we are at SCOTUS determining if his shitty attorney argument is gonna get him the concurrent sentence relief he’s hoping for.

SCOTUS felt HH made a fair argument, and unanimously sided with him. Assuming his dumb fuck lawyer didn’t manage his trial well, it’s also fair to assume his dumb fuck lawyer failed to advise him to question his sentence during sentencing in order to be able to appeal.

SCOTUS felt the right to appeal shouldn’t be jeopardized in the way.