Monthly Archives: June 2020

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Liu v. Securities Exchange Commission

Leave a comment

All around douchebag, Charles Liu, was an investment manager who helped people from other countries invest in their money in United States interests, because such investments could help them to emigrate to the United States.

Liu was a shady motherfucker though, and didn’t use these investors’ money as he said he would.

So the SEC went after Liu to pay them (the courts are using the term “disgorge”) his ill-gotten gains.

I assume you already see a problem here. I didn’t say pay back the investors. I said pay the SEC. So the SEC thinks because Liu stole from these people, the SEC gets to steal it from Liu, and the investors who were harmed, have no relief.

Liu is challenging this on those grounds, saying the SEC doesn’t have a right to penalize him this way. Back in 2017, in a different case, Kokesh v. SEC, SCOTUS ruled such disgorgements were penalties, and not “equitable relief” which the Securities Act of 1933 allows for, and is at the heart of this case. So now SCOTUS must decide if disgorgement are allowed as “equitable relief” in the Securities Act.

While it might seem nice that Liu is saying that the SEC doesn’t have the right to steal the investor’s money, Liu isn’t proposing returning their money either. Somehow, the victim in this case isn’t even part of this suit, and apparently won’t be made whole in any way.

In an 8:1 decision, SCOTUS sided with Liu. That an SEC enforcement action is available as a remedy to the victims, not the SEC, up to the amount the perpetrator profited.

Hear oral arguments, and read about the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Banister v. Davis

Leave a comment

All around scumbag Gregory Dean Banister committed an act of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and got his dumb ass sent up the river for 30 years as a result. He struck and killed a bicyclist with his car.

He didn’t consent to a blood draw, but they did one anyway, and found cocaine in his system. So he’s arguing his rights were denied. But he also thought his attorney fucking sucked, because he failed to file a motion for this, as well as failed to investigate the weather at the time, presumably because he’s arguing the weather was shit, and that’s how he hit the guy.

He filed a habeas petition, which basically means, he feels he’s being unlawfully detained by the prison system.

So anyway, he was denied on the merits, which basically means they felt his argument was fucking garbage. This occurred on May 15, 2017. On June 12, 2017, Banister tried again, because according to Federal Rule 59(e) you have to file within 28 days of your judgement, and so he did. But here’s the rub. He filed an amendment to his first appeal, not a new one.

So he filed again on July 20, 2017. Eventually, they decided that he had passed the 28 day limit to file, because he filed an amended claim as opposed to a new one, which seems kinda shady if you ask me. Basically, they’re saying that the claims are more than 28 days apart, whereas Banister is like, “Fuck you, my amendment is effectively an appeal. I can’t file a new appeal until you asshole decided on my amended one.

I mean, fuck Banister, that piece of shit. But still, he kinda has a point.

Anyway, now SCOTUS has to decide if an amended habeas petiton counts as a successive habeaus petition.

Despite Banister being a total piece of shit, SCOTUS decided 7:2 in his favor. That a rule 59(e) motion is not a successive habeas petititon, and thus Banister’s appeal was within the time he’s given to do so.

Read about the case below for a more detailed analysis.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus

Argument preview: Justices to consider when a Rule 59 motion is actually a second-or-successive habeas petition

 

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

Leave a comment

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) is designed to prevent prisoners from tying up the courts with a million appeals and shit to try to get out of prison. These fuckheads have nothing else to do, but think about how to get out, so they’ll drop appeals on the courts like birds poop on a car under a tree.

Lomax, one of the fuckheads in question, filed an appeal forma pauperis (a term that means “without paying the usual court fees”) that while in prison many of his constitutional rights were violated.

Three of his claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Without prejudice just means that the courts allow the person submitting the claim, to amend and resubmit, whereas “with prejudice” would mean that the courts are politely telling them to go fuck themselves and not come back with this bullshit again.

The Failure to state a Claim aspect, basically means they submitted some bullshit that wasn’t even a crime, violation, or anything the courts feel they could act upon. Like, if I sue you for driving your car on the street, well I’m allowed to do that. So you have no fucking claim. Get it?

Anyway, the PLRA says when you lose an appeal, that’s a strike against you, and after three strikes, you can no longer file a forma pauperis request. Again, you’re cluttering up the courts. So fuck you, you’re going to pay for that shit.

So Lomax was like, “How the fuck you gonna call those claims strikes, when you dismissed without prejudice? You told me I could think about this shit some more, then come on back with a better argument, so here I fucking am, assholes.”

Lower courts told Lomax to take his shitty argument and go fuck himself. So here we are at SCOTUS trying to sort this out.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Ortiz-Marquez. That Dismissal without prejudice still counts as a fucking strike. Lomax was a colossal waste of time to the courts, and he should kindly go fuck himself.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Leave a comment

Native of Sri Lanka, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam tried to sneak his ass into this country through the Mexican border. However, his stealth skills were less than spectacular, and he got caught. He’s a part of a minority group in Sri Lanka known as a Tamil. It’s not a religious sect, it is just about where they’re originally from, similar to native Americans here.

He asked not to be sent back, because he argued he’d be tortured and such, if he did go back, due to his being a Tamil. But an asylum officer felt like he was full of shit, and just using that as an excuse, which is obviously quite common.

There’s an expedited removal process, passed in 1996, which basically says if your dumb ass gets caught near the border coming here illegally, officers can just send you back, without having to send you through some bureaucracy system, costing taxpayers a shitload of money.

But in Vijay’s case, since he claimed fear of persecution, that complicates things a bit, and he at least gets an opportunity to be heard on that issue, called a credible-fear interview.

While Vijay claimed he’d been attacked and severely beaten, and the officer felt that story was likely true (maybe there were scars to substantiate?), he didn’t really show how this was because he was Tamil, and that it wasn’t just some random act of violence.

Vijay filed a habeus motion (a fancy way of exercising their constitutional right to challenge the government’s right to hold them in prison) to stay his removal, because he argued the interpreter was shit, and that the officer reviewing his case, didn’t hear or understand all the facts, and therefore his credible-fear interview wasn’t worth a damn.

But, in the law surrounding the expedited removal process, Congress ordered that judges may only consider three subjects:

  • Was Vijay not an American resident
  • Had the officer issued a valid removal order
  • Had Vijay been given asylum or allowed permanent residence before

Since Vijay’s argument was basically over a language barrier, the courts told him to fuck off.

So now SCOTUS has to decide if the courts can in fact consider Vijay’s argument under the Constitutional habeus rule, and give judicial review to his claim. Or if the expedited-deportation law usurps that.

The government argues, habeus right do not apply to everyone in the world, but only to Americans, which Vijay is not.

In a 7:2 decision, SCOTUS told Vijay to go suck a bag of dicks. That basically, a non-citizen who is here illegally only has certain rights specifically afforded to non-citizens. Due process, being one of those.

So back to Sri Lanka Vijay goes.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc.

Leave a comment

Two meaningless assholes in the fashion industry are fighting about the word “lucky” here. Marcel Fashions, in their infinite marketing genius, came up with a “Get Lucky” marketing campaign which I’ve never even heard of.

Lucky Brand Dungarees comes along, and puts their actual name on their products.

Somehow, Marcel believes that Lucky Brand as a name is somehow infringing on their “Get Lucky” marketing campaign, and therefore sued for copyright infringement.

Eventually these two worthless fucks settled their dispute in 2003, and Lucky brand agreed to stop using certain campaigns Marcel took offense to, specifically they agreed not to use anything saying “get lucky,” and Marcel agreed not to sue anymore as long as they didn’t.

As any company does, Lucky Brand continued making new marketing campaigns, and of course, those campaigns involved the word “Lucky,” which then pissed off Marcel, despite the fact they continued to avoid using “Get Lucky” as per their agreement. So Marcel would sue yet again, and Lucky Brands would be like, “We settled this, you assholes. We have a deal, remember?”

But then Marcel was like, “But these are new uses that hurt our feelings in a new way, and therefore aren’t part of our original settlement.”

So there’s a preclusion rule, that is basically designed to prevent companies from re-litigating the same shit over and over again. Settle it once and for all and move the fuck on already. These assholes have been going at this for 20 fucking years.

So SCOTUS is being asked to decide if preclusion rules apply here, and therefore should Marcel politely go fuck themselves.

Marcel is arguing that basically every time Lucky launches a new campaign with Lucky in the campaign, it can’t possibly have been included in the original settlement, since it happened after the fact. Therefore, they have cause to sue if their feelings are hurt by the new campaign.

Lucky Brands is arguing that Lucky is part of their name, and they should be able to use their own damn name. Plus, there’s no way when they settled, that they could anticipate what they were going to come up with as a marketing plan in future years. So as long as they seem to be in line with the spirit of the settlement, Marcel are just being a bunch of whiny little bitches. They also contend they agreed not to use “Get Lucky” which they’ve continued not to do. So they’re in compliance with their agreement.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Lucky Brand. That this matter was settled with their initial agreement, and Marcel can fuck right the hell off. Lucky Brand’s defense can be used to defend against these new claims, because these new uses are different than the claim that was settled previously, with the use of “Get Lucky,” and therefore such claims should be dismissed.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

Leave a comment

As you know, unless you’ve been under a fucking rock for the last decade, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under president Obama, started a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The program basically gave work visas to kids who were brought here illegally, presumably not a choice they made themselves, but a decision forced upon them by parents who came here illegally. Since these kids would largely grow up as Americans, Obama and his supporters felt they should be allowed to stay, and this provided a framework for doing so.

Once Trump took office, he instructed the DHS to terminate DACA, as part of his anti-illegal-immigration initiatives he campaigned on. The Trump administration basically argued that Obama was out of line passing this law, and therefore it shouldn’t be law in the first place.

Regents agreed that Trump has the right to set new policy, but because Trump argued that this law was improperly enacted, and that was his reason for ending it, this was an improper cancellation of the law, and lower courts agreed, which is why we’re now here at SCOTUS, and the current DHS is demanding a reversal of that decision.

Regents also argued that because DACA participants had been essentially told they would get to stay and get a work visa, and thus potentially planned their lives accordingly, versus self-deporting on their own terms, this reversal by Trump & Company, would cause irreparable harm.

So SCOTUS has decided to answer the question as to whether this is a matter for the courts to decide, or if this is something for the other two branches to sort the fuck out. And if it is the purview of the courts, was DHS right in winding down DACA?

In a 5:4 decision, where John Roberts sided with the “left-leaning” justices, SCOTUS decided that they did in fact have authority to rule on this, and so they would.

They decided that Trump’s decision to repeal this law was basically some racist bullshit that violates the 5th amendment’s equal protection of the law, statute. They said that it was arbitrary and capricious, which is a fancy term that basically means, it was a decision both made without any reasonable consideration of the facts, but also, he didn’t think about the ramifications of what he did, and how it might had many consequences that are unfair he didn’t think about.

So for now, DACA stays.