The way people will confidently gobble up lies when the truth is publicly available, lol. There is no “pre-trial judge” on the federal Mangione case yet, because it’s currently unassigned.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I guess if I had to really, really short summarize what a magistrate does I can.... almost see that as a shorthand? Like if someone has no idea how the US legal system works?
Gosh I can't wait until the judge for the case once went on a date with someone who applied to health insurance companies.
This, to be honest, is the least of the problems here. "Pretrial judge" is a decent colloquial description of many of the roles of USMJs, particularly in civil cases. But as you've noted, this isn't a civil case and she isn't even the assigned magistrate.
I don’t know what they mean by “pre-trial” judge in federal court. But the “unassigned” in that listing means no Article 3 judge has been assigned. Whether or not a magistrate judge is currently doing anything on the case is a separate issue.
They don't mean anything, it's not a real term. Judge Parker was assigned to the arraignment docket that day; she handled his arraignment, and she's done.
One and only one thing is certain right now: The Sexy Killer’s opinions about healthcare and justice are exactly the same as mine and, if and when he opens his mouth to explain himself, there is no possibility of my regretting this stance
After Twitter, my bar is so low. Once, I would have thought a "thank you for this information" and maybe an apology for calling Kathryn "an asshole on the internet" would be nice. Now, someone deleting rather than delaminating into crude body-part insults seems great.
It's *really* fascinating how little original reporting or even supplemental reporting that most of the media does. This is all literally people picking up Ken's story and assuming it's 100% accurate. It makes me appreciate the journalists that do original reporting or critical review of reporting.
I predict that she's going to go to the "appearance of impropriety" well next. Pro tip, Brook -- before you do that, look up what that *actually* means as opposed to what you *think* it means. Start here. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-drexel-burnham-lambert-inc-2
Judging by the posting history on her account, she will probably go to almost any length to try to get the dude acquitted. She is starting from the premise that he did nothing wrong and working backwards.
She's free to advocate for that. He's innocent until proven guilty, after all, and there's plenty I don't love about how this case has been handled so far. But if she's willing to promote lies to do it, that gets a biiiiiig side-eye from me and imho should do so from everyone.
And part of the problem I have with this arraignment story is that there's plenty of opportunity for him to get railroaded down the road and these people are blowing their wad over something that isn't an issue.
I object to there being federal charges at all. Not only should this magistrate judge not handle any of it—no federal judge should be.
But hammering on the stupid conflict theory is either dishonest or ignorant. If you think Luigi M shouldn’t be convicted, you can explain why. But this is just BS.
So many actual problems in the CJ system, but rather than ask things like "why are the feds charging already?" these dorks want to focus on completely irrelevant shit
And that's okay! It's okay to get upset by the story even! Because the source of the story is someone who we're supposed to trust as having integrity. When you're shown otherwise and dig your heels in, that's where the problem starts.
Like I said elsewhere, thanks Ken. Real blue falcon energy.
Yo Lord, Anti-matter, The Sun, whatever is out there.
Please never let me even in my darkest hour be this belligerently cocky and rude when I'm wrong. Give me the grace and ability to either google first before I type, or just ask "Please explain I'm not understanding."
It happens all the time. Just had someone linking me to “hundreds of thousands of dollars of stocks INCLUDING healthcare stocks” as a source that the judge has “hundreds of thousands of dollars OF healthcare stocks.”
(Then they said this is just quibbling over “wording.” 😭)
Honestly this seems extreme to delete your account over! Like, it’s okay to just admit you’re wrong about a topic that isn’t even your line of work and move on. 🤷🏻♀️
I try to be mindful of quote-skeeting, because when you have a Madison-Square-Garden-capacity number of people following you, you kind of have to be. But, well, if someone does it first, and in that belligerent away? I didn't start shit, but I'mma tell you how it ends.
I looked up what appears to be her LinkedIn and she appears to be a recruiter and it doesn't look like legal recruiting. I thought there would be at least some connection to the legal world, tbh.
It's possible she was getting dogpiled beyond belief. Bluesky currently has no option to make your account private, so deleting might have been the response of last resort. Not sure and if so not your fault, but just throwing it out there.
Sometimes I wonder whether the reason folks get so mad at legal types for wading into and out of arguments without much emotional concern for getting things wrong is because we are confronted with being wrong on an extremely frequent basis and are totally desensitized to it.
An academically rigorous grad school program training people for the professorial track did the same for me. You make strong arguments for the hypothesis and give way for better arguments. Everyone wins in the end, with stronger ideas. 1/2
It teaches you to separate your value as a person from the rightness and value of the thing you create (an idea, a product, a proposal). If you’re lucky you collaborate with others better, you don’t get your feelings hurt and you are more successful. (especially if you ditch academia)
I've got into knock-down, drag out fights with other lawyers and the like on here that have resolved perfectly amicably with a "oh, you're right, my mistake."
Obviously the quality is not unique to legal professionals, but it definitely seems more common.
If she ever actually makes a mistake, she'll tell you about it.
This is integrity, it should be honored.
She won't just lie to you then delete when called out, she will explain how it happened & apologize.
I honestly can't believe that she took an article from a college newspaper, in a different state, written by a junior studying computer science, as a credible source for her argument. College papers do some damn fine reporting but this ain't it. Someone should contact them for a correction.
Hell, wouldn’t a financial interest in a competitor to the AV’s company (whose stock went up after the shooting) imply a pro-defendant bias if it implied bias at all?
Well, they also ignore the fact that the judge's spouse worked for a pharmaceutical company which has their own reasons to hate on insurance companies, self-serving as it may be.
It's just bad and stupid and wrong on multiple levels.
The media is desperate to get clicks on a hot topic and any judge involved is going to get 50 column inches of really uninforned reportage as soon as their name pops on any hearing. Pretrial evidence hearings may get diff magistrates and there will be a dozen stories by noon. 😣
How can you denigrate the work of Judge Jane J. Unassigned, who has for years worked on pretrial minutia without receiving proper credit?? For shame, Kathryn.
I will say that I keep learning things on this app by lurking in these conversations! I'm not sure whether to thank the people who argue with Kathryn & the other LawSky folks, but I definitely thank her!
Comments
Nah, man. It'd also be a weird dynamic if something like that was a thing.
Dealing with objections would be a nightmare.
Gosh I can't wait until the judge for the case once went on a date with someone who applied to health insurance companies.
@thebluemage.bsky.social
A bunch of media reported the minority as THE Report because of misleading lobbyist press releases.
I contacted one reputable editor abt their story. His reply: We stand by our reporter. 🤷♂️
But hammering on the stupid conflict theory is either dishonest or ignorant. If you think Luigi M shouldn’t be convicted, you can explain why. But this is just BS.
Like I said elsewhere, thanks Ken. Real blue falcon energy.
😳
Jfk, I'm just a nobody non-lawyer type who follows you and I'm nearly dying of second hand shame just reading that.
👍
Please never let me even in my darkest hour be this belligerently cocky and rude when I'm wrong. Give me the grace and ability to either google first before I type, or just ask "Please explain I'm not understanding."
(Then they said this is just quibbling over “wording.” 😭)
(Sorry for the double spost but those typos were way too terrible to let stand)
If you hit me, I'm kicking your ass. Doesn't matter whether that outcome was inevitable. Don't want none, won't be none.
Obviously the quality is not unique to legal professionals, but it definitely seems more common.
I kinda feel like, in a small way, I helped. :)
Never bet against Kathryn.
If she ever actually makes a mistake, she'll tell you about it.
This is integrity, it should be honored.
She won't just lie to you then delete when called out, she will explain how it happened & apologize.
Expect this more often.
It's just bad and stupid and wrong on multiple levels.
The supposed conflict is coming from her husband working for and having stock in a pharmaceutical company?
I at least assumed it was that he worked for Aetna or Cigna, that could at least imply to a layperson a “likes health insurance executives” bias.
Goddamn
Just sayin.
"Dude, if you shovel any faster you'll be a backhoe"