brandon.boomajoom.com
Law, political theory, language, computers.
Attorney at schwartzapc.com
President at boomajoom.com
Nothing I post is legal advice, and I’m not your attorney. Occasional Escrow Manager.
5,147 posts
174 followers
130 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
How would it be to the state’s detriment? Bro just sits in jail while the state fights in federal court.
Why… why wouldn’t they just pardon him now and make that argument? As outlandish and frivolous as it is.
comment in response to
post
So they couldn’t. At best, you speculate that they might delay things — not to the state’s detriment, but to the detriment of the guy the administration wants to help.
comment in response to
post
Ok have fun with that.
comment in response to
post
You are not allowed to.
comment in response to
post
How would the DOJ force MN to drop their case?
comment in response to
post
Which preemption doctrine do you think is applicable here?
comment in response to
post
Uncle?
comment in response to
post
I also assume the build quality is as high as Teslas.
comment in response to
post
How is the statement defamatory?
comment in response to
post
Thanks Obama.
comment in response to
post
Because the statement is true.
comment in response to
post
Rudy had a… run, of sorts. Following being mayor.
It’s not dead end! You too can become a podcaster who sells white label dropshift coffee.
comment in response to
post
Hey buddy, so. Augustus was rightfully called the first emperor. Did he ever abolish other parts of government?
comment in response to
post
That’s wholly irrelevant to my decision to call him a murderer. Nor do I care. I have filed your opinion appropriately. 🗑️
comment in response to
post
It isn’t my fault you’re finding this conversation difficult. It certainly isn’t difficult for me. Perhaps you have a skill issue?
comment in response to
post
There isn’t “the” dictionary. There are several, with several definitions. None of which are relevant to the LEGAL claim you made about my NON-LEGAL statement.
You insisted on using legal definitions, and now you’re objecting to using legal definitions.
comment in response to
post
Thank God. If my significant other was on record saying that female arousal is a medical condition, I’d probably just end it immediately.
comment in response to
post
And you are saying there is one in a single dictionary.
comment in response to
post
King’s English* I’m*
I’m not using the King’s English. You stated he was charged with murder, and that’s false. That’s a legal claim subject to legal definitions. I’m sorry you didn’t know what those were.
Is Wisconsin’s definition of murder isn’t found in the state constitution? Which section?
comment in response to
post
Also, now you’re saying there are several definitions when before you said there was a single dictionary definition.
Why are you being so dishonest?
comment in response to
post
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
comment in response to
post
The special Wisconsin statutory definition that binds Wisconsin courts, in the context of a Wisconsin criminal defendant?
Not everyone should know it, no. But people who want to correct me on it should.
I hope you’ve learned a valuable lesson today.
comment in response to
post
(In other words “for all purposes” is plainly incorrect.)
comment in response to
post
In which dictionary? I’m seeing several dictionary definitions for murder.
Which, as an aside, are irrelevant to the legal definition of the term.
comment in response to
post
See what? Wisconsin's murder statute?
comment in response to
post
That’s a law firm website. I’m reading the actual law.
comment in response to
post
No it isn’t. There is an entirely separate murder statute, which the murderer was not charged under.
The actual law > law firm marketing.
Common sense. Remember?
comment in response to
post
You claimed he was charged with murder. And that isn’t true.
comment in response to
post
Equivalent doesn’t mean “identical.” Because “murder” has different elements than what he was charged with.
That you’re doubling down on being wrong is… unsurprising.
comment in response to
post
Damn. That says he wasn’t charged with murder.
And yeah, it does matter. Murder has different elements.
comment in response to
post
It seems Bruce has run away.
comment in response to
post
He hasn’t proven himself to be anything more than a mind goblin.
comment in response to
post
I’m pretty sure Bruce’s mental disintegration is a far cry from a Dali painting.
comment in response to
post
No he wasn't. Wisconsin has a murder statute, and Rittenhouse wasn't charged under it.
comment in response to
post
It may be disgusting, but it's not illegal.
comment in response to
post
Sorry. I think I broke him.
comment in response to
post
Holy shit.
comment in response to
post
I hope you get the help you need.
comment in response to
post
Ok.
comment in response to
post
Ok.
comment in response to
post
Why? No reasonable person would assume you were making a statement of fact.
comment in response to
post
I don’t know what this emoji is supposed to be for.
comment in response to
post
Nor is it an answer to my question.
comment in response to
post
That isn’t my name?
comment in response to
post
There is no “news organization” license or “entertainment classification.”
comment in response to
post
Why? The statement is true.