yeasting.bsky.social
Lawyer, not brewer (and not your lawyer). Appellate. I try to overturn convictions.
Chicago. Michigan. Meteorite00 sometimes.
(Comments my own, not employer’s)
231 posts
209 followers
1,039 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Even a generous interpretation of the driver's intent still makes this conduct look like a count or two of leaving the scene of an injury accident, possibly a Class 2 (up to seven years) or Class 4 felony, depending on injuries and whether/when the driver reported to police.
comment in response to
post
Do you have a cite?
(This might be useful for me soon.)
comment in response to
post
Jordan Acker, who’s been the most visible of the Dem regents, is up in 2026, I think.
comment in response to
post
Reporting is that it’s regent-driven more than Ono-driven.
comment in response to
post
I wonder how many naturalized citizens are erroneously listed as non-citizens bc CPD and ISP never updated their data.
comment in response to
post
I feel like everyone should be able to see the subtext of menus in celebration of technology by now. It was done before.
mitpress.mit.edu/978395679003...
comment in response to
post
Make them use AI for the actual recipe too, and see how well that goes.
comment in response to
post
I keep wondering what kind of nonsense stuff might be out there in front of grand juries that we're just not hearing about yet.
comment in response to
post
If only there were a major non-profit a few blocks away from the Sun-Times writing licensable, y'know, lists of books.
comment in response to
post
I have questions about the scope of Ohio's arson statutes.
comment in response to
post
Journalists need crisper ways to say “we think is illegal, but are habitually afraid of nonsense libel suits”.
comment in response to
post
Supreme Court could of course do want it wants, but Rogers v Tennessee pretty narrowly limits those kind of ex post facto-ish due process claims.
In practice, they rarely succeed.
comment in response to
post
Fastest I can think of that a precedent has been proven “unworkable.”
comment in response to
post
Bet I can find someone willing to give the President a ride around Jackson Park as he tells every Black and Latin person he sees that he doesn't think they're tough.
comment in response to
post
I’d always imagined I was at the Painting and Poetry part of that quote by virtue of my grandparents’ service in the Second World War.
I guess I’m now relegated back to studying Politicks.
comment in response to
post
John Adams already wrote the retort:
I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study …Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History…Commerce…to give their[s] a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture…
comment in response to
post
Looks like we’ve finally found an acceptable use for AI autotext in court filings.
comment in response to
post
I just want someone to tell us what color the revolution’s gonna be so everyone can coordinate.
comment in response to
post
Am I gonna have to argue a Frye hearing on a glitter expert?
comment in response to
post
What’s been written on reviving dormant state law theories on torts against federal agents?
comment in response to
post
So, what’s the scope of district court’s discretion to impose 24-hour filings for every government pleading, while allowing the government only a typewriter and a half-complete hard copy federal reporter?
comment in response to
post
There's a style of AI case summary I've seen popping up in briefs --- lots of unnecessary summary of procedural history, with only a glancing, questionable description of the actual basis for the decision. I hate it.
comment in response to
post
I’m taking my kid there in a few months. Should we try to find trackways?
comment in response to
post
The evidence is in one of the few books they actually left on the shelf of the Naval Academy.
comment in response to
post
Imagining that seven years from now, the U.S. Court for Civil Rights rules 9 to 4 that the 31st Amendment's limitation on the pardon power applies retroactively to Trump-era corruption cases.