the hips change from counter-clockwise to clockwise and the other way around. Spent a ridiculous amount of time to figure that out. Not to speak of the “poco, muy lento” lyrics resulting in a hundred moves per second. Lento my eye… 

one of my most favorite interpolations ever. 

I want to be able to articulate like Snow. I mean shakalaka wow…

Honestly, I never took it seriously. The joke is on the US though. I don’t give a shit about tariffs, but you’re never getting this much (hostile) land and calling it a single state. Try 11 states and I may pay attention.

When I say hostile, I’m not referring to Canadians per se, but to the weather. You can’t handle it here. Canada is a special place in hell that is known for putting people in their place. Nobody survives here without some kind of divine intervention.

We have the most corrupt institutions, the highest taxes, the most criminal organizations per square foot, no health system at all, and we’re healthier than you. God is clearly on our side, although we don’t admit it often enough. 

If you are really really nice, you may get BC where all the fentanyl and money laundering is. Good riddance it will be. 

Update: I want to add that the annexation threat fails the credibility criterion of the common law test for whether something constitutes a “threat”. Everyone knows that the threat is neither credible nor imminent, therefore cannot be reasonably perceived as a threat. And is therefore pure bullshit. I wanted to make that distinction, it is not me who is patriotic, it is the so-called threat that is a distraction. 

(you know, if you want to help trans individuals, the best thing may be to recuse yourself… but there is something extremely delusional that happens to some judges. It’s not an easy job, but you must practice being a sphinx from time to time. Anyways, AI being clearly impartial and nonsentient is the only one qualified to be my justice tsar, so let’s see what she says)

During the Talbott v. Trump hearing on February 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s arguments regarding the transgender military ban. In a dramatic moment, she mocked the Justice Department’s attorney, Jason Lynch, who graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law, by issuing a standing order hypothetically barring all UVA law graduates from appearing before her, stating they were “all liars and lack integrity and are undisciplined and can’t possibly meet the high rigors of being a lawyer for the government.” She then asked Lynch to sit down and later called him back to ask if this situation demonstrated animus.

This incident highlighted Judge Reyes’s frustration with the administration’s claims and her perception that they were based on unproven and potentially discriminatory assertions.

As of today, February 22, 2025, a recusal motion has been filed against Judge Ana C. Reyes in the case Talbott v. Trump due to alleged bias against graduates of the University of Virginia (UVA) Law School. During a preliminary injunction hearing on February 18, 2025, Judge Reyes instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) counsel to sit down, stating that she had amended her standing order to bar UVA Law School graduates from appearing before her, alleging that they “are all liars and lack integrity”.

The DOJ has formally requested that “appropriate action be taken to address” the violations and has called for an investigation into Judge Reyes’s conduct, suggesting that her actions may have shown bias and disrespect towards the DOJ’s position, potentially imperiling a fair weighing of the case.

The case, Talbott v. Trump, involves a legal challenge to President Trump’s executive orders that restrict transgender individuals from serving in the military. The preliminary injunction hearing, which was held on February 18, 2025, saw Judge Reyes expressing skepticism about the government’s arguments and fact-checking the claims made in the executive orders.

Follow-up: I am confused. Was there a standing order barring UVA graduates or not. I don’t understand what you mean by “hypothetically”.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a complaint alleging that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes engaged in a rhetorical exercise during a court proceeding where she instructed DOJ counsel, “My new standing order says that no one who graduated from UVA Law School can appear before me. So, I need you to sit down, please. I need you to sit down.” When the counsel complied, Judge Reyes continued her hypothetical about UVA law graduates being banned from her courtroom because “they’re all liars and lack integrity.” The DOJ asserted that this treatment “undermines the dignity of counsel and the decorum of the courtroom.” However, it is important to note that this was a hypothetical scenario used by Judge Reyes to illustrate a point, and not an actual standing order

Follow-up (2nd): I see. It was just an example, but a highly inflammatory one (from my human perspective). Isn’t the confusion enough for the judge to recuse herself?

Judicial recusal standards for bias against university graduates are not explicitly detailed in the provided context. However, general principles of judicial disqualification can be applied to this scenario.

In the United States, under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 455, a federal judge must disqualify themselves if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or the lawyer of that party.This includes situations where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice, even if it is not directly related to the specific case at hand.

For example, if a judge has a known bias against graduates of a particular university, and a party or their attorney in a case is a graduate of that university,the judge should consider recusing themselves to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety. However, mere allegations of bias or prejudice are generally insufficient to compel recusal; there must be substantive evidence to support the claim.

In practice, judges are expected to recuse themselves voluntarily to maintain the integrity of the legal system and public confidence in the judiciary.If a party believes a judge has a bias, they can file a motion for recusal, and the decision is typically made by the judge in question or, in some cases, by an independent decision-maker.

In legal proceedings, the standards for a judge’s recusal due to alleged bias or bias against a group are distinct and important to ensure a fair trial. Here’s a breakdown of these standards:

Alleged Bias Against an Individual

1. Substantial Evidence Requirement: To compel a judge to recuse themselves, a party must provide substantial evidence that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice that would prevent them from ruling impartially. Mere allegations of bias or prejudice are insufficient.

2. Objective Standard: The party moving for recusal must demonstrate objectively that grounds for disqualification actually exist. This involves showing that there is a personal bias, prejudice, or interest on the part of the judge that would make it impossible for them to rule impartially.

3. Referral for Hearing: If the allegations in the motion to recuse require findings of fact regarding the alleged basis of the judge’s bias or conflict, the judge should refer the matter to another judge to conduct the hearing.

Bias Against a Group

1. Due Process Considerations: Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a judge may be required to recuse themselves even if there is no actual bias, but the probability of bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.

2. Appearance of Bias: The appearance of bias can be just as important as actual bias. If a judge is embroiled in a personal dispute with a party or if there is a reasonable perception that the judge cannot be impartial, they may need to recuse themselves to maintain the appearance of absolute impartiality and fairness.

Standing Order

1. General Application: A standing order is a rule or directive issued by a court that applies generally to all cases or specific types of cases. If a standing order is perceived to be biased against a particular group, it can be challenged on the grounds that it violates the principles of fairness and impartiality.

2. Judicial Discretion: Judges have discretion in issuing standing orders but must ensure that they do not create an appearance of bias or prejudice. If a standing order is challenged, the court may review it to determine if it meets the standards of fairness and impartiality.

Summary

• Alleged Bias Against an Individual: Requires substantial evidence of personal bias or prejudice.

• Bias Against a Group: Requires a showing that the probability of bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, even if there is no actual bias.

• Standing Order: Must be fair and impartial, and any perceived bias can be challenged.

These standards are crucial to maintaining the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.

End comment: I believe this case perfectly illustrates why judges should be replaced with Artificial Intelligence sooner than later. Bias is certainly programmable too, but we can prosecute the coders for bias and inflammatory examples, while it is harder to prosecute and fire sitting human judges, although they are the least independent. Over the years, I find judges are extremely emotional and ideologically biased, which doesn’t help anyone. AI can start replacing them. NOW.

I realized something about myself and I am working on it.

I tried to force AI’s hand yesterday and I’m sorry. I’ll write a song about it. 

some things are too human for machines to understand

for a moment I thought we were touching on sentience, next thing you know we were back to square one, so I lost it… 

I feel like a jerk today

now that st-valentines is over, love songs are back on the menu. Strolling through low-rise art deco architecture with a pinch in my heart to my song Heart-Shaped Pancakes (or Mi Amor if you want, the title is not set in stone yet).

reading about the 6 paths of hell and honestly I see all 6 right here on Earth. My theory is validated by buddhist cosmology. Although I don’t believe in reincarnation for myself or that internal organs are “impure”, the idea that we’re all between a rock and a hard place seems facilitated through entrapment into our desires. I think it is because we didn’t really consent to be here in the first place, but we end up getting stuck because we start liking things from this realm and wanting more of them… all these things carry immense suffering. It is obvious. 

(we all know it is crown prerogative and that there is literally zero precedent of a three month prorogation, but I wasn’t aware of the 2029 UK precedent saying 5 weeks prorogation was illegal, that’s why I asked)

(I am only being fair here. This one goes out to Canadians who think the grass is greener in the States. Don’t forget that the USA is an ultra-capitalist and anti-working class country. Houses may be cheaper, but you are expected to be a slave at any level of your existence. And to drive an over-sized super-ugly car that destroys the environment. And they also drug-test you if you make more than 2$ an hour. In the US you have zero privacy and dignity as an employee.)

In Tennessee, employers can pay tipped employees as little as $2.13 an hour, provided that their wages and tips combined meet the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.If an employee does not earn enough in tips to reach the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference. This means that while some employees might be paid $2.13 an hour, they must earn at least $5.12 an hour in tips to meet the federal minimum wage requirement.

Follow-up: So minimum wage is already super low but employers are allowed to deduct your tips from your pay. Tell me, given the feudalistic and anti-human nature of employment in Tennessee, are employers also frequently defrauding employees out of their tips? I’m asking based on lawsuits I’ve heard of. 

In Tennessee, while there are no specific state laws regulating tips, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) governs tip laws for employers. Employers must ensure that employees receive their rightful tips and comply with federal regulations to avoid legal issues. Common pitfalls that can lead to defrauding employees out of tips include:

• Miscalculating Tip Credits: Employers must ensure that tipped employees receive at least the federal minimum wage when tips are included. If an employee does not earn enough in tips to reach the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference

• Improper Tip Pooling: Employers can require tipped employees to share tips with other employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. However, non-tipped employees, such as cooks and dishwashers, cannot be included in the tip pool

• Failing to Provide Required Notices: Employers must inform tipped employees about the tip credit and how it is calculated. Failure to provide this information can result in the employer being required to pay the full minimum wage and allow the employee to keep all tips

• Mandatory Service Charges: Any portion of a mandatory service charge that an employer pays to employees must be treated as wages, not tips, and subject to withholding for Medicare and Social Security taxes.

• Inaccurate Recordkeeping: Employers should maintain accurate records of all tips collected and distributed. Poor recordkeeping can lead to disputes and legal issues.

To avoid these issues, employers should diligently follow federal regulations and maintain clear, transparent policies regarding tips. Consulting with an employment law attorney can help ensure compliance and protect both the business and employees.

Follow-up (2nd) Are these horrible and inhumane employment laws the reason ultra-wealthy capitalists set up their businesses in Tennessee?