Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[bloocow2]

https://www.avclub.com/taskmaster-dream-american-contestants-conan-o-brien

This would absolutely rule if it actually happened. Conan would be a great fit for Taskmaster.

[Frank Drackman]

"Rule"??
1977 called, wants their "Rule" back.
Last time I heard someone actually say something "Ruled" was Kevin Spacey in "Amurican Beauty" (DreamWorks 1999) when he buys the 1970 Pontiac Formula he's always wanted and says "I Rule!!"
but I think even then Sam Mendes meant it ironically, showing just how sad and pathetic Lester Burnham's life had become.
I've always found British TV like British Food and British Cars, Overrated and more trouble than it's worth.

Frank

[bloocow2]

I can't believe you actually spent time writing that.

[Frank Drackman]

and you spent time responding, you slow down to look at traffic accidents don't you?

[not guilty]

Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen are charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute makes it illegal for two or more people to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

The United States District Court has denied the government's application for a detention hearing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689.22.0.pdf

The affidavit of complaint reportedly remains under seal, which I surmise indicates that other persons, who are not yet in custody, are charged as co-conspirators. The Court's January 23, 2026 order recites that:

The affidavit supporting the complaint specifically identifies the right as the free exercise of religion at a place of religious worship. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. The affidavit details that on the morning of Sunday, January 18, 2026, at approximately 10:30 a.m., “a group of approximately 30-40 agitators, working together in a coordinated manner” entered a church in St. Paul during a religious service and engaged in conduct that “disrupted the religious service and intimidated, harassed, oppressed, and terrorized the parishioners, including young children, and caused the service to be cut short and forced parishioners to flee the church out of a side door, which resulted in one female victim falling and suffering an injury.” Id. at 2–3.

Remarkable absent from that summary is any averment that the accused persons were acting under color of law or that they employed force or the threat of force or that their conduct included physical obstruction.

I remain puzzled as to what federal rights the government claims to be at issue as the alleged object of the conspiracy. In order to satisfy the Due Process requirement of fair warning, prosecution under §§ 241 or 242 requires that the targeted federal right(s) have been identified at some level of specificity comparable to the civil litigation requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (regarding individual capacity damages liability) that the right at issue be "clearly established" by the statute itself or by judicial decisions concerning such right(s). United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-271 (1997).

As I have commented before, the parishioners of course have a First Amendment right not to be disturbed in their worship service by the government. They have a statutory right not to be disturbed by private persons by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

Do those federal rights extend to freedom from private persons entering a building and verbally disrupting a worship service? (Separately from state law prohibitions against criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.?) I could be persuaded of that, but at this point I am not sure.

[not guilty]

I'm sorry for my formatting error. The comment should read as follows:

Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen are charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute makes it illegal for two or more people to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

The United States District Court has denied the government's application for a detention hearing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689.22.0.pdf

The affidavit of complaint reportedly remains under seal, which I surmise indicates that other persons, who are not yet in custody, are charged as co-conspirators. The Court's January 23, 2026 order recites that:

The affidavit supporting the complaint specifically identifies the right as the free exercise of religion at a place of religious worship. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. The affidavit details that on the morning of Sunday, January 18, 2026, at approximately 10:30 a.m., “a group of approximately 30-40 agitators, working together in a coordinated manner” entered a church in St. Paul during a religious service and engaged in conduct that “disrupted the religious service and intimidated, harassed, oppressed, and terrorized the parishioners, including young children, and caused the service to be cut short and forced parishioners to flee the church out of a side door, which resulted in one female victim falling and suffering an injury.” Id. at 2–3.

Remarkably absent from that summary is any averment that the accused persons were acting under color of law or that they employed force or the threat of force or that their conduct included physical obstruction.

I remain puzzled as to what federal rights the government claims to be at issue as the alleged object of the conspiracy. In order to satisfy the Due Process requirement of fair warning, prosecution under §§ 241 or 242 requires that the targeted federal right(s) have been identified at some level of specificity comparable to the civil litigation requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (regarding individual capacity damages liability) that the right at issue be "clearly established" by the statute itself or by judicial decisions concerning such right(s). United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-271 (1997).

As I have commented before, the parishioners of course have a First Amendment right not to be disturbed in their worship service by the government. They have a statutory right not to be disturbed by private persons by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

Do those federal rights extend to freedom from private persons entering a building and verbally disrupting a worship service? (Separately from state law prohibitions against criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.?) I could be persuaded of that, but at this point I am not sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You either didn’t quote the statute correctly, or somehow a fabricating a condition it doesn’t specify. Please explain where either color of law or battery are a necessary prerequisite to the interfere, oppress and all that other stuff.

Furthermore, isn’t there something along the lines of common sense for example? Where is the sign that says I can’t stand in the middle of a railroad track in the face of an oncoming train.

Are you seriously arguing? They didn’t know they were disrupting a religious service? The building had “church” painted on the side of it I presume.

Conversely, a couple decades ago the Feds got a conviction for rolling a pig’s head into a mosque in Lewiston Maine. Not for littering, but for disrupting the mosque, memory is hate crime. Exactly how is that different?

Lewiston still rural enough for there could be farming there, pigs, heads are sometimes discarded as part of the butchering process, where was the warning to these farm boys that rolling a head into the mosque was verboten?

[not guilty]

Learn to read, Dr. Ed. 2. I quoted Judge Provinzino's order, and I did not anywhere suggest that "either color of law or battery are a necessary prerequisite to the interfere, oppress and all that other stuff" as to 18 U.S.C. § 241.

A federal right being abridged as the conspiratorial target is, however, an essential element of the charged statute. First Amendment rights exist vis-a-vis federal and state governments -- not as to the actions of omissions of private actors.

The federal statutes that I cited do include the components I cited as essential elements -- oppression or interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction as to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce as to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b), and intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempting to do so, as to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

What has been reported of the accused persons' conduct in Cities Church in St. Paul has not involved their acting under color of law. It has not involved oppression or interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction. It has not involved an effect upon interstate or foreign commerce. It has not involved targeting because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with the religious property, nor attempting to do so.

Like it or not, statutes matter. In order to prosecute someone for a federal crime, "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense." United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34 (1812).

[LexAquilia]

I watched the video with my own eyes.

I watched similar videos but of criminal little grannies who were caught praying to close to an abortion clinic whom Biden and Democrat judges sent to prison for 30 years.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, and a woman praying outside an Abortatoreum gets sent to Prison. You know if it was guys in MAGA hats disrupting a Mississippi AME Service Merrick Garfield would be charging the Death Penalty.

Frank.

[not guilty]

Frank, when and where has a woman praying outside an Abortatoreum, without more, been sent to prison? Oppression or interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction at an abortion facility is an essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1), just as it is to a house or worship under § 248(a)(2).

I strongly suspect you are getting your information from Otto Yourazz. Please cite a judicial decision that has upheld a criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1) on the meager facts that you describe.

[Frank Drackman]

News Flash, you aren’t Jack Smith(although I’m guessing you have the similar Merkin-esque Facial Hair you think makes you look suave) harassing a jaywalker.
You’re not even Judge Judy, who probably displays more legal gravitas in 23 minutes than you have in your entire career that nobody gives a shit about.
But to humor you I’ll “cite” a case
Look up “Suck Deez v Nutz”

Frank

[Kazinski]

Looks like there is some movement, finally in the Ukraine Russia front.

The first direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in 4 years, have started in the middle east, BBC reports:

"Russian, Ukrainian and US negotiators are meeting in Abu Dhabi today for the first trilateral talks since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 - here's what we know

These talks are crunch time for Ukraine and a chance to see whether Moscow is really serious about peace or just playing games, our correspondent writes from Kyiv

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says the talks are "a step - hopefully towards ending the war", adding the meeting will focus on the status of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region"

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cz6yyy07wnjt

The pressure has started to mount on Russia with a couple of developments in the past two weeks.

- France seized a Russian shadow fleet tanker in the Mediterranean "On January 22-23, 2026, the French Navy intercepted and seized the oil tanker Grinch in the Mediterranean Sea, between Spain and Morocco, for suspected violations of international sanctions against Russia. " -Google AI summary

-- "Trump has 'greenlit' sanctions bill punishing Russia for war in Ukraine, Sen. Graham says" https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-has-greenlit-sanctions-bill-punishing-russia-for-war-in-ukraine-sen-graham-says

- Russia is showing signs of being squeezed economically "Russia is increasing its standard Value Added Tax (VAT) rate from 20% to 22%, effective January 1, 2026, to fund rising military costs and cover budget deficits. The hike applies to most goods and services, while a 10% reduced rate remains for essential, social, and children’s products.". - Google AI summary

The Graham bill implants mandatory 500% tariffs on countries that are buying Russian oil, and hopefully won't have to be implemented but likely will get enough support to pass if it is needed. Democrats have been to vocal about Ukraine support to chicken out at effective sanctions targeting Russia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know it’s only oil tankers now, but I’ll bet the French taking that tanker got their attention. It wouldn’t be a logical leap for European countries to go from taking tankers to taking any Russian ship, or any ship bringing a cargo to or from Russia.

[Frank Drackman]

As someone who treats every situation as a target to be shot or nuked (Castration Anxiety much?) I’m surprised you don’t consider that the Roosh-uns also have ships (many of which travel submerged) that can “take”(or sink) Ships they deem objectionable.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is why I considered the French taking a Russian oik tanker so significant.

Of course, what is the status of the Russian Navy at this point?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably what the Captain of KAL 007 said in 1983, “let’s take this short cut over Sakhalin, what are the Roosh-uns going to do? Scramble some fighters and shoot us down? It would be an international incident!”Anyway, their pilots hardly even get any flight time!
In fact it’s actually good that Idiots like you keep underestimating them, when Ships start mysteriously sinking how are you going to accuse them?

[Kazinski]

Aimee Bock a convicted fraudster in the Minnesota "Feeding our Future" 250 million dollar Covid Scam is claiming state officials purposely looked the other way and let the scam continue.

Convicted Minnesota fraudster alleges Walz, Ellison were aware of widespread fraud

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/convicted-minnesota-fraudster-alleges-walz-ellison-were-aware-widespread-fraud

Blocks Lawyers are also claiming their is audio of a quid pro quo between Ellison and some of the FOF fraudsters. There was also ready a tape released last year that seems damning, but I don't know whether it goes far enough to be criminal:

"MAN: The only way that we can protect what we have is by inserting ourselves into the political arena. Putting our votes where it needs to be. But most importantly, putting our dollars in the right place. And supporting candidates that will fight to protect our interests.

ELLISON: That's right.

Now, we're getting somewhere, and in the next part of the exchange, the man speaking makes it clear he's not just talking in political abstracts but is talking about giving money directly to Ellison.

MAN: You can only protect our interests when we have your back, and you don't have to worry about who is behind you. "

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2026/01/23/report-audio-exists-of-keith-ellison-speaking-to-somali-fraudsters-being-offered-campaign-donations-n2198440

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hmmmmmm……

At what point would it become entrapment?
I always hear that involving cops and crimes and otherwise would not be committed, why wouldn’t entrapment apply here?

I don’t know what a textbook case of police entrapment would be, but I presume it would be something along the lines of Hey, take this box of drugs, and go sell it. Make yourself some money.

Even without the kickback, at one point would encouraging people to apply for funds and eligible for cons student entrapment?

[not guilty]

Entrapment involves more than government officials merely being aware of the crime, Ed.

The entrapment defense, which, as explicated in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), and Sherman v. United States, 356 U. S. 369 (1958), prohibits law enforcement officers from instigating criminal acts by otherwise innocent persons in order to lure them to commit crimes and punish them. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 428-429 (1973).

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s a very small amount of money involved, way too little for me to fight about it, but I just think this is sleazy.

I had a couple of shares of stock that I forgot about and they went to the state of Maine unclaimed property division, which was kind enough to sell them and eventually send me the money.

Now General Mills is sending me a 1099B for “bartering income” — for property which I already owned. This is an addition to the 1099 for the dividends of those stocks.

This strikes me is just plain sleazy…..

[Frank Drackman]

Like Milner in American Graffiti just file the 1099 under “CS”

[Dr. Ed 2]

???

[Frank Drackman]

OK I’ll draw you a diaphragm, Jeez, I think you really are a teacher.
You remember “American Grafitit”? It’s only one of the semen-al movies of the last 60 years.
Remember when Milner, in his Deuce Coupe gets pulled over by Officer Holstein and issued a ticket for the bumper being too low? Milner tells his passenger (a very nubile Makenzie Phillips) to file the ticket under “CS”
“CS? What’s that mean?” She asks with the same stupid voice I imagine you have.
“Chicken Shit, that’s all it is”Milner replies as we see a Glove compartment filled with crumpled up tickets
I do the same with all the junk mail the AMA sends trying to get me to join (I’d sooner join Ham-Ass)

Frank