ToaKraka
Dislikes you
No bio...
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1mo ago
-
November 2022: A homeowner in a homeowners' association seeks to build a four-foot fence in his backyard, four inches from the property line. He receives approval from both the municipal government and the HOA. Accordingly, the fence is constructed.
-
February 2023: The HOA claims that the fence is in violation of the HOA's rules. The homeowner replies that the fence was built in perfect accordance with the plans that were approved three months ago.
-
March 2023: The HOA seeks to amend its rules in order to impose a minimum setback of ten feet on fences. The amendment fails to garner the required two-thirds vote of all members.
-
September 2023: The HOA sues the homeowner under the theory that the minimum setback of thirty feet prescribed in its rules applies, not just to buildings, but also to fences, overriding the minimum of four inches that is prescribed for fences in the municipal zoning code. The trial judge rejects this argument as utterly ridiculous in April 2024, and the appeals panel affirms in May 2025.
Bonus: Trial transcript
I don't know the size of the lots over there, but, unless you've got a couple of acres, 30 feet back off your property line is a pretty significant distance. Frankly, it wouldn't be very aesthetically pleasing if you look at it that way, which is what these HOA rules are meant to provide. They want to keep the community a certain way, and a 30-foot setback requirement for a fence is just unheard of. I've never seen it anywhere. I've never heard of any association's having a 30-foot setback requirement from a property line for a fence. Drive around South Jersey. A lot of the fences, they're often at the property line, but you've got to get them off your neighbor's line unless you get his permission.
So I don't find that there is any material fact here. I think fences are specifically addressed under 8.1(c). If they wanted a setback requirement to be required, 8.1(c) should have had a setback requirement contained within that area. Otherwise, it should have been all under 8.1(dd), and it should have mentioned fences as well, but it did not. They separated them and there's a reason for that. Fences in one and the structures in another, the accessory buildings and shacks. I think it's pretty clear. And, if there is any ambiguity, you resolve that against the drafter. I think the defendants in this matter, they followed exactly what they were supposed to do under 8.1(c). The fence can stay.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2mo ago
To clarify a little more: New York has sued the USDOT in federal court over this termination, claiming that it is arbitrary and capricious. As far as I can see, the lawsuit does not include a request for a preliminary injunction while proceedings are ongoing. Rather, as The_Nybbler states, New York will just refuse to obey it.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6mo ago
IIRC (I probably don't): A while ago, a user on this site kept posting about how he was going to be dropped off by helicopter with nothing but a knife in an isolated location as a way to forge himself into a real man or die trying. The isolated location was Hock Mountain, so he called this escapade "the Hock". The moderators eventually banned him for being a single-issue poster, since he kept talking about it but never actually did it.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7mo ago
'白左‘
Note that the transliteration "baizuo" has been at least semi-recognized in Western circles for several years.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
23d ago
Personally, I find it quite amazing and hilarious that hentai plots can regularly be found lurking in real-life court opinions.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
30d ago
-
Harassment = disparaging the target to his face, or intentionally disparaging the target in an area where he is likely to hear the disparagement
-
"Talking shit" = disparaging the target without regard to whether he will see the discussion
As the 4chan comic goes: If you enter a thread about stuff you do not like, and now you are mad, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3mo ago
Yes, at age 31 I have fucked exactly zero hawt gurls. Unfortunately, the rumors of magical wizard powers are greatly exaggerated. (I may spend five kilodollars on a trip to the brothels of Australia after I retire two years from now, but I probably will not be able to justify that expense.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3mo ago
I think his account is perfectly reasonable. I personally was not aware of the huge strength differences between men and women until around age 25, when I stumbled across this transcript of a Senate hearing on the topic of adding women to combat units in the US armed forces. I watched exactly zero sports on television.
Did his school never do the Presidential fitness tests?
I don't think my high school did.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
8mo ago
Reuters article to flesh out this low-effort comment
Political leaders from both sides of the aisle and Puerto Rican celebrities bashed comments at a major Donald Trump event in New York by a comedian who called Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage."
Speaking before the Republican presidential candidate at a rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday night, comedian and podcast host Tony Hinchcliffe added that Latinos "love making babies" and that they do not "pull out," comments that leaned into a racist trope that Latinos are preoccupied with childbearing and averse to birth control.
"There's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now," Hinchcliffe said. "I think it's called Puerto Rico."
The presidential campaign of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, Democrats, several prominent Puerto Rican celebrities and some congressional Republicans denounced the comments, which were widely panned as racist.
The Trump campaign itself said the comments do not "reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign." Trump himself has not commented on Hinchcliffe's performance.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
11mo ago
A quick Google search indicates that "theft" has for many centuries been a generic word that covers larceny of physical items, embezzlement of entrusted funds, and taking of money through false pretenses. Is larceny the central example of theft, so that calling an embezzler or a fraudster a thief is misleading? I'm not sure.
But "killing" someone by consensually selling to him drugs on which he happens to overdose definitely is not a central example of murder.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1mo ago
Blackman at the Volokh Conspiracy: Justice Kavanaugh to Second Amendment: We're Really Busy Now, Come Back In A Year Or Two
an ms13 gang member
The alien claims that the govt. has presented no evidence that he's a member of any gang at all, let alone MS-13 in particular.
why was an [illegal alien] being legally shielded from deportation
The alien claims: in his hometown he was targeted by a gang; the persecution persisted even after his family moved three times (though only a 15-minute drive away each time); and sending the alien out of the country was the family's last resort. The immigration pseudo-judge believed that claim and granted withholding of removal. The govt. did not appeal that determination.
The executive order says only that, within 15 days of January 23 (i. e., by Friday of last week), a plan for "full and complete release" is to be presented to the president. It does not provide a deadline for the release itself.
(The deadline for the separate plan for release of the RFK and MLK files is 45 days from January 23—i. e., March 9.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
8mo ago
7 DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
95% chance, high confidence. I don't see freedoms/rights getting worse under Trump, personally.
Reason: "Neither Harris nor Trump Is a Friend of Free Speech"
If Trump had his way, flag burners would be jailed, purveyors of "fake news" would lose their broadcast licenses, and news outlets would have to pay him damages when their coverage strikes him as unfair.
This court opinion provides a very interesting summary of what liability a department of transportation has (at least in Pennsylvania) when a motorist is injured by a falling (not fallen) tree or tree branch.
-
Snyder v. Harmon (1989): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a deep mining pit. After getting into a crash on the highway, four motorists walk off of the highway, fall into the pit, and suffer severe injuries. Is the DOT liable for failing to install lighting, barriers, or guide rail in front of the pit? No, because the pit was not on DOT property, which is required by the state law that waives the default sovereign immunity in certain situations.
-
Patton v. PennDOT (1996): Adjacent to a state highway, inside the DOT's right of way, there is a tree. A branch falls from the tree and kills a motorist. Is the DOT liable for failing to trim the branch? Yes, because the tree was on DOT property.
-
Marker v. PennDOT (1996): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a steep upward slope. A tree growing in the slope uproots itself, falls off of the slope, and kills a motorist. Is the DOT liable for building a highway underneath a steep slope? No, because neither the tree nor the slope was on DOT property.
-
Clark v. PennDOT (2008): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a tree. A branch of the tree overhangs the road. The tree—not just the branch, but the entire tree—falls onto the road, and a motorist is severely injured by the trunk. Is the DOT liable for failing to cut down the tree, especially when (1) the DOT's maintenance manual says that trees like this should be investigated and (2) the DOT was specifically informed of the branch by a concerned local before the injury? No, because the tree was not on DOT property. The existence of an overhanging branch is not relevant to this determination, since the motorist was injured by the trunk, not by the branch.
-
Schmidt v. PennDOT (2024—the PDF linked above): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a tree. A branch of the tree overhangs the road. The branch falls and kills a motorist. Is the DOT liable for failing to trim the branch? No, because the tree was not on DOT property. Under longstanding principles of property law, if a branch overhangs DOT property, then the DOT does gain the right to trim the branch, but does not gain actual ownership of the branch, so the injury was not caused by a dangerous condition of DOT property.
What benefit will you have if your plumbers and doctors and teachers can go about their lives high as kites without any legal repercussion or stigma?
If a plumber, doctor, or teacher causes injury or damage due to being intoxicated on the job, he can be sued for negligence in civil court, even if the intoxicating substance (whether alcohol, marijuana, or some other drug) is legal.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Quote from the opinion:
Respondents object to the inclusion of “future persons” in the class, arguing that “‘future persons’—i.e., persons who have not yet been conceived—lack either standing or capacity to sue”. As petitioners note, the fact that a policy will continue to harm future class members is relevant to numerosity.
Including future class members is no bar to class certification. Although the future class member children in this case have yet to be born, as soon as they are born, they will join the class and their claims will be ripe. In other cases involving children, the fact that some of the potential future class members had not yet been born was not a bar to certification.
Finally, more children will continuously populate the class as they are born, and, where “an influx of future members will continue to populate the class... at indeterminate points in the future, joinder becomes not merely impracticable but effectively impossible”.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1mo ago
Personally, I don't even remotely enjoy juggling around a zillion different names (IRL, ToaKraka, a single-purpose name that needs to be active only on certain rare occasions, a single-purpose name that used to be active but now is inactive due to my lack of energy/willpower, a few single-purpose names that are inactive but can be used if necessary…), and I wish that I could just operate under a single unified identity. But I feel like your analysis goes too far. None of my pseudonyms tries to project a unique personality. They speak with exactly the same personality—just on different topics. Your analysis applies, not to "everyone", but only to those public figures who actually try to project unique personalities on social media.
Also, you forgot to link to the definition of "becoming a deranged parody of oneself", flanderization.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1mo ago
Somewhat esoteric court opinion:
-
In conducting Internet searches, you probably have encountered a situation where (for example) you search for "Amazon", but Ebay appears at the top of the results page (prominently marked as "sponsored"), above Amazon itself. This technique is known as "competitive keyword advertising".
-
If lawyer John Doe sets up competitive keyword advertising against fellow lawyer Jane Smith—so that, when someone searches for "jane smith lawyer", John Doe's website appears at the top of the results page (prominently marked as "sponsored"), above the website of Jane Smith herself—has John Doe violated the lawyers' code of ethics by "making false or misleading communications" or "engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation"? In June 2019, the state ethics committee (not the state disciplinary board, but a committee set up by the state supreme court) says the answer is "no".
-
In May 2020, the state supreme court agrees to consider the state bar association's appeal of the ethics committee's determination. In November 2020, the state supreme court remands the matter for thorough investigation under a special
<del>master</del><ins>adjudicator</ins>. In June 2024, the special master finally submits a report agreeing with the ethics board that competitive keyword advertising is not a violation of the lawyers' code of ethics. -
In May 2025, the state supreme court issues an opinion mostly agreeing with the special master's conclusion (by a vote of four to one), but adding one extra requirement: in order to prevent confusion, whenever a user clicks on an ad that uses competitive keyword advertising, the ad's landing page must explicitly state that the user has entered the website of John Doe.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the dissent's reasoning would bar commonplace advertising practices. For example, under its view, an attorney who purchases a keyword like "Newark divorce lawyer" despite maintaining an office in a nearby suburb would be engaging in deception simply because the ad appears in response to a search regarding Newark. That approach would improperly conflate strategic visibility with dishonesty, effectively discouraging attorneys from using lawful digital tools to expand access to their consumers. This form of advertising is not misleading. It is standard competitive marketing aimed at reaching a broader audience. We therefore do not reach the dissent's First Amendment analysis.
(Bonus: Using marijuana is legal under state law but illegal under federal law. The lawyers' code of ethics forbids lawyers from "criminal acts that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects". Is using marijuana a violation of the code of ethics? The state ethics committee's answer is "no".)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3mo ago
From New York comes an interesting demonstration of how intestate succession works when all the decedent's close relatives are dead, forcing the administrator of the estate to search for distant relatives. If I cut out a bunch of supporting evidence, it looks like this:
Gary S. Stomporowski, a bus driver in the Town of Cheektowaga, died intestate at the age of 68 on September 26, 2021, leaving an estate valued at approximately $250,000.
Decedent's nearest living relatives were a maternal aunt and numerous cousins on both the maternal side and paternal side. Letters of Administration were issued to two of those cousins—Diane Sikorski, a paternal first cousin, and Tina Niespodzinski, a maternal first cousin.
At the kinship hearing, three witnesses testified: Tina, Diane, and Timothy Deck, a genealogist. I find all witnesses' testimony to be credible and persuasive. Five exhibits were entered into evidence, including a binder of documents compiled by Deck.
I find that that decedent was not married at the time of his death.
I am able to conclude, based on the totality of the evidence before me, that decedent had no children and the class of children can be closed.
Under the totality of the circumstances, I find that both of decedent's parents predeceased him, and the class of parents can be closed.
I am satisfied that decedent had one sibling, Timothy, who predeceased him, and that this class can be closed.
Based upon the testimony of Tina and Diane, I find that the class of nieces and nephews is closed.
Included in the Genealogist binder were copies of death certificates for both paternal grandparents: Isadore died on September 23, 1928, and Michaeline on March 4, 1959.
Based upon the totality of the evidence before me, and based upon the thorough research conducted by Genealogist Deck, I find that decedent had four paternal aunts who all predeceased him and the class of paternal aunts and uncles can be closed.
I conclude, based upon the evidence before me, that Sandra and Diane, both claimants herein, were the only children of Aunt Stephania and Bronislaus.
I find, based on the evidence before me, that Dennis, Kenneth, and James were the only children of Aunt Frances and Victor, and that all three survived decedent and are claimants herein.
Based upon the totality of the evidence before me and based upon the thorough research conducted by Genealogist Deck, I find that decedent was survived by five paternal first cousins, Sandra, Diane, Dennis, Kenneth, and James, and that the class of paternal first cousins can be closed.
[Maternal grandfather] Frank died on May 28, 1964, according to the death certificate included in the Genealogist binder. Despite the absence of a death certificate, I am satisfied that [maternal grandmother] Anna predeceased decedent.
Based upon the totality of the evidence before me and based upon the thorough research conducted by Genealogist Deck, I find that decedent was survived by one maternal aunt, Agnes. All of the other maternal aunts and uncles predeceased decedent, and the class of maternal aunts and uncles can be closed.
Et cetera for 29 letter-size pages in total. In the end, more than three years after the decedent's death: each of five paternal first cousins gets one-tenth of the estate (1/2 ÷ 5); a maternal aunt (who died while these proceedings were ongoing) gets one-fourteenth (1/2 ÷ 7); and each of 16 maternal first cousins (of whom one died while these proceedings were ongoing) gets 3/112 (1/2 × 6/7 ÷ 16). (The divisor of seven comes from the one inheriting maternal aunt plus the six dead maternal uncles and aunts who were the parents of the 16 inheriting maternal first cousins.) Note that attorney fees (in an amount still to be determined) will also have to be paid to the lawyer who was appointed by the judge to serve the interests of the non-Diane/Tina heirs as "guardian ad litem".
If you want to prevent all this rigmarole from happening when you die alone and unloved, write a will! (Don't forget to check your jurisdiction's laws, too. Some jurisdictions require witnesses for a will to be valid, but others do not.)
The other commenter's opinion is that all "universal injunctions" issued by district judges are insane. See Justice Gorsuch's views on the topic.
It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions. Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6mo ago
- During a telephone call, a prisoner's romantic partner asks him whether he is gay. The prisoner becomes angry and ends the call. On the next day, he writes a two-page email explaining that he is not gay, he hates homosexual people, and if he had been at home he would have shot her for insulting him so badly.
- The prison reads the email, blocks it from being sent, charges the prisoner with the offense of threatening another person with bodily harm, convicts him of that offense, and imposes punishment of 90 days of solitary confinement, 60 days of lost good-behavior credit, and 15 days of lost recreational privileges.
- The appeals panel reverses. The prisoner's objective in writing this email obviously was to convince his romantic partner that he was not homosexual, not to threaten her or anybody else with bodily harm. Therefore, the conviction was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
Clarification of all these healthcare professions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
| Occupation | Entry-level education | Median pay (k$/a) |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing assistants and orderlies | High-school diploma | 38 |
| Registered nurses | Bachelor's degree | 86 |
| Nurse anesthetists, midwives, and practitioners | Master's degree | 129* |
| Physician assistants | Master's degree | 130 |
| Physicians and surgeons | Doctoral degree | ** |
*Median pay specifically for nurse practitioners is 126 k$/a.
**Median pay is off the chart, in excess of 239 k$/a. Mean pay ranges from 206 k$/a for general pediatricians to 449 k$/a for pediatric surgeons.
Nursing assistants provide basic care and help patients with activities of daily living. Orderlies transport patients and clean treatment areas.
Registered nurses provide and coordinate patient care and educate patients and the public about various health conditions.
Nurse anesthetists, midwives, and practitioners coordinate patient care and may provide primary and specialty healthcare.
Physician assistants examine, diagnose, and treat patients under the supervision of a physician.
Physicians and surgeons diagnose and treat injuries or illnesses and address health maintenance.
The interesting book The Box describes how the same union (the International Longshoremen's Association) fought containerization seventy years ago.
Clarification for lurkers: A single union is allowed to control workers at "60 percent of the nation's ports" because unions are specifically exempted from the antitrust laws (1 2).
More options
Context Copy link