I think the AI aspect of this isn't that special -- it wouldn't have been much different if a human actor and makeup artist were used. But it's certainly instructive about how American Christianity works. ...
coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/Op...
Virgil Abt
@abtnatural.bsky.social
3.7K followers 541 following 3.5K posts
Federal Register Enjoyer. PACER pay-pig since it was 7 cents/page. Knitting theorist. Ancient UNIX and Lisp hackery. Knows the T cycle count for every Z-80 instruction.
![[2 UST 1486]
DENMARK
DEFENSE OF GREENLAND
Agreement signed at Copenhagen April 27, 1951;
June 8, 1951.
OVERENSKOMST
henhold til Den nordatlantiske
Traktat mellem Regeringerne
Kongeriget Danmark og Amerikas
Forenede Stater om forsvaret af
Griánland.
Indledning.
Regeringerne Kongeriget Danmark og Amerikas Forenede
Stater,
som er deltagere Den nordatlantiske Traktat, undertegnet
Washington den 4. april 1949,
som under hensyn til det ansvar,
der medfor af denne traktat
páhviler dem med hensyn til
forsvaret af det nordatlantiske
traktatonulde, onsker at bidrage
til et forsvar heraf og derigennem
til deres eget forsvar overensstemmelse med principperne
om selvhjtelp og gensidig bistand,
og
som af Den nordatlantiske
Traktats Organisation ATO) er
blevet anmodet om at fore forhandlinger om og indgá aftaler,
hvorefter vlebnede styrker tilhorende deltagerne Den nordatlantiske Traktats Organisation
kan Ore brug af anlEeg GrOnland
til forsvar af GrOnland og den
Ovrige del af det nordatlantiske
traktatomráde,
entered into force As 2292
Apr. 27, 1951
AGREEMENT
between the Government of the
United States of America and the
Government of the Kingdom of
Denmark, pursuant to the North
Atlantic Treaty, concerning the
defense of Greenland.
Preamble.
The Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark,
being parties to the North
Atlantic Treaty signed at Washington on April 4, 1949,
having regard to their responsibilities thereunder for the defense
of the North Atlantic Treaty area,
desiring to contribute to such
defense and thereby to their own
defense in accordance with the
principles of self-help and mutual
aid, and
having been requested by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization ATO) to negotiate arrangements under which armed forces
of the parties to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization may make
use of facilities in Greenland in
defense of Greenland and the
rest of the North Atlantic Treaty
area,
1485](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreigegg4kv7hc7l5b5brk5zk4r4ckbtmpswdgr5mmxe42fzofafjcea)
![UNITED WE STAND
DIVIDED WE FALL
SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO
MDCCCXX
Supreme Court of Missouri
en banc
SC101805
Richard von Glahn,
Appellant,
v.
Denny Hoskins, in His Official
Capacity, et al.,
Respondents.
Issued September 10, 2026
Judgment of Civil Contempt
On September 3, 2026, this Court issued its opinion in Von Glahn v. Hoskins, No.
SC101805, __ S.W.3d __, slip op. at *13-14 (Mo. banc Sep. 3, 2026), in which this Court
ordered:
The secretary and all of those acting in concert with him are restrained and
enjoined from implementing, using, or mandating the use of the congressional
redistricting in HB 1[1] for the November 2026 general election or at any other
time thereafter unless and until HB 1 is approved by the voters at the November
2026 general election and takes effect 30 days thereafter.
No higher court with jurisdiction to review this Court’s directive has set aside or disturbed this
Court’s ruling.
1 House Bill 1.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreig3q3tnrrkuviasqmv7trguvxejgawqyoeeedulo434cd7rgpqpgu)
![Start with the Constitution’s text. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 says that the
extradition authority applies only to “[a] Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony,
or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State.” A couple
takeaways jump off the page immediately. For one thing, it is insufficient that the individual
concerned is “found in another State” after having been in the State where the crime was
allegedly committed. That’s because the conjunctive structure around the word “and” points
to two, distinct requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321, 326
(2021) (“The requirements are connected by the conjunctive ‘and,’ meaning defendants must
meet all three.”). The individual must be found elsewhere and he must have fled there.
So, the phrase “who shall flee from Justice” must carry its own meaning. One aspect
of that meaning inheres in the verb the framer’s chose to employ. To “flee” necessarily
requires an act of volition, not involuntary movement. See Flee, WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 316 (1949) (“To run away or escape from”); Fugitive, WEBSTER’S NEW
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 335 (1949) (“One who flees from pursuit, danger, service, etc.”).
That is why it makes little sense to say of someone: “He accidentally fled from the crowd’s
watchful gaze.” Cf. Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686, 692–693 (2016) (holding the meaning
of the phrase “use of force” “must be volitional; an involuntary motion, even a powerful one,
is not naturally described as an active employment of force”).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreico4pds35gx3jfrcxrhmsucanhj2d7mjjecc4u7envocau4jpvtem)
![[From Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, 2025]
Bureau of Prisons, Justice
§ 541.21 Special Housing Units (SHUs).
Special Housing Units (SHUs) are
housing units in Bureau institutions
where inmates are securely separated
from the general inmate population,
and may be housed either alone or with
other inmates. Special housing units
help ensure the safety, security, and
orderly operation of correctional facilities, and protect the public, by providing alternative housing assignments
for inmates removed from the general
population.
§ 541.22 Status when placed in the
SHU.
When placed in the SHU, you are either in administrative detention status
or disciplinary segregation status.
(a) Administrative detention status. Administrative detention status is an administrative status which removes you
from the general population when necessary to ensure the safety, security,
and orderly operation of correctional
facilities, or protect the public. Administrative detention status is non-punitive, and can occur for a variety of reasons.
(b) Disciplinary segregation status. Disciplinary segregation status is a punitive status imposed only by a Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) as a
sanction for committing a prohibited
act(s).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreifwbpt6t7sejjufblfp425revs2kulvfxauvbbbdqi6unlrut3vmq)
![Kaelan Deese
@KaelanDC
·
11m
NEW: Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui shows unease with the way the DC jail has treated WHCD alleged shooter Cole Allen after his attorneys say he was placed on a restrictive suicide-watch box despite a medical assessment not recommending that treatment.
Kaelan Deese
@KaelanDC
·
10m
Cole Allen's public defender, Eugene Ohm, says his client has been denied access to private counsel, access to legal paperwork, and denied jail tablets and access to a Bible.
Kaelan Deese
@KaelanDC
·
8m
"There is a number of restrictions that he alone is being [handed] that we don't really see a justification for," Ohm says.
Kaelan Deese
@KaelanDC
Interesting: Judge says his concern is now the number of low-profile criminal cases that this might be happening with, noting if this is happening in a high-profile one how many others could it be a problem with?
12:33 PM · May 4, 2026
·
28
Views](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreihftnmqkiisqz6jm46ftrfeyqcizzvszc3ynj36cvkulti32hkhti)
![D. Closing Note
The Court emphasizes in closing the limited nature of its holding. The Court is not ruling
that the state lacks the authority to abolish an agency or office writ large. Rather, the Court is
simply holding that, in doing so in the manner in which Louisiana did here with SB 256—that is,
abolishing this particular office, creating a new office to replace it, and then appointing someone
for that office, all when the Louisiana Constitution requires an election—Defendants have violated
the Plaintiff’s federally protected constitutional rights to due process and to vote. As a result, the
Court holds that SB 256 is unconstitutional. See Anderson, 460 U.S. at 806 (“our primary concern
is not the interest of [this particular] candidate . . . , but rather, the interests of the voters who chose
to associate together to express their support for [his] candidacy and the views he espoused. Under
any realistic appraisal, the ‘extent and nature’ of the burdens [the State] has placed on the voters’
freedom of choice and freedom of association . . . unquestionably outweigh the State’s minimal
interest in imposing” the restriction at issue); Duncan, 657 F.2d at 700 (“the due process clause of](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreif2e2koxocaf66r47r5vdkz6va4nnro6fo6nyrsfa2mivtkha4heq)
![the fourteenth amendment prohibits action by state officials which seriously undermine the
fundamental fairness of the electoral process.”).
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2)
filed by Plaintiff Calvin Duncan, in his official capacity as Clerk-Elect of Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court, and in his personal capacity as an Orleans Parish voter is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED in that the Court finds that Senate Bill 256,
Act No. 15, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result, Defendants Governor Jeff Landry and
Secretary of State Nancy Landry are ENJOINED from (1) enforcing SB 256; (2) certifying the
appointment of the Clerk of Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans as the Clerk of Court for
the Parish of Orleans; and (3) issuing the Clerk of Civil District Court a commission for the
position of Clerk of Court for the Parish of Orleans.
[continued on next page]
Case 3:26-cv-00460-JWD-SDJ Document 13 05/03/26 Page 48 of 49](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mnigemxnozmuwtpllkefa4sc/bafkreig5j36gm4tyyeo2cawidxlt5ubj6o5as4m7xmjmofjaabba6zykjm)
![APPELLATE NO. _____ _
[At all times in Special Appearance, Conferring no Jurisdiction whatsoever to any]
[CORPORATE INSOLVENT; TERRITORY(S); DISTRICT(S); COUNTY(S); CITY(S); STATE(S); COUNTRY(S);OR NATION(S) FOR SOJOURNING]
IN THE MINNESOTA STATE COURT OF APPEALS
IN
THE COUNTY OF RAMSEY
JAMES DYLAN GAW,
LEGIS DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
&
PEIRCING THE CORPORATE VEIL
STATE OF MINNESOTA - A BANKRUPT
INSOLVENT SUB-CORPORA TI ON/FRANCHISE/
ETC FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORA TE
INSOLVENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
* * * "A CIVILLY DEAD PERSON" * * *
CASE TYPE: Mandamus/Prohibition
ACCUSED'S CASE NUMBERENS
CRIMINAL/CIVIL CASE NO'S: 20-CR-23-501
20-CR-24-105
Private International Law Petition
For
Common Law Writ of Mandamus
And
Writ of Prohibition
By
Private International Law Affidavit
Minnesota State Constitution[s], A.O. 1857
Article I, Section[s] 1, 8 and 16
FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE
Federal Constitution for the united States for America
Anno Domini 1774-1781
Amendment - I Right of Redress
Through
Amendment- IX Enumeration of Unbridgeable Right[s]
In re:
James· Gaw
Real Party In Interest/Propria Persona/Pro Per;
Flesh and Blood Human Being with Sentient and Moral Existence;
Sovereign Sojourning with Sovereign Immunity and Diplomatic Immunity;
Beneficiary of thee Estate:
Beneficiary of the Trust;
Fiduciary for the STRAW-MAN;
Agent/ Authorized Representative;
Attorney - In - Fact;
Third Party Intervener;](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ccm7gttkbfs2eyyrlpshmeun/bafkreihebiawpjehnkotomhw2jkcwivynw556qpezhe77psm6r5auiwl6a)
