Reposted by @laybros.bsky.social
It takes a lot to make Jacob Rees-Mogg the voice of (relative) sanity (and not by a small margin in this case).
But by gawd Tucker Carlson is up to the task. Dude's gonna be crazier than Ye ever was soon, and without the excuse of literal manic psychosis.
![The Court originally scheduled the show cause hearing in this matter for January 6, 2026. See [110] at p. 1. Williams then filed a Motion [114] seeking to appear at the hearing via videoconference or, alternatively, for the hearing to be continued to a later date. See [114] at p. 1-2. In that Motion [114], Williams represented that she had a conflicting federal court appearance in another case without providing further detail. See id. at p. 1. The Court then issued an Order [115] granting a brief continuance of the hearing and directing Williams to submit documentation verifying her conflicting court appearance on the originally scheduled hearing date. See [115]. Williams complied and promptly submitted a Response [117], which indicated that she was being required to appear at an initial scheduling conference in a case in federal court in New Jersey. See
[117]. Notably, that initial scheduling conference in the New Jersey case was scheduled to occur via video conference three and a half hours before the show cause hearing in this case. Id., Ex. 1 at p. 2. Upon verifying the information provided by Williams, the Court realized that the remote
conference in the New Jersey case had actually been postponed via text order on December 8,
2025—two days before this Court even issued its order scheduling the show cause hearing in this
case, which was entered on December 10, 2025. See Marinesi v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 2:25-
cv-04822, Dkt. [11]. The fact of the matter is Williams never had a scheduling conflict (at least in
the New Jersey case) though she represented as much in her Motion [114] and Response [117].
The Court is troubled by this misrepresentation and finds that Williams was not truthful about her
purported scheduling conflict in violation of her ethical duties as an officer of the court. This
certainly reflects her lack of concern for the seriousness of the underlying misconduct in this case
despite her contentions otherwise.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:y2wx7b4qyjehtrhqml2xpsvo/bafkreiajbsgqu6zusmpgzilmdv7vylezerkuir4qtw3koiicknop6bhyau)
