Mary McNamara

@marymcnamara.bsky.social

Was: reporter, tv critic, member Television Critics Assoc. Now: living the surf life in Outer Sunset. Lifelong Dem, proud Iowa native. #WeAreNAFO “CIA funded gangster” "cancel culture bully from hell" 🇺🇸🇮🇪🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈

@jaredmcclain.bsky.socialReposted by @marymcnamara.bsky.social

Things got more insane just about as soon as I posted this last night. DHS is now arguing that we cannot even put the names of ICE officers in our lawsuit against those officers. Their position is that, if a defendant works for DHS, they cannot be named in a lawsuit. Never seen anything like it.

All this time, while Defendants have refused to identify Does 4 and 5 or respond to Leo’s discovery requests, the six-month statute of limitations on his FTCA claims has nearly expired. So, on October 6, Leo sought Defendants’ consent to file an amended complaint that (1) adds his FTCA claims against the United States and (2) adds the names of Does 1, 2, and 3. These minimal changes are shown in a redline attached to this filing. Defendants, however, refused to consent to Leo’s amendments because there is not a protective order in place. One of Defendants’ positions with respect to the protective order is that the “full legal names” of all government employees “should be confidential.” (ECF 109, at 2). That position, apparently, means that Defendants even oppose Leo identifying specific officers in his lawsuit against those very officers based on their misconduct in carrying out their public duties. Because Defendants will not consent to Leo’s amendments, Leo has filed this motion for leave.Justice also requires granting Leo leave to name the Doe officers as defendants. Despite DHS’s remarkable position that all government employees’ names are confidential, parties routinely sue government employees by name. In fact, Rule 10(a) “requires a complaint to ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). “Lawsuits are public events.” Id. Rule 10(a) “protects the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identity of the parties.” Id. Only in an “exceptional case” can a party’s name be withheld from the public. Id. And that bar is even higher for public employees since their employment “diminishes their privacy interests” given “the corresponding public interest in knowing how public employees are performing their jobs.” Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
@deanpreston.bsky.socialReposted by @marymcnamara.bsky.social

I hope one day we will have a mayor of San Francisco who doesn’t just amplify right wing talking points about San Francisco for their own political advancement

@youranoncentral.bsky.socialReposted by @marymcnamara.bsky.social

US flags burned in Brazil in protest against US interference in the presidential elections. Trump, US money, foreign influence and disinformation networks were used to support far-right Bolsonaro’s campaign.

@ronfilipkowski.bsky.socialReposted by @marymcnamara.bsky.social

Absolutely insanity. How the hell can this person possibly be employed with this level of malicious lying? Unless of course that is what your network is all about. bsky.app/profile/atru...

Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com

Rachel Campos-Duffy claims Ukraine has killed "a million kids on the Russian side"

@drobotunv.bsky.socialReposted by @marymcnamara.bsky.social

I want to thank the people of the USA once again - people with kind hearts and bright minds. Thank you for understanding everything and standing by our side! Thank you for your support! You are the best! We are deeply grateful for everything you are doing during these difficult times!

Older posts