John Wares

@johnwares.bsky.social

I hope everyone knows I’d rather not post about the theft of my country.

Ride your bike. Have a burrito. Study benthic diversity. Have a beer. UGA Professor. He/him. PRO diversity. PRO equity. PRO inclusion. www.wareslab.net

@maxkennerly.bsky.socialReposted by @johnwares.bsky.social

Low-hanging fruit for reporters and Dem trackers: ask a Republican running for office, "what would you do if you were in a car with your child and men in hoodies charged at you with guns drawn?" Follow up with "do you think it's reasonable for a parent in that situation to use lethal force?"

Schrödinger's Sneetch Belly@rtodkelly.bsky.social

😐

@maggiemcneill.bsky.socialReposted by @johnwares.bsky.social

The term everyone is dancing around is "secret police", a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.

Jared@jaredmcclain.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);
2
@ossoff.bsky.socialReposted by @johnwares.bsky.social

Mike Collins has brought dishonor to our state through his personal bigotry and his widely documented ties to white nationalists. And he's sold out Georgia in his pathetic, childlike devotion to Donald Trump.

Older posts