🦇Anne🩸

@starrysart.bsky.social

Likes❤️ and reposts🔄 appreciated! TF warning! 🩷Anne speaking They/Them🖤💜🤍💛 | 23 | 🩷💛🩵Pan | Mostly SFW, 18+ please NO AI!

@starrysart.bsky.social

I found out earlier there’s a website that makes up prompts for AI image generators, because apparently it’s already rotted people’s brains so much they lack the creativity to make prompts on their own. Pathetic.

Delphox in the manga with the same camera angle as the picture of the principal from the Simpsons saying “Pathetic.”
@fatescanner.bsky.socialReposted by @starrysart.bsky.social

Excited for my trip back to BLFC tomorrow! Can't wait to bun it up in Reno for the first time! If you're attending and spot me, feel more than free to say hi and grab a picture! :3

@maggiemcneill.bsky.socialReposted by @starrysart.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
@gunnywaffle.bsky.socialReposted by @starrysart.bsky.social

Well our bad luck struck again. We owe an additional $800 today. If we don't pay today, it becomes $2,100 by Monday. This endless cycle of emergency medical costs is draining the life out of us... Everyone's help has been miraculous thus far. We cannot thank you enough. so tired x.x

@gunnywaffle.bsky.socialReposted by @starrysart.bsky.social

My posts about our ongoing medical emergencies must paint a confusing message if you dig back. It's a roller coaster of needing funds, acquiring funds, getting surgeries, needing surgeries, being okay, needing aid, and on and on. Social media isn't meant for this. It becomes a slurry of updates.

Older posts