Series:
Friends of the Court:
SCOTUS Justices’ Beneficial Relationships With Billionaire Donors
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
We updated our “Supreme Connections” database
on Wednesday with new entries from recently released financial
disclosures from Supreme Court justices, as well as five filings from
2003 to 2007 we had previously been missing.
Defend the facts. Support independent journalism by donating to ProPublica.
“Supreme Connections” is
our database that makes it easy for anyone to browse justices’ financial
disclosures and to search for connections to people and companies
mentioned within them.
This update includes data
from eight disclosures made public last Friday, covering the 2023
calendar year. It does not include data for Justice Samuel Alito, who received a 90-day extension.
We have also added information from a 2003 filing from Alito and information from Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2004-07 filings that were previously obtained by JudicialWatch and archived by the Internet Archive.
While federal ethics law requires judges to file these disclosures each
year, the law requires most of them to be destroyed after six years,
making many disclosures from earlier years hard to find.
In total, the update adds $50,000 worth of gifts disclosed (including concert tickets given to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by Beyoncé
herself), 18 new organizations and individuals, and more than 200 new
connections, such as book deals, trips and reimbursements.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So no immunity decision ha! This is how I see this going I’m not the most knowledgeable poster here on politics so I’m probably just being paranoid. Trumpolini bought the services of the three judges he got seated on the SC bench in return they have to pay back the favor hence the delay, They are waiting for the election to happen so they can both side the issue of immunity, if Biden wins they will rule that no one is above the law! if Trumpollini wins they will side with him and state that Presidents are immune to prosecution
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders By Ann E. Marimow June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders By Ann E. Marimow June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.
continues..
a blind squirrel finds nuts every once in a while too.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Ketanji joins the extreme conservatives on the Purdue Pharma case and Kavanaugh and Roberts join the liberals. I agree on the decision. Fuck the Sackler family trying to weasel out of liabilty.
Ketanji joins the extreme conservatives on the Purdue Pharma case and Kavanaugh and Roberts join the liberals. I agree on the decision. Fuck the Sackler family trying to weasel out of liabilty.
is that why they rejected it? i hadn't read about it yet. just saw the headline that the settlement was rejected. i figured that the court said the penalty was too stiff. you know, to protect billionaires like they usually do.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits. The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves. The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts. In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits. The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves. The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts. In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.
continues...
Does this ruling potentially impact the Alex Jones bankruptcy?
Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits. The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves. The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts. In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.
continues...
Does this ruling potentially impact the Alex Jones bankruptcy?
I would say no, because jones like guiliani was seeking to get out of judgement against whereas this was a settlement deal approved by most parties of interest.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for the Biden
administration Wednesday, throwing out a lower court ruling that had
placed major restrictions on the ability of government officials to
communicate with social media companies about their content moderation
policies.
While the court’s ruling was procedural, it was nonetheless a stark
repudiation of two lower courts in the South, and their eagerness to
embrace conspiracy theories about alleged government coercion of social
media companies.
Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice
Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two
states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all.
She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the
government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and
Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the
Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are
“clearly erroneous.”
For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case
maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to
set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she
said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a
White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending
to be the account of Biden’s granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake
account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the
future to flag similar issues.
“Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and
that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what
transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook,
Twitter and other social media companies,” said law professor Paul
Barrett, no relation to the justice, who is deputy director of the Stern
Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU.
In her opinion for the court majority, Justice Barrett said that at
every turn, the alleged facts turned to dust, and that the plaintiffs
had failed to trace past or potential future harm to anything done by
officials at the White House, the CDC, the FBI, or a key cyber security
agency. Indeed, the court said, many of the actions taken by the social
media platforms to modify content about COVID vaccines or other matters,
were taken before any contacts with government officials took place.
The court’s decision will make it considerably more difficult for
people to bring challenges like this in the future because the justices
said that it’s not enough to rail against the government for criticizing
an individual’s message online. Rather, there has to be a causal link
between the government’s commentary and what happens on a social media
platform. In short, there has to be a traceable link, a link that the
court said was entirely missing in this case, as the social media
companies had their own incentives for moderating content, and often
exercised their own judgment.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting
pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” wrote Altio.
“Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat
to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight Center First Amendment
Institute at Columbia University, agreed with the court majority that in
this particular case, the plaintiffs had alleged a very generalized
theory of coercion, but he added that the court needs to set out
specific factors for evaluating when government officials go too far.
“It’s important for Democrats and liberals who are perhaps
sympathetic to the Biden administration’s efforts” to prevent COVID
misinformation or Russian election interference, to consider whether
they would be comfortable with these same rules if the Trump
administration “were to pressure social media companies to take down
speech related to MeToo or Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian
speech.”
“We need a set of rules that make sense in all of these
contexts,” Jaffer said, adding, “And so far, the court hasn’t given us a
lot to work with.”
Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs
correspondent. Her reports air regularly on NPR's critically acclaimed
newsmagazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend
Edition.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Interestingly, this leaves Jackson and the chief as the only justices without opinions for April. Fischer v. US (the Jan. 6 case) and the Trump immunity case are the only two remaining cases from the April argument session."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The court has ruled on presidential immunity. “A former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the ruling says. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.
Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.
Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.
Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.
I agree, this is all pretty much what was expected and common sense. While Trump will try to take a victory lap, let's remember that he said he had "absolute immunity". He doesn't.
I find the Net Choice rulings interesting and just as consequential. I still cannot wrap my head around the argument that a social media company has no editorial control of their platform.
I find the Net Choice rulings interesting and just as consequential. I still cannot wrap my head around the argument that a social media company has no editorial control of their platform.
terms of service, no? thats where their absolute editorial controll lies, doesn't it?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
ProPublica Updates “Supreme Connections” Database With New Justice Disclosures
The update includes data from eight financial disclosures made public last Friday that cover 2023, as well as information from some older filings.
Series: Friends of the Court: SCOTUS Justices’ Beneficial Relationships With Billionaire Donors
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
We updated our “Supreme Connections” database on Wednesday with new entries from recently released financial disclosures from Supreme Court justices, as well as five filings from 2003 to 2007 we had previously been missing.
Defend the facts. Support independent journalism by donating to ProPublica.
Donate Now“Supreme Connections” is our database that makes it easy for anyone to browse justices’ financial disclosures and to search for connections to people and companies mentioned within them.
This update includes data from eight disclosures made public last Friday, covering the 2023 calendar year. It does not include data for Justice Samuel Alito, who received a 90-day extension.
The latest update includes two 2019 vacations retroactively added by Justice Clarence Thomas, which were paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow and which the justice had previously failed to disclose. ProPublica was the first to reveal those and an array of other significant gifts from several billionaires. Thomas previously argued he did not need to disclose such gifts.
We have also added information from a 2003 filing from Alito and information from Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2004-07 filings that were previously obtained by JudicialWatch and archived by the Internet Archive. While federal ethics law requires judges to file these disclosures each year, the law requires most of them to be destroyed after six years, making many disclosures from earlier years hard to find.
In total, the update adds $50,000 worth of gifts disclosed (including concert tickets given to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by Beyoncé herself), 18 new organizations and individuals, and more than 200 new connections, such as book deals, trips and reimbursements.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Trumpolini bought the services of the three judges he got seated on the SC bench in return they have to pay back the favor hence the delay,
They are waiting for the election to happen so they can both side the issue of immunity, if Biden wins they will rule that no one is above the law!
if Trumpollini wins they will side with him and state that Presidents are immune to prosecution
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
By Ann E. Marimow
June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Looking for the draft now...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I would say no, because jones like guiliani was seeking to get out of judgement against whereas this was a settlement deal approved by most parties of interest.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for the Biden administration Wednesday, throwing out a lower court ruling that had placed major restrictions on the ability of government officials to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies.
While the court’s ruling was procedural, it was nonetheless a stark repudiation of two lower courts in the South, and their eagerness to embrace conspiracy theories about alleged government coercion of social media companies.
Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.”
For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending to be the account of Biden’s granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the future to flag similar issues.
“Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies,” said law professor Paul Barrett, no relation to the justice, who is deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU.
In her opinion for the court majority, Justice Barrett said that at every turn, the alleged facts turned to dust, and that the plaintiffs had failed to trace past or potential future harm to anything done by officials at the White House, the CDC, the FBI, or a key cyber security agency. Indeed, the court said, many of the actions taken by the social media platforms to modify content about COVID vaccines or other matters, were taken before any contacts with government officials took place.
The court’s decision will make it considerably more difficult for people to bring challenges like this in the future because the justices said that it’s not enough to rail against the government for criticizing an individual’s message online. Rather, there has to be a causal link between the government’s commentary and what happens on a social media platform. In short, there has to be a traceable link, a link that the court said was entirely missing in this case, as the social media companies had their own incentives for moderating content, and often exercised their own judgment.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” wrote Altio. “Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight Center First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, agreed with the court majority that in this particular case, the plaintiffs had alleged a very generalized theory of coercion, but he added that the court needs to set out specific factors for evaluating when government officials go too far.
“It’s important for Democrats and liberals who are perhaps sympathetic to the Biden administration’s efforts” to prevent COVID misinformation or Russian election interference, to consider whether they would be comfortable with these same rules if the Trump administration “were to pressure social media companies to take down speech related to MeToo or Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian speech.”
“We need a set of rules that make sense in all of these contexts,” Jaffer said, adding, “And so far, the court hasn’t given us a lot to work with.”
Copyright 2024 NPR
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I swear, if they rule in favor of Trump today, this country is truly sliding in to being controlled by a criminal and his mob of morons.
"Interestingly, this leaves Jackson and the chief as the only justices without opinions for April. Fischer v. US (the Jan. 6 case) and the Trump immunity case are the only two remaining cases from the April argument session."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the ruling says. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.
terms of service, no? thats where their absolute editorial controll lies, doesn't it?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14