the decision is principled

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34523372)

Edit: "circuit judge" had me confused.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34521716)

I also like how they cite Posner's own 7th circuit cases against him.

Notably it's per curiam. no one wanted to risk a vendetta.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34524259)

And lol @ Posner getting overturned. Surprised it's not harmless but I wonder if his former colleagues just want to torment him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34521754)

Posner retired in indignation because he wanted to publish internal 7th Circuit documents (including correspondence with Wood) about how the court treats pro she appellants badly and don't give them enough help.

Then, today, Posner is reversed for berating a pro she litigating.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34521841)

posner may very well have felt justified in fucking this pro se guy, but not pro se defendants, in general

but, when the court fucks a guy because they don't like him the buzzer goes off

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34523382)

And why did Posner anoint himself as filter between the staff attorneys and his colleagues? Largely, he says, because “uniquely among this court’s judges, [he had] a deeply felt commitment to the welfare of the pro se litigants.” But, by his own account, he only “became interested in the staff attorney program in the late winter/early spring of this year (2017).” And in his preceding three and a half decades on the court, “I’m pretty sure I’d never even discussed it with another judge.” Deeply? Uniquely?

It gets worse. Posner chooses to reveal the initial panel vote in a still-not-yet-decided appeal that he identifies by name. The other two panel members plan to affirm, he tells us. (Posner disagrees, so we get two paragraphs summarizing and quoting from the dissent he would have filed.) What compelling reason led him to include this stunning disclosure in a book ostensibly about pro se’s and televising arguments, when this case has nothing to do with either? Because “I’ve decided to note two recent clashes with colleagues.” This is not Posner-being-Posner, this is madness.

The other “clash” he chooses to recount is when he emailed all the judges on the court to tell them he thought it odd that some judges referred to Wood as “Chief Diane.” He admits this one “doesn’t reflect credit on me” and, “In retrospect, I cannot understand what moved me to email the judges ….” Me neither.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34521807)

[O]ne [element] is that ... the scheme to defraud involved a materially false or fraudulent pre- tense, representation, or promise. That’s very important, that notion of materiality. Because if you—sometimes people will lie, for example, out of embarrassment. You know, someone asks your age, you knock a couple of years off, or something like that. That would—those are not—those little white lies, those are not mate- rial falsehoods. They don’t—I mean, they may embarrass you when it’s discovered, but they’re not—that’s not wrongful conduct. It’s when, with specific reference to our case, if you—if you tell—if you tell the Internal Revenue Ser- vice a lie which is capable of getting them to do something which they would never do if they knew the truth, namely, give you $300,000 to which you’re not entitled, that is a material falsehood. That’s fraud. And that is an element of the charges.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34521810)

" Between August 2009 and November 2010, El-Bey filed a total of six tax returns by mail with the IRS in the name of the trust, each seeking a $300,000 refund. Each return was essentially identical: each claimed $900,000 in trust income, $900,000 in fees, $7,590 in exemptions, and $300,000 in withholding. Based on this return, the IRS issued and mailed a $300,000 refund check to 'Hakeem El Bey Trust, Hakeem El Bey Trustee.'"

"Hey, guys, you withheld $300,000 from my trust and totally owe it back to me. Please handle, thanks."

"Seems legit. Here's your money. Thank."

Makes you wonder how much low level outright fraud goes on without ever being detected. If he was less greedy and asked for a $30,000 "refund," would it have been too low dollar for anybody to check into?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#34524226)

We can still maek it!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773812&forum_id=2#35659357)