GOP = Grand Old Party (Republicans)

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization

RICO = Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

SEC = Securities and Exchange Commission

SPAC = Special Purpose Acquisition Company

“An appeal is a challenge to a previous legal determination. An appeal is directed towards a legal power higher than the power making the challenged determination. In most states and the federal system, trial court determinations can be appealed in an appellate court. The rulings of those appellate courts may be reviewed by a "court of last resort." In the federal court system, that is the United States Supreme Court.

The person pursuing an appeal is called an appellant, while the person defending the lower court’s ruling is the appellee or respondent.

Appeals can be either discretionary or of right. An appeal of right is one that the higher court must hear, if the losing party demands it, while a discretionary appeal is one that the higher court may, but does not have to, consider. For example, in the federal system, there is an appeal of right from the District Court to the Court of Appeals but appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are discretionary.

Appeals do not always originate from court decisions. In administrative law, people are often allowed to appeal, in court, the decisions made by executive agencies. “ - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“An arraignment is the first step in a criminal proceeding where the defendant is brought in front of the court to hear the charges against them and enter a plea.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat. They may restrict autocracy to a single individual, or they may also apply autocracy to a group of rulers who wield absolute power. The autocrat has total control over the exercise of civil liberties within the autocracy, choosing under what circumstances they may be exercised, if at all.

Autocrats maintain power through political repression against opposition and co-optation of other influential or powerful members of society. The general public is controlled through indoctrination and propaganda, and an autocracy may attempt to legitimize itself in the eyes of the public through appeals to ideology, religion, birthright, or diplomatic recognition. Some autocracies establish legislatures, unfair elections, or show trials to further exercise control while presenting the appearance of democracy. The only limits to autocratic rule are practical considerations in preserving the regime. Autocrats must retain control over the nation's elites and institutions for their will to be exercised, but they must also prevent any other individual or group from gaining significant power or influence. Internal challenges are the most significant threats faced by autocrats, as they may lead to a coup d'état.” - Wikipedia

(COMING SOON)

“ Contumacious conduct means when someone disobeys a court order on purpose. It's like when a teacher tells you to do something and you refuse to do it even though you know you should. It's not a good thing to do and can get you in trouble.

This behavior is considered a serious offense and can result in punishment, such as fines or even imprisonment. The example illustrates how someone intentionally disregards a court order, which can disrupt the legal process and undermine the authority of the court. “ - LSD.law

“Defendant, in criminal cases, is the person accused of the crime. In civil cases, the defendant is the person or entity that is being sued by the plaintiff. In certain types of actions, the defendant is called the respondent. However, the term respondent is usually used to designate the person responding to an appeal.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

(COMING SOON)

Those who call for government to enact some socialist ideas through the democratic process. It’s set up where everyone can vote on whether the policies are a good idea or not. The main goal of democratic socialists is to control pricing of some essential services, so it’s affordable for everyone. An effort to reduce economic inequality. A way to make it so that everyone can not just survive, but to be able to enjoy life.

{ COMING SOON }

“Disgorgement is a remedy requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct. The purpose of this remedy is to prevent unjust enrichment and make illegal conduct unprofitable.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

A grand jury is a jury—a group of citizens—empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may subpoena physical evidence or a person to testify.

“Latin for "that you have the body." In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court. See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S. 111 (2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

The habeas corpus first originated back in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land,"

English courts began actively considering petitions for habeas corpus in 1600. While habeas corpus had initially originated as an instrument in opposition to the king’s “divine right to incarcerate people,” there were many other constables and other authorities during those times, who imprisoned people for various reasons. Accordingly, habeas corpus also developed as the king's role to demand account for his subject who is restrained of his liberty by other authorities.

Deeply rooted in the Anglo-American jurisprudence, the law of habeas corpus was adopted in the U.S. as well. James Madison, in 1789, argued for the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including Habeas Corpus. The fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall, emphasized the importance of habeas corpus, writing in his decision in 1830, that the "great object" of the writ of habeas corpus "is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause." The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" and must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.

HABEAS CORPUS IN THE U.S. TODAY

The sources of habeas corpus can be found in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law. The Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), states: “The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Although the Constitution does not specifically create the right to habeas corpus relief, federal statutes provide federal courts with the authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners. Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ.

In the first Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress explicitly authorized the federal courts to grant habeas relief to federal prisoners. Congress expanded the writ following the Civil War, allowing for habeas relief to state prisoners if they were held in custody in violation of federal law. Federal courts granted habeas relief to state prisoners by finding that the state court lacked the proper jurisdiction. Post-World War II reforms further expanded the writ: through the incorporation process by which the Bill of Rights was applied to the states, habeas corpus became a tool by which criminal defendants sought to uphold their civil rights against illegal state action. The Warren Court further paved the way for broader habeas corpus rights.

In 1996, Congress narrowed the writ of habeas corpus through the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). AEDPA has three important aspects: first, it imposes a one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions. Second, unless a United States Court of Appeals gave its approval, a petitioner may not file successive habeas corpus petitions. Third, habeas relief is only available when the state court’s determination was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) further narrowed the scope of habeas relief, providing that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay may not access the federal courts through habeas corpus; instead, they must go through the military commissions and then seek appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court. However, the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) expanded the territorial reach of habeas corpus, ruling that the Suspension Clause affirmatively guaranteed the right to habeas review. Thus, alien detainees designated as enemy combatants who were held outside the United States had the constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Federal statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2256) outline the procedural aspects of federal habeas proceedings. There are two prerequisites for habeas review: the petitioner must be in custody when the petition is filed, and a prisoner who is held in state government custody must have exhausted all state remedies, including state appellate review. Any federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who is within its jurisdiction. The habeas petition must be in writing and signed and verified either by the petitioner seeking relief or by someone acting on his or her behalf. The petition must name the custodian as the respondent and state the facts concerning the applicant’s custody and include the legal basis for the request. Federal courts are not required to hear the petition if a previous petition presented the same issues and no new grounds were brought up. Finally, a federal judge may dismiss the petition for the writ of habeas corpus if it is clear from the face of the petition that there are no possible grounds for relief.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ITS FUNCTIONS

Today, habeas corpus is mainly used as a post-conviction remedy for state or federal prisoners who challenge the legality of the application of federal laws that were used in the judicial proceedings that resulted in their detention. Other uses of habeas corpus include immigration or deportation cases and matters concerning military detentions, court proceedings before military commissions, and convictions in military court. Finally, habeas corpus is used to determine preliminary matters in criminal cases, such as: (i) an adequate basis for detention; (ii) removal to another federal district court; (iii) the denial of bail or parole; (iv) a claim of double jeopardy; (v) the failure to provide for a speedy trial or hearing; or (vi) the legality of extradition to a foreign country.

The writ of habeas corpus primarily acts as a writ of inquiry, issued to test the reasons or grounds for restraint and detention. The writ thus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of the law, by ordering the responsible enforcement authorities to provide valid reasons for the detention. Thus, the writ is designed to obtain immediate relief from unlawful impeachment, by ordering immediate release unless with sufficient legal reasons and grounds.

As a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual’s freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action, the writ of habeas corpus serves as a procedural device, by which executive, judicial, or other governmental restraints on personal liberty are subjected to judicial scrutiny. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is not to determine the guilt or innocence of a prisoner, but only to test the legality of a prisoner's current detention. In other words, the writ of habeas corpus only functions to test jurisdictional defects that may invalidate the legal authority to detain the person, and the reviewing court only examines the power and authority of the governmental authority to detain the person, and does not review the correctness of the authorities’ conclusion to detain the person.

The habeas corpus is not a narrow, static, and formalistic remedy, and must retain the flexibility to cut through various barriers of forms and procedural complexities by which a person may be imprisoned or detained. Accordingly, the writ of habeas corpus is a flexible writ that can be administered with initiative and flexibility to obtain release from illegal custody. Although the writ of habeas corpus is thus a flexible writ for obtaining a release from custody when one is illegally detained, there are some limitations to the rule of habeas corpus.

For example, circuit precedent cannot refine or sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court habeas corpus jurisprudence into a specific legal rule that the Supreme Court has not yet announced.

Further, in terms of habeas corpus review of capital sentences, the rule of retroactivity applies to capital sentencing, and new rules of constitutional interpretation announced after the defendant’s conviction cannot be retroactively applied in habeas corpus cases. There are only two rare exceptions to this general rule of retroactivity: 1) When a subsequent decision places a certain conduct or defendant beyond the reach of the criminal law that convicted the defendant. 2) when a subsequent decision recognizes a fundamental procedural right, which could have a significant impact on the likelihood of accurate conviction.

See, e.g., Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“A hearing refers to any formal proceeding before a court. The term usually refers to a brief court session that resolves a specific question before a full court trial takes place, or to such specialized proceedings as administrative hearings. In a hearing, evidence and arguments will be presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. In criminal law, a preliminary hearing is held before a judge and without a jury to determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to justify proceeding with the case.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“A hung jury is a jury that is unable to reach a verdict by the required voting margin. A hung jury will often lead to a retrial of the case. In some cases, the judge may instruct the jury to continue their deliberation, but this is not a common practice.

A hung jury can also have an impact on the parties involved in the trial. For the defendant, a hung jury may mean that they have not been found guilty, but it also means that the case could be retried, leading to additional stress and cost. For the prosecution, a hung jury means that they have failed to secure a conviction, which can be a blow to their case and reputation.

When a hung jury occurs, it is up to the prosecution to decide if they want to retry the case or drop the charges. It's important to note that double jeopardy, the principle that prohibits trying a person twice for the same crime, does not apply in cases where a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“ Infrastructure is the set of facilities and systems that serve a country, city, or other area, and encompasses the services and facilities necessary for its economy, households and firms to function. Infrastructure is composed of public and private physical structures such as roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, and telecommunications (including Internet connectivity and broadband access). In general, infrastructure has been defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions" and maintain the surrounding environment.

One way to describe different types of infrastructure is to classify them as two distinct kinds: hard infrastructure and soft infrastructure. Hard infrastructure is the physical networks necessary for the functioning of a modern industrial society or industry. This includes roads, bridges, and railways. Soft infrastructure is all the institutions that maintain the economic, health, social, environmental, and cultural standards of a country. This includes educational programs, official statistics, parks and recreational facilities, law enforcement agencies, and emergency services. “ - Wikipedia

“An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. There are three types of injunctions: Permanent injunctions, Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions are equitable in nature. They can be issued by the judge early in a lawsuit to stop the defendant from continuing his or her allegedly harmful actions. Choosing whether to grant temporary injunctive relief is up to the discretion of the court. Permanent injunctions are issued as a final judgment in a case, where monetary damages will not suffice. Failure to comply with an injunction may result in being held in contempt of court, which in turn may result in either criminal or civil liability. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade 410 US 113 (1973).

Injunctions: An Overview

An injunction is a court order requiring an individual to do or omit doing a specific action. It is an extraordinary remedy that courts utilize in special cases to alter or maintain the status quo, depending on the circumstances, particularly where the defendant must stop its course of action to prevent possible injustice and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Injunctive relief is a discretionary power of the court, in which the court balances the irreparability of harm and inadequacy of damages if an injunction were not granted against the damages that would result if an injunction was granted. An individual who has been given adequate notice of an injunction but fails to follow the court's orders may be punished for contempt of court.

An injunction is an equitable remedy, and is therefore available only in cases of in-personam jurisdiction, and not in in-rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explains what temporary injunctions TRO are, and establishes the rules regarding them. Rule 65, however, only addresses the collateral requirements of notice, form, and scope of the temporary injunctions, but does not prescribe the standards for issuance of the injunctions. Therefore, the standards have been judicially developed by the courts, and thus the exact standards and balancing test vary across jurisdictions.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):

A temporary restraining order is a short-term measure in effect until the court is able to issue something more enduring, such as a preliminary injunction. For example, a temporary restraining order can be issued without notice by a federal court, but cannot exceed ten days without additional court proceedings. Temporary restraining orders may be issued without a court hearing and without informing the opposing party. Temporary restraining orders are often issued by state and local courts to prevent contact between parties, where the defendants’ actions could seriously harm the plaintiffs. For example, in 1981, a federal court, issued a temporary restraining order against the Los Angeles Unified School District in an effort to stop the school district’s plans to dismantle an organized busing plan, fearing that the school district’s plans would harm the students.

Temporary Injunctions:

Unlike TRO, temporary injunctions are slightly more enduring in effect than TRO, and requires a court proceeding and usually requires a notice to the opposing party. In determining whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunctive relief, the courts generally look to several of the factors including: (1) the plaintiff's likelihood of prevailing on the merits;(2) a showing of irreparable injury to plaintiff if relief is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant is demonstrated to outweigh whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the balancing of equities.

Other circuits have alternatively looked to a different criteria, consisting of a showing of (1) probable success and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships. See e.g., W.W. Williams Co. v. Google, Inc., 2013 WL 3812079 (S.D. Ohio 2013).

Permanent Injunctions:

There is a balancing test that courts typically employ in determining whether to issue an injunction. To seek a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must pass the four-step test: (1) that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) that the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant; and (4) that the permanent injunction being sought would not hurt public interest. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Romero—Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311–313, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See: eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006).

In balancing the damages to the plaintiff and the defendant and the public interest, the courts balance the relative harm and benefit to both the defendant and the plaintiff if the injunction is granted. A leading decision, Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., ruled against a permanent injunction against the cement company in a nuisance claim by the homeowners in the neighborhood. In reaching the decision, the court factored in the factory’s apparent inability to develop improved abatement methods, and the defendant’s 45 million dollar capital investment in the factory, both of which are factors by which the defendant would be significantly hurt by the injunction.

Also, in some jurisdictions, courts take into consideration the good faith of the parties. If it seems that the defendant is acting in good faith, by doing all that it can to abate the nuisance, the court may reflect those efforts in the terms of its order. In contrast, if the court believes the defendant is acting in bad faith, the court will show little sympathy and rule in favor of permanent injunction. See, e.g., Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Serv. Dist., 965 P.2d 433, 440 (Or. Ct. App.1998). “ - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“Injunctive relief, also known as an injunction, is a remedy which restrains a party from doing certain acts or requires a party to act in a certain way. It is generally only available when there is no other remedy at law and irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted. The purpose of this form of relief is to prevent future wrong. Such orders, when issued before a judgement, are known as preliminary injunctions that can be punished as contempt if not obeyed. Due to its coercive force, a grant of injunctive relief is subject to immediate review by an appellate court. The standard for review is an abuse of discretion. As such, an injunctive relief will be overturned if the appellate court finds that the trial court issued the relief based on an misapplication of the law or an erroneous factual finding.

Injunctive relief is generally only granted in extreme circumstances. The party seeking a preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate: (1) irreparable injury in the absence of such an order; (2) that the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs the harm to the opposing party resulting from the order; (3) that the injunction is not adverse to public interest; and (4) that the moving party has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. In considering these factors, courts have been described to apply a "sliding scale" approach where the more likely a movant will succeed on the merits, the less irreparable harm (to the movant) needs to be shown in granting the injunction. There is no mathematical means of balancing these factors, therefore, the "sliding scale" approach is based on a court's intuitive judgement. It is worth noting that courts will not find irreparable harm where the damages sustained are calculable. New York has held that in such situations, monetary damages serve as an adequate remedy.

Under the Federal scheme, Rule 65 codifies the requirements for injunctive relief.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

(COMING SOON)

“A motion is a formal request made by any party for a desired ruling, order, or judgment.

The party that makes the motion is known as the movant. A motion can be written or spoken, as the relevant rules require. Various motions can be made throughout a proceeding, but only after the initial complaint has been filed.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“A motion to strike is a request to a judge that part of a party’s pleading or a piece of evidence be removed from the record. During the pleading stage, this can be accomplished by a tool such as Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a state equivalent. Under Rule 12(f), a part of a pleading can be removed if it is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The motion can be made by a party within an allotted time frame, or can be raised by the court, called sua sponte.

At the trial stage, a party may wish to make a motion to strike to remove evidence–usually part of a witness’s testimony–from the court record, with the jury instructed to disregard the evidence. This is commonly accomplished by raising an objection, which a judge can either sustain or overrule. Such a motion is raised if evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial. It must be made in a timely manner, or else a party may waive the opportunity to raise it later.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

{ COMING SOON }

“The Overton window is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies. It says politicians can act only within the acceptable range. Shifting the Overton window involves proponents of policies outside the window persuading the public to expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones within the window, seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.” - Wikipedia

“In a civil matter, the party who initiates a lawsuit (against the defendant).” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“Many successful criminal prosecutions in the United States end not with jury trials, but with plea bargains. Plea bargains are agreements between defendants and prosecutors in which defendants agree to plead guilty to some or all of the charges against them in exchange for concessions from the prosecutors. These agreements allow prosecutors to focus their time and resources on other cases, and reduce the number of trials that judges need to oversee.

In plea bargains, prosecutors usually agree to reduce a defendant's punishment. They often accomplish this by reducing the number of charges of the severity of the charges against defendants. They might also agree to recommend that defendants receive reduced sentences. Some plea bargains require defendants to do more than simply plead guilty. For example, prosecutors often offer favorable plea bargains to defendants who agree to testify for the state in cases against other defendants.

According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."

The Role of Judges

In some jurisdictions, prosecutors and defendants can work with judges to predetermine what sentence the defendants will get if the defendants accept plea bargains. In most jurisdictions, however, judges’ role in plea bargaining is limited. For example, federal judges retain final authority over sentencing decisions, and are not bound by prosecutors’ recommendations, even if the recommendations are part of plea bargains. Similarly, federal judges may not be directly involved in plea bargain negotiations.

Controversy Surrounding Plea Bargains

Although plea bargaining allows the criminal justice system to conserve resources, the plea bargains are controversial. Some commentators oppose plea bargains, as they feel that plea bargains allow defendants to shirk responsibility for the crimes they have committed. Others argue that plea bargains are too coercive and undermine important constitutional rights. Plea bargaining does require defendants to waive three rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court, however, in numerous cases (such as Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) has held that plea bargaining is constitutional. The Supreme Court, however, has held that defendants’ guilty pleas must be voluntary, and that defendants may only plead guilty if they know the consequences of doing so. McCarthy v. United States 394 U.S. 459 (1969).

Violating a Plea Bargain

Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by his or her obligation in the plea deal. If a prosecutor reneges on plea bargains, defendants may seek relief from the judge. The judge might let the defendant withdraw the guilty pleas, may force the prosecutor to follow the plea bargain, or may apply some other remedy.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“True bill (also called true bill of indictment) refers to a decision to indict a criminal defendant by a Grand Jury. When a Grand Jury decides the prosecution has provided enough evidence to show probable cause, they give a true bill which actually indicts the defendant, but if a Grand Jury thinks the prosecution did not show probable cause, they issue a no bill which forces the prosecution to drop the charges. Grand juries are used by the federal government and all states except for Pennsylvania and Connecticut in some capacity for criminal indictments.“ - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

{ Coming soon }

“Refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. Global trends point to increasing violent rhetoric and political violence, including more evidence of stochastic terrorism.

Although stochastic terrorism is considered an academic term without a formal legal definition, it is differentiated from other forms of terrorism due to its public, indirect, and seemingly random nature.

Speech: A public figure or group disseminates violent, inflammatory rhetoric via mass-media, directed at people or groups of people, sometimes suggesting or legitimizing the use of violence. This speech tends to be protected due to the use of ambiguous coded language, dog whistles, jokes, hints, and other subtext in statements. Other themes identified include black and white good vs. evil narratives as well as painting an enemy as a mortal threat, which have been compared to the radicalization techniques used by terrorist groups. These attacks are often repeated and amplified inside a media echo chamber.

Speaker(s): Typically the speaker is an influential political or media figure, who is referred to as the "stochastic terrorist" for his or her alleged indirect culpability for the attack. The instigator(s) or "stochastic terrorist(s)" may or may not knowingly use this technique to attack and intimidate enemies, nonetheless, the effect remains the same. The public figure can plausibly disclaim any subsequent attack, as their words were not an explicit call for violence, and because of the lack of a direct organizational link between the instigator and perpetrator of the attack. The public figure cannot be prosecuted for his or her statements so long as they do not meet the legal definition of incitement. This is the key distinction between stochastic terrorism and other forms of terrorism. In the U.S., the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio held that violent, inflammatory speech cannot be criminalized unless it is intended to, and likely to, result in imminent lawless action. However, Kurt Braddock warns that speech can be quite dangerous even if legal.

Inspiration: An individual or group, without any ties to known terrorist groups, hears the speech and becomes motivated to commit violence against the target of the speech, believing it will further a political or ideological goal.

Attack: An attacker commits an act of terrorism that could include physical violence, threats, or other acts meant to harm, instill fear, intimidate. The victims may receive or fear physical attacks, (online) harassment, and death threats. This can have a chilling effect, as many victims do not have the resources for adequate security.

Probability: While difficult to predict each individual act of violence due to the disconnected chain of causality, the speech makes threats and terror attacks more likely. These attacks observed as a collection have a statistically valid relationship, even if individual attacks are too random (stochastic) to predict precisely.” - Wikipedia

“A summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.

Overview

In civil cases, either party may make a pre-trial motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment for federal courts. Under Rule 56, in order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, a movant must show 1) that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and 2) that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

"Material fact" refers to any facts that could allow a fact-finder to decide against the movant.

Many states have similar pre-trial motions.

Partial Summary Judgment

Judges may grant partial summary judgment. For example, a judge might rule on some factual issues, but leave others for trial. Alternately, a judge might grant summary judgment regarding liability, but still hold a trial to determine damages.

Procedural Notes

Viewing Evidence

When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge will view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant's opponent.

Affidavits

When a party moves for summary judgment, there is no need for that party to submit "affidavits or other similar materials" to support the motion. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

Granting the Motion

If the motion is granted, there will be no trial. The judge will immediately enter judgment for the movant.” - Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

“Legal proceedings started with malice and without good case. Vexatious litigation is meant to bother, embarrass, or cause legal expenses to the defendant. A plaintiff who starts such litigation either knows or should reasonably know that no legal basis for the lawsuit exists. To obtain a remedy for vexatious litigation, the injured party often files a claim for malicious prosecution.”

“French for "to speak the truth." The process through which potential jurors from the venire are questioned by either the judge or a lawyer to determine their suitability for jury service. Also the preliminary questioning of witnesses (especially experts) to determine their competence to testify. See, e.g. Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991).” - Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute

definitions + ACRONYMS