Denys Beecher
@dbeecher.bsky.social
16 years in US Social Security law, primarily disability claim representation
I'm particularly amused by his denial of simple, demonstrable facts like "I signed up a week after you"
November 26, 2025 at 8:15 PM
I'm particularly amused by his denial of simple, demonstrable facts like "I signed up a week after you"
You can just read the thread. The qualifiers were there form the very beginning. You decided to ignore them and pretend this meant your interlocutor was ignorant of the law, when it was in fact you who was ignorant of the law. The entire rest of the conversation has followed from there.
November 26, 2025 at 7:20 PM
You can just read the thread. The qualifiers were there form the very beginning. You decided to ignore them and pretend this meant your interlocutor was ignorant of the law, when it was in fact you who was ignorant of the law. The entire rest of the conversation has followed from there.
And yet you decided, in your very first skeet, to tell someone that they didn't understand defamation law for proposing that very hypothetical. From the very beginning of the thread you've accepted that premise, and been wrong about it over and over again.
November 26, 2025 at 6:46 PM
And yet you decided, in your very first skeet, to tell someone that they didn't understand defamation law for proposing that very hypothetical. From the very beginning of the thread you've accepted that premise, and been wrong about it over and over again.
You understand you're asking this question in response to me accusing you of not actually reading what people are saying, yes? And that the accusation was in response to your reply to *this skeet* which unequivocally already answered the question you're now asking.
Was your goal to prove me right?
Was your goal to prove me right?
November 26, 2025 at 6:28 PM
You understand you're asking this question in response to me accusing you of not actually reading what people are saying, yes? And that the accusation was in response to your reply to *this skeet* which unequivocally already answered the question you're now asking.
Was your goal to prove me right?
Was your goal to prove me right?
As best I can tell this is how you entered the thread, by incorrectly trying to assert that they didn't understand how defamation laws work. Since then you've apparently abandoned any attempt at a legal argument and moved to "but it would be bad for them for non-legal reasons."
November 26, 2025 at 5:59 PM
As best I can tell this is how you entered the thread, by incorrectly trying to assert that they didn't understand how defamation laws work. Since then you've apparently abandoned any attempt at a legal argument and moved to "but it would be bad for them for non-legal reasons."
Aidan, you know everyone can scroll up, right?
"The judgment is unenforceable"
"No, wrong"
"He's actually right"
"I'm not talking about enforceability"
Pull the other one.
"The judgment is unenforceable"
"No, wrong"
"He's actually right"
"I'm not talking about enforceability"
Pull the other one.
November 26, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Aidan, you know everyone can scroll up, right?
"The judgment is unenforceable"
"No, wrong"
"He's actually right"
"I'm not talking about enforceability"
Pull the other one.
"The judgment is unenforceable"
"No, wrong"
"He's actually right"
"I'm not talking about enforceability"
Pull the other one.
It's trivially easy to know if there's a case. It's not even a remotely close call. Trump is immune from a defamation suit through the Westfall Act and even if he weren't there's no false statement of fact. This is super basic stuff.
And the freedom to insult people is right here...
And the freedom to insult people is right here...
November 25, 2025 at 3:44 AM
It's trivially easy to know if there's a case. It's not even a remotely close call. Trump is immune from a defamation suit through the Westfall Act and even if he weren't there's no false statement of fact. This is super basic stuff.
And the freedom to insult people is right here...
And the freedom to insult people is right here...
Uh-huh. The very funny jokes of "The only ones that would know if there is a case are the victim and her lawyer...," "What about this doesn't satisfy the requirements?" and "Where in the 1st amendment does it grant people the freedom to insult other people in public or private?"
November 25, 2025 at 3:44 AM
Uh-huh. The very funny jokes of "The only ones that would know if there is a case are the victim and her lawyer...," "What about this doesn't satisfy the requirements?" and "Where in the 1st amendment does it grant people the freedom to insult other people in public or private?"
You know none of this looks remotely like an attempt at humor, right? You only retreated to "oh, it's all just funny" AFTER spending numerous posts trying to defend it as something that could genuinely work legally.
November 25, 2025 at 1:33 AM
You know none of this looks remotely like an attempt at humor, right? You only retreated to "oh, it's all just funny" AFTER spending numerous posts trying to defend it as something that could genuinely work legally.
Florida snow has arrived.
November 23, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Florida snow has arrived.
We were down one player for our regular heavy board gaming group. Another player brought her new boyfriend. Everyone enjoyed the game, but this means we’re going to be one player too many for future Arcs games. I figure we aim for Diplomacy next time to expedite breakup with the new boyfriend…
November 23, 2025 at 3:26 AM
We were down one player for our regular heavy board gaming group. Another player brought her new boyfriend. Everyone enjoyed the game, but this means we’re going to be one player too many for future Arcs games. I figure we aim for Diplomacy next time to expedite breakup with the new boyfriend…
The equivalent gun made to honor veterans only costs $399. Really quite the ripoff for Trump supporters.
November 21, 2025 at 3:00 PM
The equivalent gun made to honor veterans only costs $399. Really quite the ripoff for Trump supporters.
Really just coming for the lesbians in general.
November 20, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Really just coming for the lesbians in general.
Going on a multi-page screed about George Soros in a case where he's not at all a party is... not great, Jerry.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
November 19, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Going on a multi-page screed about George Soros in a case where he's not at all a party is... not great, Jerry.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
And, yes, people are absolutely going to point out that you're behavior is well beyond what's proper for a federal judge. This is not an effective way to get ahead of that criticism.
And if I'd done that surely you'd have a reasonable complaint, but instead, you read the ones you're imagining I typed instead.
November 18, 2025 at 2:25 AM
And if I'd done that surely you'd have a reasonable complaint, but instead, you read the ones you're imagining I typed instead.
Starting to feel like a broken record here, Andy.
November 18, 2025 at 2:18 AM
Starting to feel like a broken record here, Andy.
Clearly I'm just going to have to keep this one on standby.
November 18, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Clearly I'm just going to have to keep this one on standby.
I did read my argument. Now YOU try reading my actual argument and what you claimed my argument was both together. See the difference? Not at all the same thing.
November 17, 2025 at 11:23 PM
I did read my argument. Now YOU try reading my actual argument and what you claimed my argument was both together. See the difference? Not at all the same thing.
Right. That's a direct contradiction to your stated position of "they wouldn't take Davis' case because it would overturn their decision." So which is it? They're willing to overturn precedent or they won't take this case because it would overturn precedent?
November 17, 2025 at 11:21 PM
Right. That's a direct contradiction to your stated position of "they wouldn't take Davis' case because it would overturn their decision." So which is it? They're willing to overturn precedent or they won't take this case because it would overturn precedent?
