Owen Barcala
@obarcala.bsky.social
I would prefer not to.
NM civil litigator. Trials, appeals, plaintiff, defense, you name it. Opinions are my own, not my firm's #USMC
NM civil litigator. Trials, appeals, plaintiff, defense, you name it. Opinions are my own, not my firm's #USMC
Before and after pics
November 28, 2025 at 4:58 AM
Before and after pics
In this case it literally let him get away with part of the attempt 🤷♂️
November 27, 2025 at 7:14 PM
In this case it literally let him get away with part of the attempt 🤷♂️
I got a bird buddy for my birthday but mostly all I've been able to see is this jealous b guarding the birdseed like Smaug
November 26, 2025 at 5:58 PM
I got a bird buddy for my birthday but mostly all I've been able to see is this jealous b guarding the birdseed like Smaug
I got a bird buddy for my birthday but mostly all I've been able to see is this jealous b guarding the birdseed like Smaug
November 26, 2025 at 5:58 PM
I got a bird buddy for my birthday but mostly all I've been able to see is this jealous b guarding the birdseed like Smaug
Under the court's reasoning, the AG's ability to appoint anyone expires after 120 days. The district court now has the exclusive authority to do it.
November 24, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Under the court's reasoning, the AG's ability to appoint anyone expires after 120 days. The district court now has the exclusive authority to do it.
They may get a do-over within six months under the savings statute. I think there will be a question of whether an indictment returned by someone who was not legally holding office is sufficient for the statute to apply.
November 24, 2025 at 5:54 PM
They may get a do-over within six months under the savings statute. I think there will be a question of whether an indictment returned by someone who was not legally holding office is sufficient for the statute to apply.
Important to note that DOJ could re-file even though it's outside the statute of limitations. There's a savings statute that allows a new indictment after the SOL if an indictment w/in the SOL is dismissed "for any reason." I'm not sure if that applies where the first indictment was ultra vires.
November 24, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Important to note that DOJ could re-file even though it's outside the statute of limitations. There's a savings statute that allows a new indictment after the SOL if an indictment w/in the SOL is dismissed "for any reason." I'm not sure if that applies where the first indictment was ultra vires.
Here is the analysis on whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The judge interpreted SCOTUS precedent to mean that Halligan's actions should just be "unwound," putting the parties back where they were before the indictment. Whether he can be indicted again is left for the future.
November 24, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Here is the analysis on whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The judge interpreted SCOTUS precedent to mean that Halligan's actions should just be "unwound," putting the parties back where they were before the indictment. Whether he can be indicted again is left for the future.
The embedded snip seems a little shady, but I found it myself too—here is the full post
x.com/DeptofWar/st...
x.com/DeptofWar/st...
November 24, 2025 at 5:32 PM
The embedded snip seems a little shady, but I found it myself too—here is the full post
x.com/DeptofWar/st...
x.com/DeptofWar/st...
Gave me a little panic attack in the oven when the puff pastry was really living up to its name
November 23, 2025 at 1:10 AM
Gave me a little panic attack in the oven when the puff pastry was really living up to its name
Thanksgiving practice, caramelized onion gruyere tarts with cranberry brie tarts
November 23, 2025 at 1:07 AM
Thanksgiving practice, caramelized onion gruyere tarts with cranberry brie tarts
He's not a Trump judge, but this may be the Trumpiest legal opinion I've seen. Even when he talks about facts he does it in a Trump way. Misleading. False. Fake news. No explanation why it's purportedly false. (The footnotes just cite the opinion.)
November 19, 2025 at 10:12 PM
He's not a Trump judge, but this may be the Trumpiest legal opinion I've seen. Even when he talks about facts he does it in a Trump way. Misleading. False. Fake news. No explanation why it's purportedly false. (The footnotes just cite the opinion.)
No, judge, your rant about how certain parties have received donations from Democratic donors and George Soros is not undermining your neutrality at all
November 19, 2025 at 9:48 PM
No, judge, your rant about how certain parties have received donations from Democratic donors and George Soros is not undermining your neutrality at all
Hey, it only took four pages for him to talk about George Soros!
November 19, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Hey, it only took four pages for him to talk about George Soros!
But that the foreperson handwrote "count 1 only" on it in open court. That explains this document. But if that "correction" was added in open court, not in front of the grand jury, then I'm not sure you can even take it as granted that the GJ approved *any* charges.
November 19, 2025 at 8:55 PM
But that the foreperson handwrote "count 1 only" on it in open court. That explains this document. But if that "correction" was added in open court, not in front of the grand jury, then I'm not sure you can even take it as granted that the GJ approved *any* charges.
Let me expand on this because I think I've gotten the situation slightly wrong at times based on what @annabower.bsky.social reported about the hearing today. She reports that the first indictment was filed with a document saying there was *no bill on any charge,* . . .
November 19, 2025 at 8:55 PM
Let me expand on this because I think I've gotten the situation slightly wrong at times based on what @annabower.bsky.social reported about the hearing today. She reports that the first indictment was filed with a document saying there was *no bill on any charge,* . . .
DOJ can argue that the substance of the two approved charges weren't changed, but that shouldn't make a difference because the *indictment* was changed. As SCOTUS said in Bain, it is not for the court to say whether the jury would have approved the second indictment w/o the third charge.
November 19, 2025 at 8:11 PM
DOJ can argue that the substance of the two approved charges weren't changed, but that shouldn't make a difference because the *indictment* was changed. As SCOTUS said in Bain, it is not for the court to say whether the jury would have approved the second indictment w/o the third charge.
But the same considerations would not apply to indictments in the future. They explicitly wanted to prevent the kind of guesswork involved in asking after the fact whether the grand jury would have approved the indictment as drafted, so they imposed a flat rule requiring dismissal.
November 19, 2025 at 8:08 PM
But the same considerations would not apply to indictments in the future. They explicitly wanted to prevent the kind of guesswork involved in asking after the fact whether the grand jury would have approved the indictment as drafted, so they imposed a flat rule requiring dismissal.
In Gaither, the DC Circuit held it was an error to charge the defendant based on an indictment signed only by the foreman, but under the circumstances (incl. numerous other pending indictments using the same procedure) it did not require dismissal. They gave the def an opportunity to show prejudice
November 19, 2025 at 8:06 PM
In Gaither, the DC Circuit held it was an error to charge the defendant based on an indictment signed only by the foreman, but under the circumstances (incl. numerous other pending indictments using the same procedure) it did not require dismissal. They gave the def an opportunity to show prejudice
The DC Circuit said the issue comes down to whether there was an AMENDMENT to the indictment or a VARIANCE. An amendment is where the indictment is altered from what the GJ approved. A variance is where the proof at trial varies from the indictment.
Harmless error doesn't apply to amendments
Harmless error doesn't apply to amendments
November 19, 2025 at 8:03 PM
The DC Circuit said the issue comes down to whether there was an AMENDMENT to the indictment or a VARIANCE. An amendment is where the indictment is altered from what the GJ approved. A variance is where the proof at trial varies from the indictment.
Harmless error doesn't apply to amendments
Harmless error doesn't apply to amendments
This is based on the DC Cir's view of a SCOTUS case, Ex Parte Bain, where the trial court struck out language contained in the approved indictment. SCOTUS set aside the conviction
"In reply to the trial judge's argument "that the grand jury would have found the indictment without this language..."
"In reply to the trial judge's argument "that the grand jury would have found the indictment without this language..."
November 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
This is based on the DC Cir's view of a SCOTUS case, Ex Parte Bain, where the trial court struck out language contained in the approved indictment. SCOTUS set aside the conviction
"In reply to the trial judge's argument "that the grand jury would have found the indictment without this language..."
"In reply to the trial judge's argument "that the grand jury would have found the indictment without this language..."
The government argued in part that because the foreman was present, his signature accurately reflects the jury's intent and the vote is merely a clerical procedure. While we assume that the foreman acts in good faith, his signature cannot convert an indictment not seen by the GJ into a proper one
November 19, 2025 at 7:25 PM
The government argued in part that because the foreman was present, his signature accurately reflects the jury's intent and the vote is merely a clerical procedure. While we assume that the foreman acts in good faith, his signature cannot convert an indictment not seen by the GJ into a proper one
In Gaither v. US, the appellant challenged his conviction because the prosecutor had the grand jury vote on a *presentment*, then prepared the indictment, which was not voted on but only signed by the foreman. Evidently that was a common procedure in DC at the time.
November 19, 2025 at 7:20 PM
In Gaither v. US, the appellant challenged his conviction because the prosecutor had the grand jury vote on a *presentment*, then prepared the indictment, which was not voted on but only signed by the foreman. Evidently that was a common procedure in DC at the time.
Incredible—according to @talkingpointsmemo.com, Judge Nachmanoff in the Comey case found a DC Circuit opinion almost directly on point that seems to prohibit what Halligan did with the indictment all the way back in 1969!
talkingpointsmemo.com/news/due-to-...
talkingpointsmemo.com/news/due-to-...
November 19, 2025 at 7:17 PM
Incredible—according to @talkingpointsmemo.com, Judge Nachmanoff in the Comey case found a DC Circuit opinion almost directly on point that seems to prohibit what Halligan did with the indictment all the way back in 1969!
talkingpointsmemo.com/news/due-to-...
talkingpointsmemo.com/news/due-to-...
I've seen that also, but I don't think she did. I eyeballed the approved counts and they look materially the same (other than the number in the heading). The no billed count is about a different alleged false statement about a "'plan concerning' Person 2," which I don't see in the second indictment
November 19, 2025 at 7:00 PM
I've seen that also, but I don't think she did. I eyeballed the approved counts and they look materially the same (other than the number in the heading). The no billed count is about a different alleged false statement about a "'plan concerning' Person 2," which I don't see in the second indictment