How unique! You must be so proud that you were able to string those words together.
Edit:
So my response to ad hominem is troll are you sure? I wasn't sure.
I bet you're okay with them telling me that I like to taste boots.
Edit2: Mod says that this is uncivil... Yet doesn't ban/remove the post that literally says that I lick boots. Pound sand mod.
Mother had legal custody.
Father didn't petition the court, his sister did.
This story is stupid. It has nothing to do with Trump.
Edit: For the downvoters...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/6/v-m-l-v-harper/
Mother had legal custody. And mother expressly desired to bring her child home with her.
And ICE gave the "father" a chance to prove who the fuck he was... and he didn't.
First, Petitioner is unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims. See ECF 1. V.M.L. is in the custody of her legal custodian – her mother. Neither Petitioner Mack nor the man claiming to be V.M.L.’s father have provided proof of their identities to ICE officials, much less any proof of legal custody, such that ICE may release V.M.L. into their custody.
And the "petitioner" is NOT the father. As expressed here.
Should her mother decide to allow Petitioner Mack and the purported father to take custody of V.M.L., V.M.L. is not prohibited from entering the United States.
and
Ex. A. Petitioner Mack, the purported Next Friend, does not suggest that she speaks for Ms. Lopez Villela, nor should such Next Friend status entitle Petitioner Mack to subvert the express, written desire of Ms. Lopez Villela.
Edit2: Hah more downvotes. Just remember, you were yelling about separating families not that long ago. Now you're advocating for separating the mother from her kids... to give to an unknown man who can't produce anything to show that he's even related to them. Wild.
Edit3:
I literally sourced the official ICE response. How the fuck is quoting the literal government agency response disinformation. The fuck is wrong with you? It's up there and has been for hours... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/6/v-m-l-v-harper/
Edit4: Mod says this is uncivil. I say pound sand. This whole post is uncivil several times against me with people calling me all sorts of shit, but you call a post that sources and cites an actual response "uncivil".
Does anyone know of lemmy instances without as much censorship?
If you run your own, you can just undo the moderated action. I do that often on my instance just to see it without having to trawl through a modlog. But you should be able to also see it in the Modlog if you look there, can even filter by username.
And I'm addressing your statement that "an IP address is 4 bytes" in specific. I understand their example is IPv4, but you just blatantly said that "An IP address is 4 bytes" when that's not the case for IPv6 which a good chunk of the world is using now (still not a majority though...).
His code takes the base64 of anything that's returned in both (together) ip and timestamp. So the long string is both values concat'd then encoded. Most of that string is going to be the timestamp...
Specifically MTEuMjIuMzMuNDQ is 11.22.33.44
Where ---KIApTdW5kYXksIDI3LUFwci0yMDI1IDE1OjA0OjM5IENFU1QK is the date string Sunday, 27-Apr-2025 15:04:39 CEST.
While it's still a "bigger" value than it needs to be, it's not like it's the end of the world for an email address. I mean, if we really want to get "fancy" most people don't know that you can just go to an IP address in it's decimal form...
1.1.1.1 -> 16843009 (http://16843009) No need to encode anything special at all in that case. But that's neither here nor there... Can always make your own with blackjack and hookers of course.
I’m not sure why you’re arguing in bad faith
I love how everyone says this the moment they're challenged with anything remotely against their bullshit.
What process of law was not provided to this woman? Everyone keeps saying this but nobody has been able to articulate any singular item that the deported woman was due that she didn't get.
An IP address is 4 bytes
IPv6 exists you know?
Not at all. She had deportation orders, which means that the immigration court came to an conclusion. Your article continues to echo the same things I've been saying which is the mother was deported, not the children. And that the mother wrote a letter stating she wants to bring her child with her.
It's absurd to believe that she had no decision to make there. Very odd that the "family's lawyers" can know what the mother wants at all if she wasn't allowed to coordinate anything don't you think?