Have they provided any evidence for the reason they detained this individual? Have they provided proof that the evidence existed on his phone and it being wiped leads to destruction of "evidence"?
Why was he denied a lawyer?
Oh, Professor Briefcase has entered the chat,
With six grand examples that are literally that—
Same case, same premise, same conclusion rehearsed,
Change “cats” into “nothing” and pretend you did research.
Example one: briefcase. Example two: briefcase.
Example three: astonishingly, another briefcase.
Example four: briefcase, but this time say “forgot.”
Example five: briefcase. Aristotle, this is not.
Then “just for fun”—guess what? Briefcase again.
You constructed one example and repeated it ten.
You didn’t test the conclusion, you stapled it up front:
“It’s evidence because I called it evidence”—remarkable stunt.
You burn the whole container in every analogy too,
While the actual Pixel still exists when you’re through.
That distinction might matter—that’s part of the debate—
But why discuss digital property when cats can meet their fate?
Pictures of cats in a suitcase. Everybody take notes.
Apparently jurisprudence now requires hypothetical totes.
Empty case? Burn it—evidence. Cats? Evidence too.
No cats? Still evidence. Everything’s evidence to you.
Evidence of guilt, evidence innocent, evidence blank,
Evidence apparently means whatever authorities might yank.
Stretch the noun wide enough to encompass the air,
Then proudly announce that you proved there was property there.
Then comes the confident “open-and-shut” parade
Before a judge has even finished weighing the case.
That is not legal analysis. That is certainty by costume:
Put an allegation in boldface and call it courtroom truth.
“He gave a booby-trap code!”—that is the government claim.
Repeating it louder does not make allegation and finding the same.
Allegation, evidence, conclusion—three different floors;
You took the elevator past two and started opening courtroom doors.
And then there is “lawful authority”—an interesting phrase,
Considering lawfulness is part of what the defense has raised.
Government says border powers. Defense says violation.
Court has not ruled yet—but the briefcase reached salvation.
That is my favourite kind of internet legal display:
“Here are six hypotheticals where I assume I am right anyway.”
Locked locker, burning folder, safe, suitcase, drawer—
Add seventeen containers; the premise is still yours.
You can analogize forever. Analogy is not proof.
Put the Pixel in a pantry. Put the pantry on a roof.
Give the roof a combination. Fill the combination with cats.
You still have not resolved the legal question with that.
And then the condescension: “For those who struggle to read—”
From someone needing six flaming suitcases to explain one deed.
Comprehension is not measured by hypothetical weight;
You do not become a legal scholar by incinerating a crate.
“First example!” Cat pictures.
“Second!” Cat pictures gone.
“Third!” Warrant plus cat pictures.
Please, counselor. Move on.
The entire dissertation fits comfortably in one line:
“I think intentional wiping qualifies under 2232.” Fine.
That is an argument. Debate it. Let the court decide the fit.
You did not need a Briefcase Cinematic Universe for it.
Phase One: Empty Case.
Phase Two: Cats Ablaze.
Phase Three: The Forgotten Combination
in the Multiverse of Phrase.
Coming next summer from the Legal Analogy Studios:
CATCASE VI: THIS TIME THE CONTENTS ARE PHOTOS.
Rated PG-13 for excessive explanation
And one heroic struggle against nuance and condensation.
So spare everyone “open and shut” and “learn how law works”
While the judge is still deciding which arguments have worth.
You did not settle jurisprudence. You typed paragraphs online
Where every hypothetical conveniently agrees with your side.
That is not teaching law.
That is a conclusion wearing props—
Six briefcases, forty cat pictures,
And not one analogy that stops.
