So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?
More from Akiva Cohen
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason
First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here
There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"
In other words, if the state passes a law that says "no talking politics in public" you can sue for an order saying "that's unconstitutional and can't be enforced" but not for damages from having your 1A rights violated in the past
I'm sure you can see where this is going: Exceptions 1 and 2 don't apply; Congress didn't say "no sovereign immunity" when it passed 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights statute the plaintiffs sued under) and Michigan hasn't waived it. That leave Younger as the only remaining option
Hi, #Squidigation fans. New developments in the Michigan tentacle. Driving little man to school this morning, but we can talk about it when I get back https://t.co/m6GxK7g5T1
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 7, 2020
First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here
There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"
In other words, if the state passes a law that says "no talking politics in public" you can sue for an order saying "that's unconstitutional and can't be enforced" but not for damages from having your 1A rights violated in the past
I'm sure you can see where this is going: Exceptions 1 and 2 don't apply; Congress didn't say "no sovereign immunity" when it passed 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights statute the plaintiffs sued under) and Michigan hasn't waived it. That leave Younger as the only remaining option
Looks like we need to spend some time talking about the Parler lolsuit against Amazon and why it's deader than a Mitch McConnell comedy special. They've brought three claims - antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference. None will survive. Here's why
Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly
ALSO, the hashtag was mostly people saying "these folks are calling to hang Mike
And ALSO also, did anyone notice any prominent right wingers complaining about losing tens of thousands of followers yesterday? You know why they did? Because Twitter has been active in deleting accounts that violate its TOS
Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly
ALSO, the hashtag was mostly people saying "these folks are calling to hang Mike
Five minutes of scrolling a search for #hangmikepence, a gallery: pic.twitter.com/40hsyJNK50
— Jawafawa (@jawafawa) January 11, 2021
And ALSO also, did anyone notice any prominent right wingers complaining about losing tens of thousands of followers yesterday? You know why they did? Because Twitter has been active in deleting accounts that violate its TOS
More from Law
URGENT MESSAGE DO NOT IGNORE SHARE VIRAL.
Greetings Everyone, we have formed an Emergency Grand Jury for Natural Law from Public Health and Justice along with 32 Judges from all around the world who are experts and together we have launched a International Tribunal for
Emergency Injunctions and we have served Indictments for Crimes Against Humanity To Ban
1) Forced Vaccinations, 2) Unlawful Lockdowns 3) The Criminal Misuse 4) Fraudulent Tests on Healthy People
5) The Criminal misuse of 5G Technologies.
6) Economic Terrorism
7) Forcing people
into poverty.
Please find links of our Global Indictments here: https://t.co/7T3nFIUfBL
As many of you may already know, rogue highly corrupt usurpers who have now taken over all our public offices, departments and positions of power are misusing COVID 19 as an excuse to
strip We The People of our God given inalienable Rights and Freedoms.
The are grossly abusing the powers given to them by We The People.
Those in positions of Government and Mainstream Media are Acting as a Corrupt Corporations to facilitate their own special interests and No
longer honoring the Will of We The People.
In Law this is an ABUSE OF POWER called a Breach of ULTRA VIRES LAWS meaning 'They have gone BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS' That We The People have given them.
We have arrived at a extremely dangerous situation whereby they are now
Greetings Everyone, we have formed an Emergency Grand Jury for Natural Law from Public Health and Justice along with 32 Judges from all around the world who are experts and together we have launched a International Tribunal for
Emergency Injunctions and we have served Indictments for Crimes Against Humanity To Ban
1) Forced Vaccinations, 2) Unlawful Lockdowns 3) The Criminal Misuse 4) Fraudulent Tests on Healthy People
5) The Criminal misuse of 5G Technologies.
6) Economic Terrorism
7) Forcing people
into poverty.
Please find links of our Global Indictments here: https://t.co/7T3nFIUfBL
As many of you may already know, rogue highly corrupt usurpers who have now taken over all our public offices, departments and positions of power are misusing COVID 19 as an excuse to
strip We The People of our God given inalienable Rights and Freedoms.
The are grossly abusing the powers given to them by We The People.
Those in positions of Government and Mainstream Media are Acting as a Corrupt Corporations to facilitate their own special interests and No
longer honoring the Will of We The People.
In Law this is an ABUSE OF POWER called a Breach of ULTRA VIRES LAWS meaning 'They have gone BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS' That We The People have given them.
We have arrived at a extremely dangerous situation whereby they are now
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
