I AM NOT A CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY.
Instead, I'm mostly drawing from discussions with my father-in-law.
Nonlawyer Explainer Thread: On Keeping One's Mouth Shut
It occurs to me that certain private-jet-flying seditionists who continue to yammer on Twitter about their DC excursions provide us with the opportunity to do a little hypo to explore the benefits of silence.
I AM NOT A CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY.
Instead, I'm mostly drawing from discussions with my father-in-law.
So with that in mind, let's look at this hypo.
*Knock*
*Door opens*
Agent: Ms [Name]? I'm Agent Smith, and this is Agent Jones. We're with Agency. We'd like to talk to you if you've got a minute.
[Yes, it seems insane but if you're worried about something specific and the cops show up, blurting out something like that is totally a thing that can happen.]
[Note: The agents will have seen ALL of her social media and they know she's seen it, but will not be above implying otherwise.]
[Note: Deliberately implying that they think the whole thing is nonsense that they want to get rid of and that they're completely sympathetic to her.]
Ms X: I don't know if this is something I should be talking to you about. Should I have my lawyer here for this?
[Note: Yes, they can say that.]
Agent Smith: Honestly, ma'am, like I said we're mostly down here because our boss kinda has a stick up-- I mean, he just doesn't really like it if we close something without talking to you. And we don't want to inconvenience you.
Agent Smith: We can always arrange to do this downtown later on if you want. I mean, I don't really think we need to do that, and I was really hoping to get this wrapped up today so I can get back to some of my other cases that involve, y'know, crimes.
Agent Smith: I mean I can't promise anything, of course - the boss will need to see that we checked the boxes and all that, but I'll certainly do my best. And this seems pretty clear-cut to me, so this shouldn't take long.
Agent Smith: Thanks.
*sitting down, possibly refreshments, possibly touring house in process*
Ms X: We were pretty excited about that.
I'm going to close this here, because hopefully the basic point is clear: it's not that hard for someone who sounds sympathetic to get someone to talk.
That means they don't have to read the Miranda warning.
With something like this, where her social media shows that she has no conception she was in the wrong, I think there's a very good chance that would work.
"I'm not going to talk to you without my lawyer."
Don't fall for it.
Stay silent. Get a lawyer.
@HaygoodLaw
@LutherEvers
@greg_doucette
@ASFleischman
Are better positioned to answer than me.
https://t.co/BJDlnjMSuE
How is that done? I don't have a criminal defense lawyer on speed dial.
— jack_dahlgren (@jack_dahlgren) January 8, 2021
More from Mike Dunford
Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice? https://t.co/p8d3flDkGm
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 25, 2021
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
Election Litigation Update: DC - the "let's sue the Electoral College" case.
This is a bit surprising, given that as of last time I checked nobody had been served and no appearance had been entered. I suspect it's an effort to make sure the case isn't "pending" on the 6th.
And, sure enough, still no proof of service on ANY defendant, still no appearance from defense counsel. And this is denying the motion for preliminary injunction but does NOT dismiss the case - which is potentially ominous for plaintiff's counsel.
This isn't a "happy judge" kind of first paragraph. Not even a little bit. Nope.
Y'all, this isn't even directed within a few hundred miles of my direction and I sill just instinctively checked to make sure that there's room for me to hide under my desk if I have to - this is a very not happy, very federal, very judge tone.
Also - the judge just outright said there's a bunch of reasons for dismissal. And not in "might be" terms. In definite fact ones. But the case isn't dismissed yet.
If I was plaintiffs counsel, I'd definitely be clearing under my desk right now, and possibly also my underwear.
This is a bit surprising, given that as of last time I checked nobody had been served and no appearance had been entered. I suspect it's an effort to make sure the case isn't "pending" on the 6th.
Link: https://t.co/oOJZD1F4x2
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) January 4, 2021
And, sure enough, still no proof of service on ANY defendant, still no appearance from defense counsel. And this is denying the motion for preliminary injunction but does NOT dismiss the case - which is potentially ominous for plaintiff's counsel.
This isn't a "happy judge" kind of first paragraph. Not even a little bit. Nope.
Y'all, this isn't even directed within a few hundred miles of my direction and I sill just instinctively checked to make sure that there's room for me to hide under my desk if I have to - this is a very not happy, very federal, very judge tone.
Also - the judge just outright said there's a bunch of reasons for dismissal. And not in "might be" terms. In definite fact ones. But the case isn't dismissed yet.
If I was plaintiffs counsel, I'd definitely be clearing under my desk right now, and possibly also my underwear.
Election Litigation Thread - Georgia:
OK, so since my attempt to sit back while Akiva does all the work of going through the latest proof that not only the pro se have fools for lawyers has backfired, let's take a stroll through the motion for injunctive relief.
At the start, I'd note that the motion does not appear to be going anywhere fast - despite the request that they made over 80 hours ago to have the motion heard within 48 hours.
The most recent docket entries are all routine start-of-case stuff.
Why isn't it going anywhere quickly? Allow me to direct your attention to something that my learned colleague Mr. Cohen said
Now I'm not a litigator, but if I had an emergency thing that absolutely had to be heard over a holiday weekend, I'd start by reading the relevant part of the local rules for the specific court in which I am filing my case.
In this case, this bit, in particular, seems relevant:
My next step, if I had any uncertainty at all, would be to find and use the court's after-hours emergency contact info. I might have to work some to find it, but it'll be there. Emergencies happen; there are procedures for them.
And then I'd do exactly what they tell me to do.
OK, so since my attempt to sit back while Akiva does all the work of going through the latest proof that not only the pro se have fools for lawyers has backfired, let's take a stroll through the motion for injunctive relief.
They've also got a brief in support of their injunction motion, but I've got client work that needs doing. Hopefully @questauthority has you covered
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 4, 2021
At the start, I'd note that the motion does not appear to be going anywhere fast - despite the request that they made over 80 hours ago to have the motion heard within 48 hours.
The most recent docket entries are all routine start-of-case stuff.
Why isn't it going anywhere quickly? Allow me to direct your attention to something that my learned colleague Mr. Cohen said
Folks, judges DO NOT read complaints or petitions when they are filed, and they DO NOT just up and act on the "requests for relief". If you want something, you need to actually ask the court for it by a motion, not just put it in your "here's what we want if we win" section
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 4, 2021
Now I'm not a litigator, but if I had an emergency thing that absolutely had to be heard over a holiday weekend, I'd start by reading the relevant part of the local rules for the specific court in which I am filing my case.
In this case, this bit, in particular, seems relevant:
My next step, if I had any uncertainty at all, would be to find and use the court's after-hours emergency contact info. I might have to work some to find it, but it'll be there. Emergencies happen; there are procedures for them.
And then I'd do exactly what they tell me to do.
More from For later read
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
You May Also Like
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
