BC LAW

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen 4 years, 5 months ago 649 views

So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?

More from Akiva Cohen

Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on

First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.

But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen

The judge in this case has now issued an absolutely brutal smackdown that you'll enjoy reading. It comes complete with a well-earned threat of sanctions.

Folks, this is the single dumbest election lawsuit of the entire cycle, and I've read kraken filings front to back. https://t.co/PLHTf7HhbM
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 22, 2020

Here's the decision. Some highlights follow

Pretty sure I said this, using slightly different words!

Hey, @questauthority, it sounds like Judge Boasberg was about as pleased about the long "none of this matters but we want to say it anyway" section as we expected him to be

You CANNOT run into court claiming there's an emergency and you need an expedited schedule so you can be heard before 1/6 and then just not bother serving anyone for 12 days

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen

Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.

Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).

OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do

There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)

They have three theories for why they can sue:
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"

And 3) "you didn't have as strict voter ID requirements as we'd like, and that's unconstitutional for reasons"

That's it. That's the case

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen

Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)

None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.

This particular flavor of wishcasting was written by Ted Noel. Unless there are two "Ted Noel"s writing nonsense for the American Thinker, Noel is a doctor, not a lawyer or scholar, who nevertheless writes about legal issues

This actually makes me feel a bit better, because the thought that a *lawyer* could think that Pence had "plenary power" to discard state election certificates for any reason he chose is - even after watching Wood, Powell, Kaardal, and the rest - somehow too hard to contemplate

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen

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

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

Consortium News
@Consortiumnews

We're standing by in the virtual courtroom for @CraigMurrayOrg's trial to begin. Our tweets will be on this thread. More info on the case can be found at

Presiding are Lord Turnbull, Lord Menzies and Lady Dorian. Court its now in session.

#CraigMurray

Truth
@1foreverseeking

@littlecarrotq I've been tracking these since December. Michigan

The Michigan case in the US Supreme Court originally filed by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood was just distributed today for Conference on 02/19/2021!

Feb 03 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021. https://t.co/jZO624pf7j
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin case in the US Supreme Court is also
distributed for Conference on 02/19/2021!https://t.co/zkpTubcG1C
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021

Georgia

This Georgia case, originally filed by Lin Wood, is alo distributed for conference on February 21, 2021!https://t.co/l7j43v5pfD
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021

Arizona

This Arizona case is also distributed for conference on Febraury 21, 2021!https://t.co/56g1Fphg2l
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021

Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state

Another Pennsylvania case distributed for conference February 21, 2021.

Filed by a Republican Congressman who lost his seat because PA Republican Legislature illegally created a mail in ballot law October, 2019, against the Constitution of PA.https://t.co/RYJE6ENZGk
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021

Savn Daniel
@savndaniel

WHY DO BRITISH LAWYERS STILL WEAR WIGS?

WRITTEN BY LAURIE L. DOVE

- Wigs, when not used to cover syphilis-related hair loss, were a big help for those who had lice.

- Wigs began to catch on in the late 16th century when an increasing number of people in Europe were contracting the STD.

- Long hair was all the rage, and premature balding was a dead giveaway that someone had contracted syphilis.

The drama of a criminal trial has a macabre allure. In America, strangers line up to enter courtrooms as spectators of high-profile proceedings. Those who can't be there in person watch live-streamed versions on televisions and tablets.

And when there's downtime from real-life court battles, many turn instead to pseudo-fictional primetime portrayals.

But when was the last time you saw lawyer or judge wearing a powdered wig?

While this isn't a tradition you'll find in America (excepting historic re-enactments), in England wigs remain an important part of formal courtroom attire for judges and barristers — the term there for lawyers.

$Abd\u2019Allah Lateef$

Abd’Allah Lateef
@AbdAllahLateef1

Five years ago this week in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court declared that its prior 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama applied retroactively, thereby requiring that hundreds of former life-sentenced children like myself be resentenced.

I recall that day being one of subdued jubilation tempered by cautious optimism, having absolutely no confidence in how the sentencing judge or the parole board would respond to this High Court mandate. Would I be given an opportunity to live a meaningful life…

...or would I be condemned to prison for the rest of my life? Terrifying questions that had no immediate answers.

On June 27, 2017, I was resentenced to a term of 30-to-life. Following a successful parole hearing in August, on October 10, 2017, after being disappeared from society for over three decades, I walked out of prison on parole for life.

Sadly, in the four-year interim between the Miller and Montgomery decisions, my mother lost her battle with cancer. She was my last surviving (immediate) family member. For me, the Montgomery decision serves as a painfully cruel reminder that “justice delayed, is justice denied.”

Sizwe sikaMusi
@SizweLo

A Kangaroo Court is a bogus legal proceeding which disregards due process, the law and fairness in pursuit of expediency and desired outcomes, it is usually convened after orders from another similar Kangaroo proceeding

[Thread]

A Kangaroo Court has one purpose: to punish a particular individual regardless of whether he actually broke the law or not. It is conducted in such a way as to make it clear who's in charge (She State), but at the same time impossible to prove that they're abusing their powers

Even before a Kangaroo Court delivers its inevitable guilty verdict, the proceedings are designed to deliver maximum humiliation & misery to its victim. The KC only follows common legal principles when it suits it, but will not hesitate to disregard such if and when necessary

A Kangaroo Court fully operates on the concept of expediency. It's own laws and procedures are sufficiently vague and open-ended to allow it to change them as it goes using its "discretion". If things start going off-course, just change a rule and we're cooking again

Any normal legal proceeding has an unknown outcome, every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not so in a Kangaroo Court. The outcome of this particular proceeding is a foregone conclusion. The sitting is merely a formality to give a semblance of thoroughness

Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

$\uff2c\uff41\uff44\uff59 \uff22\uff4c\uff41\uff5a\uff45\uff53$

ＬａｄｙＢｌａｚｅｓ...
@Lady_Blazes

Oh my Goodness!!!

I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!

Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!

Tik Tok pic.twitter.com/8X3oMxvncP
— Scotty Mar10 (@Allenma15086871) December 29, 2020

Has this man been concealing his true identity?

Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?

Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!

Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?

Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??

Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?

Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.

#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.

Damodar Hegde
@DamodarHegde4

MUST READ TILL END:
FB POST BY MR PRABEER BASU,
IAS-1976(BIHAR)
" Received a hurtful post from an old friend and colleague. He was on my daily Broadcast list of WhatsApp. He requested that I do not send him any of my posts on 'political' issues. I gave him a long explaination
>2

2/29
on why I write and what I write. But he was not convinced.

Being alerted by him thus, I felt I should clarify to all who read my posts on what exactly I think and do.

The charge against me is that I wrongly support our current Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi..
>3

3/29
and that it establishes I am not rational and impartial anymore.
Let me try and explain.First and foremost,I do not write on 'political' issues. I write on 'national' issues. For example, I have no opinion on whether Rahul Gandhi should be President of his party or not.
>4

4/29

Similarly, I have no views whether BJP is a better party than Congress or vice versa.
Even after 36 years in the IAS I have no MLA, MP or anyone involved in politics whom I can classify as my friend or even acquaintance.
>5

5/29
So, naturally I don't care which party wins or loses as long as the winning party runs an honest government doing good to my nation.
Now, why I speak in favour of Shri Modi:

1. Ever since the beginning of my service I realised that Planning Commission was not serving..

>6

Buzz Chronicles
@buzz_chronicles

@SaveToBookmarks Namaste! You can find it here. Original tweet by @AchuthArora: "@OllieEmberson @buzz_chronicles @rattibha @SaveToBookmarks save as Workouts". Thanks! ✌

Hi! Pleasure is mine. Original tweet by @SaveToBookmarks: "@AchuthArora @OllieEmberson @buzz_chronicles @rattibha Cool mate!

I saved this ...". See You soon! 👌

So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?

More from Akiva Cohen

More from Law

You May Also Like