BC LAW

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen 5 years, 8 months ago 940 views

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

More from Akiva Cohen

Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone

Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem

Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas

I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument

Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that

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

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

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

OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be

\U0001f6a8BREAKING: Trump files new federal court lawsuit in Wisconsin challenging the results of the election.https://t.co/LfKb2PUIkq
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 3, 2020

Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.

I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃

First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.

OK, #squidigation fans. This is a new Wisconsin case not filed by the Krake[n/d] team of Powell and Wood and NOT focusing on wild conspiracy theories. It's a competent and professional filing that raises things that would be real issues ... if you don't understand why they aren't https://t.co/ETvUiWV5du
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 1, 2020

If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)

Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.

Every one of these Trump election suits is the same gobbledygook garbage barge:

FRAUD!

It coulda happened.

Well, no, we can't prove it.

But just to be safe, best let the gerrymandered legislature give us all the electoral votes!https://t.co/Z926668H05 pic.twitter.com/xGZsJKIO7Y
— Liz Dye (@5DollarFeminist) December 3, 2020

More from Law

Jo Maugham
@JolyonMaugham

We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD

You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.

Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).

In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020

I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.

The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.

Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.

Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen

In the cold light of morning, I'm still completely amazed by the legal belly flop that @ThomasMoreSoc filed in the DC District Court. It's the legal equivalent of watching the butt fumble, live

EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed

Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.

There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"

Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?

https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp

OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).

$Tony Stark \U0001f9ec\U0001f1f9\U0001f1e9$

Tony Stark 🧬🇹🇩...
@HighInteIlect

The Supremacy Of The Shari’a- A Thread 🧵

The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.

However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏

Let's debunk all the myths.

Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.

In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.

https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU

https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd

Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.

The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L

A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.

This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.

https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0