Ok so first of all - Twitter/GDPR/what to do! So firstly, the court needs to make the order for Twitter to disclose the data, which they may not do as it’s a) disproportionate b) a waste of time c) complex involving international law d) ridiculous….

In addition, AH has already been told she cannot pursue this in the VA trial, so it’s a pointless exercise! I feel this approach re twitter is v much an “AH” idea; not advice from a lawyer… as it’s not going to accomplish anything and is a waste of time.
In any event; re GDPR - while the laws around GDPR are v strict, where it comes to information being disclosed in the course of legal proceedings, it is more tricky. The issue has been argued in other cases - esp re disclosure of UK/EU citizens’s info in US legal proceedings.
And in simple terms, the bottom line is, if the court orders it, it can be disclosed. The question then is, what to do about it. Well, you could kick up a stink, file a motion to quash it etc.. etc… but I’m not here to give any individuals legal advice.
However, while it might be tempting to create almighty hell over it, here’s a thought… you all know you are real people right? So you could all give AH what she wants & simply let her look utterly ridiculous! So she gets the info - then what?
The purpose of this fishing exercise is to determine if the people on the list are bots created by JD/AW. You all know you’re not. So she gets the info & it’s game over for her. If she then uses that data for another purpose, THEN you can unleash hell!
If you seek to quash/obstruct her getting it, that actually plays into her hands because she’ll claim it’s trying to cover stuff up. It’s of course up to you what you do; you absolutely have a right to your privacy & I don’t blame anyone for protecting that right.
Personally, if it were me on that list, I’d say “fine, knock yourself out!”...knowing she’s just going to look ridiculous. Play JD’s game; give her what she wants & watch it backfire. I mean what’s she gonna do?
She’s not going to subpoena 200 JD fans to turn up & confirm they’re real people! Or get them to say JD made them post stuff!Firstly it’s absurd & wouldn’t be allowed & secondly can you imagine how that would go?!
But on a serious note; as I say, if she gets the data & then uses it for a purpose OTHER than proving/disproving her legal claim (which has already been dismissed!), THEN data protection legislation could come into play & you could have legal recourse against her.
If she passes that data onto others, uses it to target people, discloses personal data publicly etc… then you can go to town, probably with greater weight behind your arguments.
Anyway; that’s my thoughts on it; personally I’d let her crack on & look even more ridiculous, but that's just me. In fact, I’m just gutted I’m not on the list, I’d have a laugh picturing her dastardly plan falling apart before her eyes!
I get there are bigger implications but y’know - think carefully… sometimes it’s better to let someone keep on digging that big hole for themselves… and wait for the opportune moment! #thinklikejack

More from Law

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.


The idea that we can "disbar" lawyers but not police is absolute foolishness.

All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.

It is a rank absurdity of the criminal justice system that one needs to be educated and certified with a degree in order to argue on behalf of someone's life in court, but to have no qualifications necessary to detain, assault, or prematurely end that same life.

There are countless circumstances in which a lawyer's unethical behavior will result in them not only losing their job but never being able to practice it again.

But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.

A lawyer's entire career can be ended forever if they were found to have knowingly put someone on a stand to lie.

Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.

So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.

You May Also Like