Ben Cooper QC for @BluskyeAllison arguing against redactions.
#AllisonBailey
We are today attending the virtual hearing for #AllisonBailey’s claim against Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers.
Ben Cooper QC for @BluskyeAllison arguing against redactions.
#AllisonBailey
Ben Cooper trying to establish communications between individuals at Stonewall & individuals at Garden Court Chambers. Arguing names of individuals is relevant and they put in public domain.
Ben Cooper QC discussing individuals who had made complaints to Garden Court Chambers. Discussion is can these individuals be publicly named or should they be redacted in papers. These individuals have connections with Stonewall.
Robin Moira White confirming that the three individuals under discussion ARE members of Stonewall’s trans advisory group. They have assisted Stonewall but are not employees. RMW saying their names should not be public domain.
Ben Cooper QC these individuals roles are important. It’s not normal to redact names. There is a public interest in public justice.
Ben Cooper QC and Robin Moira White making final points.
Judge Stout talking about importance of open justice.
Judge Stout: For this hearing only I have decided that the three individuals will remain redacted
Judge Stout: Stonewall has not produced evidence to show that principal of open justice should be discarded. If this was a full hearing my judgement would be different.
Judge Stout: If their names were made public their article 8 rights would be impacted. Order of redaction only for this hearing. May be different at full hearing.
Ben Cooper QC: Only this week has claimant received application to strike out. Disclosure has yet to be completed. Some things are still redacted which shouldn’t be.
Ben Cooper QC: I can’t begin to embark on cross examination in a hearing of this kind. There isn’t the time. It would be a 2-3 day exercise. Please rule she can’t be called at this time.
Anthony Johnston: Claimant has still not named those she accuses of discrimination/victimisation. Do these individuals have authority to act for chambers. Wants Miss Khan called.
Judge Stout: I don’t think calling Miss Khan and having her cross examined would assist me in what I need to decide on today.
Judge Stout: There would not be a fair opportunity to test Miss Khan’s evidence today. Disclosure has not been completed. Application to call Miss Khan today denied.
Ben Cooper QC: Until disclosure has been completed it may not be possible for claimant to set out all protagonists.
Ben Cooper QC: This hearing is about whether the core pleaded statements have more than no chance of success.
Still discussing the fact that claimant has not named individuals who discriminated at this stage (unable to name all individuals without disclosure being completed).
Sound still intermittent.
Ben Cooper QC talking about collective action of the chambers against the claimant (@BluskyeAllison), withholding work during 2019.
Ben Cooper QC: Gender critical beliefs held/expressed by claimant are those held by a women’s movement of female feminists. Indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, also on grounds of sexual orientation, many that hold these beliefs are lesbians.
Ben Cooper QC: Did Stonewall induce, instruct or cause the discrimination against the claimant?
Ben Cooper QC: I will be demonstrating this case is way beyond the strikeout threshold.
Ben Cooper QC is reading from an email sent by @BluskyeAllison in December 2018 objecting to Garden Court Chambers association with Stonewall due to them breaching Equality Act.
Ben Cooper QC: reading from redacted email, only person named from chambers at this stage is Michelle Brewer
Ben Cooper QC: It is the claimants case that through the membership of the Stonewall diversity champion programme, Stonewall enforced its views on Garden Court Chambers
Ben Cooper QC going through claimants loss of earnings since openly expressing gender critical views
Ben Cooper QC: Stephen Lui (SP?) is the Barrister who was liaising with Stonewall re what Garden Court Chambers could offer re Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme.
Ben Cooper QC showing evidence that Michelle Brewer was acting in a Garden Court Chambers capacity and not an individual practitioner capacity.
Ben Cooper QC speaking about WhatsApp messages discussing claimant, can see which is Michelle Brewer but not who all others are. Language towards claimant @BluskyeAllison is described as ‘fruity’
Judge Stout asking if employees of Garden Court Chambers (in the marketing department?) have been redacted.
Ongoing discussion between Ben Cooper QC and Judge Stout re who are the redacted individuals in Michelle Brewers text/WhatsApp messages. Are they members of Garden Court Chambers?
Ben Cooper QC explains that #TERF is a derogatory term used to describe someone with claimants (@BluskyeAllison’s) beliefs
Ben Cooper QC: plainly nonsense, as can be seen from texts, that Garden Court Chambers didn’t realise that putting out a tweet was ‘making a public statement’
Discussion re how longer different counsels will need to speak for. Who will we hear from this afternoon and who tomorrow.
Breaking for lunch. Will resume at 2.
More from Law
1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
BREAKING: The @SEC_News intends to sue @ripple over its sale of XRP, alleging the cryptocurrency is an unregistered security according to @bgarlinghouse.@nikhileshde reportshttps://t.co/7Z3KSWk7dn
— CoinDesk (@CoinDesk) December 22, 2020
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
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).
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.
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.
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
