I've been tracking these since December. Michigan

@littlecarrotq Wisconsin case:
https://t.co/MTx8OnAGZr
@littlecarrotq Georgia case:
https://t.co/OCna73PHXu
@littlecarrotq Arizona case:
https://t.co/MX6PvYs4st
@littlecarrotq 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 Constitution.
https://t.co/WYp9x6dCWE
@littlecarrotq Other Pennsylvania case:
https://t.co/jFbebr1NUE
@littlecarrotq Third Pennsylvania case, this one is from the Republican State Legislature trying to bail themselves out of what they did in October of 2019. They already had a conference on this one:
https://t.co/CrlQTn6YTQ
@littlecarrotq Fifth Pennsylvania case, which I believe they combined with the previous one:
https://t.co/991yMgQIWR
@littlecarrotq Another Wisconsin case. President Trump just filed a Supplemental Brief on Feb 09 2021.

https://t.co/p3b7u3UbbK

More from Law

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 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.