Entering 2021, our hearts are already broken.
That's exactly why we're ready to fight the good fight
People might say we were Nazis. >
They fired me without severance after I filed this lawsuit working with @Yoder_Esqq, who lost his job over it too. https://t.co/3ZgE6PWQGh >
Despite my seniority and experience I was sent to Scranton to watch them segregate invalid mail in ballots. That was the assignment and I did it. >
Wisely, my partner @pnjaban told me to go to Philadelphia instead, where I stood with @PamBondi and @CLewandowski_ as we tried to get into the Convention Center. https://t.co/QMg2GTXOEs
Hey wow - actual image of a "bullshit artist" in the wild pic.twitter.com/aPuOFB8lUL
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 27, 2020
Everything was done on the fly.>
Then I transcribed voice mails into a spreadsheet for a while. >
This resulted in my being connected ultimately to another team. >
I was unable to continue working with the team over the weekend because of personal commitments, but we were in touch over the next days. >
We both remained very involved in messaging for the Trump team.>
Don't lecture me about activism, going to marches or calling out fools and con men on Twitter.
Everyone knows I'm friendly with @BrianTh37895972 and that I quote Thomas Wictor (and he me). But there's a limit to informed and even silly or playful speculation. >
And I will also say when something sounds ridiculous or the rules of proving an assertion have been turned inside out.
I've been a litigator and trial lawyer for 30 years. >
why, I'm going to be pretty sore about it.
Good Shabbos. <> https://t.co/U0wbs6EzCV
More from Law
Thread: This is Exhibit #19 in the MI case filed by @SidneyPowell1.
https://t.co/7dQtnTay5n
You can find all the affidavits
I don’t see how a court could ignore this evidence. Only corruption would explain ignoring it.
The affiant is an acknowledged expert in cyber security.
https://t.co/H7D5MIUzkI
https://t.co/PKwbBQWzXW
https://t.co/qo1l4kB7qt
https://t.co/7dQtnTay5n
You can find all the affidavits
I don’t see how a court could ignore this evidence. Only corruption would explain ignoring it.
The affiant is an acknowledged expert in cyber security.
https://t.co/H7D5MIUzkI
https://t.co/PKwbBQWzXW
https://t.co/qo1l4kB7qt
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/