This will be a thread containing the more sensitive informa…

$Lady Justice \U0001f469\u200d\u2696\ufe0f$

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant.

Here is a copy of the Order refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal.

An application for permission to appeal will now to be made TO the Court of Appeal itself.

That appeal will only be allowed where the court below (the High Court) was wrong or the decision unjust because of some procedural irregularity. The High Court has already said no. Will the CoA?

In other words - permission has been refused by the High Court to appeal up to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal now gets to decide ITSELF if it will hear the appeal. That we won’t know the outcome of for a few months.

Be sure to note you WILL hear about it.

Wokal Distance
@wokal_distance

1/
A huge mistake people make is to think of postmodernism, post-structuralism, intersectionality, Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, 4th wave feminism, and Critical Theory as being separate and distinct, having nothing to do with each other

This is a massive mistake.

2/
These disciplines are connected. They are not like individual academic factories producing different theories. The fact is that the ideas that are produced in various disciplines cross-pollinate and influence each other. The theorists make use of and share each others ideas.

3/
These fields are akin to ingredients used by activists to make the stew of Critical Social Justice.

Mix some postmodernism here with some intersectionality there, add Critical Race Theory and 4th wave feminist post-structuralism and *taste test* YUMMY...Social Justice!👨‍🍳

4/
Take a look through the activist literature and you'll see that they pull from all these theorists as they see fit and as they find it useful.

An excellent example of this is the book/website: "Beautiful Trouble." You can see how this dynamic works in that book.

5/
You all know the old trick about how "postmoderns" and Marxists are totally different? Well that was true at one time, but woke activists will gladly take ideas from both the Postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault (1st pic) and the Marxist Antonio Gramsci (2nd pic)

$\U0001f1774\U0001f172\U0001f17a\U0001f174\U0001f181\U0001f181\U0001f17e\U0001f176\U0001f184\U0001f174$

🅷4🅲🅺🅴🆁🆁🅾🅶🆄🅴...
@H4ckerRogue

So after over a week Fake Ass was played and played good....@THEREALTRDJ
I said he was playing a game and he was the pawn in my game...
We all saw the Little Nigeria Fake running scared....The posts off him tagging law enforcement and other people was just laughable...hahaaa...

You see the Supposedly sicario was a real Sicario called Broly an easy Google image search could have found this...but Fake ass couldn't even do that...and he fell for it big time...lmfao

Gil Kalai
@GilKalai

Where were we: Boaz Barak proposed a “law of nature” that if there is a physical device that can make a certain computation C, then there is a quantum circuit that computes C. 1/11

@boazbaraktcs @quantum_aram @AspectStalence @RosenblumSerge

Aram remarked that Boaz's proposed law is a variant of the strong Church Turing thesis. Correct! 2/11

I proposed a refinement of the general law. There are cases where we can analyse classes of devices (or natural processes) and can conclude that for them there is even a classical circuit that computes what they compute. 3/11

I gave a few examples 1) Computations that take place in Boaz's laptop can be carried out by a classical circuit.
4/11

2) Computations carried out by Boaz's brain can be carried out by a classical circuit. 5/11

Alaska Cases
@AK_cases_bot

Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw

Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021

Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.

So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:

1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."

2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”

3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."

This will be a thread containing the more sensitive information @LLinWood tweeted tonight.

More from Law

You May Also Like