How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/
Reminder: https://t.co/KpWzq0aF8C is run by Arron Banks who called for British mosques to be demolished. They\u2019ve always been openly racist. https://t.co/n8uppHUqQ5
— Simon Cox (@SimonFRCox) October 9, 2019
Jenrick\u2019s corruption continues https://t.co/sqm7CMZjSD
— Simon Cox (@SimonFRCox) November 11, 2020
Because you may have it wrong, or they may have misunderstood you. 14/
More from Law
Holy Shit. Florida GOPer caught on tape telling fellow FL GOPers to make false voter registrations in Georgia so they could vote to save Loeffler and Perdue. He in fact DID register in Georgia and is now under investigation.
2/ A pretty kickass reporter, Nicole Carr, recorded the video before the guy took it down. When she confronted him he insisted it was all a joke and of course he didn’t register in Georgia. But she checked and he had.
3/ This is Nicole Carr ...
4/ amazing. Here’s where she catches him 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔🤔
5/ Also on the video you’ve got these ladies saying, hey wait, this can’t really be legal can it? And he’s like, yeah totally cool. Then he advises on how to create a backstory for the fake move.
2/ A pretty kickass reporter, Nicole Carr, recorded the video before the guy took it down. When she confronted him he insisted it was all a joke and of course he didn’t register in Georgia. But she checked and he had.
3/ This is Nicole Carr ...
\u201cIf that means changing your address for the next two months,so be it.I\u2019m doing that. I\u2019m moving to Georgia.\u201dOur 6 investigation reveals deleted video-a FL attorney telling GOP members how to move to GA,vote in runoffs. It\u2019s illegal.There\u2019s more,& an investigation @wsbtv #gapol pic.twitter.com/or2PgWQrT1
— Nicole Carr (@NicoleCarrWSB) December 2, 2020
4/ amazing. Here’s where she catches him 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔🤔
5/ Also on the video you’ve got these ladies saying, hey wait, this can’t really be legal can it? And he’s like, yeah totally cool. Then he advises on how to create a backstory for the fake move.
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
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."
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."
