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
4/11
@boazbaraktcs @quantum_aram
11/11
More from Law
The Michigan case in the US Supreme Court originally filed by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood was just distributed today for Conference on 02/19/2021!
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Feb 03 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021. https://t.co/jZO624pf7j
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin case in the US Supreme Court is also
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
distributed for Conference on 02/19/2021!https://t.co/zkpTubcG1C
Georgia
This Georgia case, originally filed by Lin Wood, is alo distributed for conference on February 21, 2021!https://t.co/l7j43v5pfD
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Arizona
This Arizona case is also distributed for conference on Febraury 21, 2021!https://t.co/56g1Fphg2l
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
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
Another Pennsylvania case distributed for conference February 21, 2021.
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Filed by a Republican Congressman who lost his seat because PA Republican Legislature illegally created a mail in ballot law October, 2019, against the Constitution of PA.https://t.co/RYJE6ENZGk
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."