In late October 2020, the Edmonton Proud Boys appeared at a People Vs. Predators rally.
One member of this @splcenter-designated hate group is John-Clayton Wilson/Jay Wilson/JC Wilson/JC2theW. (1/10)
@DoxerPb @RuthlessWe @AntifaGarfield @AntiFashGordon @AntifascistF12
Here's a sample of some video topics. The language and themes align with the far-right. (3/10)
Not that this is unheard of, of course, but these people are not your allies. They aren't even allies with each other and we see this play out all the time. (4/10)
It's not too late to leave. We can delete tweets. (5/10)
First, there was an account interacting a bit too much with Proud Boy Mitch Lackie. (6/10)
More from Law
High crime talk from Fredo
VA curfew
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
March
The #TexasCase has them terrified.
— Major Patriot (@MajorPatriot) December 10, 2020
They are losing it.#CNN pic.twitter.com/FtdWKIXBlB
VA curfew
#BREAKING: Virginia will implement a statewide curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. starting on Dec. 14. Here's what else is changing for Virginians.https://t.co/cH4jdCOZgt
— WUSA9 (@wusa9) December 10, 2020
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
— Dan Scavino\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f985 (@DanScavino) December 11, 2020
March
This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.
Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!
1/
Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)
"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.
2/
https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G
King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)
"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.
3/
https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL
Trump v. Benson (Michigan)
"hearsay within hearsay"
Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.
4/
https://t.co/17GeGhImHF
Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)
"mere speculation"
/5
https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!
1/
Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)
"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.
2/
https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G
King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)
"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.
3/
https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL
Trump v. Benson (Michigan)
"hearsay within hearsay"
Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.
4/
https://t.co/17GeGhImHF
Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)
"mere speculation"
/5
https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
You May Also Like
"I really want to break into Product Management"
make products.
"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."
Make Products.
"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."
MAKE PRODUCTS.
Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics – https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.
There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.
You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.
But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.
And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.
They find their own way.
make products.
"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."
Make Products.
"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."
MAKE PRODUCTS.
Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics – https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.
"I really want to break into comics"
— Ed Brisson (@edbrisson) December 4, 2018
make comics.
"If only someone would tell me how I can get an editor to notice me."
Make Comics.
"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."
MAKE COMICS.
There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.
You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.
But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.
And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.
They find their own way.