After a long wait, proceedings against
@advocatemahere finally commence in Courtroom No. 11 before Magistrate Utahwashe.

Law society published some guidance recently on e-signatures...https://t.co/g70MUWg6K0 - some thoughts and comments...

👁‍🗨 Witnessing...they conclude that witnesses have to be "physically present" and you cannot witness somebody by video link. Probably correct as a matter of case law. It's a shame they aren't more forceful in their urge for change here...

The point in witnessing has always been evidential. So that if one person claims they didn't actually sign a document, you have somebody you can call upon to attest evidence that they did or did not. Also adds some formality to the process to make people think

When you're using e-signature, people's email addresses are being put into a system. You also have IP addresses, geolocations, timestamps all recorded when people actually go on to sign the document. Doesn't this add quite a lot of evidential value?

Physical presence would help avoid a scenario where somebody gains access to somebody else's email account, signs a document and then gets somebody to witness. If that witness were virtual, they wouldn't see the mischief that has occurred...is this not quite a remote risk though?

I keep hearing the average age of the few protestors who were arrested during the Capitol attack was about 40 years old.

There were some really dangerous people in that crowd. III Percenters, neo-nazis, the vanguard, the fist of hate in America. Do not let them off the hook.

I don't care if Elizabeth from Knoxville has her day in court. I want to know who this guy is and what the zipties were for and who his buddies are. And I want them off the street.

I want to know if active duty or reserve military were involved. I want to know if law enforcement officers were involved. And I want their networks broken.

I want to know who funds the organizations that financially support the fist of hate. I want to know who funds their media platforms. These are the accessories to murder that should be investigated.

Thread of terrorist leaders if they were drugs

Osama bin Laden - weed

old school, a true classic, kinda boring, your parents probably talk about it a lot

Ayman Al-Zawahiri - Rohypnol

old, creepy, puts you to sleep in ten minutes flat, once he comes out nobody is having a good time and the police needs to get involved

Abubakar Shekau - Crack

very high energy, much bigger than anyone ever thought it'd be, for when the original is too elitist for you, speaking in tongues is just part of the deal

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi - Alcohol

everyone knows about it, easy to pretend it's not a problem until it's A REAL BIG PROBLEM, not great for the waist line, when it ends it's messy and children probably get hurt

Several questions about protecting the inaugural, put to me by @ShawnAndersonDC and @bhaseltonWTOP on the air @wtop today.

1. How is Secret Service planning to protect the Inauguration from the violence that occurred last week?

Planning is the key word. They’ve been planning this inauguration for more than a year. And it’s important to note that comparing security around the Capitol on an ordinary day and an inauguration are like comparing an Apple to an entire Orange tree.

On Inauguration Day there are many thousands of people involved in protection that we don't see. There are technological capabilities, military and cyber assets, There are #WMD assets. The air, water and land are covered like a blanket.

2. What kind of threats are you hearing about...not just for the 20th...but other days too?

Many looking to engage violence in the run up to or during the inaugural are really upset because some of their social media sites are being taken offline, but plenty of others are still active and they are STILL talking about violence on those sites.

Campaigner leading court action aiming to prove Scotland does not need WM’s blessing to hold an indyref has called on the Lord Advocate Jas Wolfe to say exactly who he represents, after a Court of Session judge yesterday described a motion as a “fishing diligence”.

Keatings:the most concerning aspect of the hearing was the refusal by Wolffe’s counsel to stipulate WHO the Lord Advocate is representing. “He was convened in this action to represent the interests of Scottish Parliament, NOT the Scottish Government."

Keatings: "We have a Lord Advocate (representing Scots parliament) being represented by ScotGov Legal Directorate (representing ScotGov), where Lord Advocate is supposed to be representing Scots Parliament but is advancing arguments on behalf of ScotGov, who have withdrawn!"

Keatings: “ScotGov seem to have dusted themselves in Lord Advocate coconut, & are trying to pass themselves off as a Scottish parliamentary snowball," antithetical to principle of separation of powers, as Lord Advocate spent more time wearing his “SG hat” than his parliament one

Keatings: although Wolffe is in Scottish Cabinet, his post is NOT supposed to be political: “I need say no more than my legal counsel Aidan O’Neill QC said in the hearing ... that the Lord Advocate seems to be a ScotGov mouthpiece.."