1/ In "stupid lawsuits over mean tweets" news, the 6th Cir. will hear arguments shortly in a case against @kathygriffin (save your personal opinions about her, I really don't care). Listen in here at 1:30 Eastern:
Complaint: https://t.co/EF9ST2Som5
Decision: https://t.co/K0UKOATiWR
Decision on reconsideration: https://t.co/4ejLBdxFly
It's a bad lawsuit.
Appellee's Brief: https://t.co/dxVzkHjo7N
Reply Brief: https://t.co/wVIrh4NzNw
Like, duh.
He is arguing that KY was trying to extend jurisdiction to all acts that harm KY residents.
That would be unlikely to survive scrutiny even if it were true.
That is an absolutely untenable and ridiculous argument.
"These ARE true threats," he confidently proclaims, proceeding to destroy his own argument by listing things that she did with absolutely no connection to any legitimate threat of bodily harm.
Counsel's argument boils down to "doxing [N.B. not doxing] people by calling for their identity to be known is automatically a true threat"
Judge asks if he runs into a First Amendment argument.
Counsel AUDIBLY SIGHS, and then ignores the question by saying "well true threats aren't protected."
This guy is way out of his depth.
First counsel on the other side is for a defendant in a related case (which was consolidated).
He correctly points out that nobody is being prosecuted, implying that the whole "actus reus" discussion was bullshit (and it was)
L O fucking L
Counsel: It would be bonkers to allow plaintiffs to get around the long-arm statute just by alleging that a defendant violated a criminal statute. That position enjoys no support in law. The law is clear and specific.
This is a good argument.
Under Walden, it is the *defendant* who must create contacts to the forum state by availing herself of something within the state.
This is correct.
That's why this case is important. There has to be some cabining on jurisdiction for things floating out in the Internet aether.
The judges have not interrupted this defendant's lawyer once. Probably because he's saying things that are right, and non-controversial.
Not good for plaintiff.
1) Did the defendant's submission give the impression that she was submitting to jurisdiction or
2) Did the defendant do something that would have been a waste if personal jurisdiction was found to be lacking
In order to waive this fundamental due process right, it must be knowing and voluntary. Only two ways to do it: Fail to make a motion (which Griffin did),
There is simply no way that a notice of appearance is a responsive pleading. This argument makes no sense.
He is 10000% correct, and the judges should needle plaintiffs' counsel about this.
It used to be that you had to file a special appearance to object to personal jurisdiction in order to not waive, but that rule has been abandoned in most (all?) courts.
The district court judge said he doesn't buy that there's a distinction between waiver and forfeiture. Counsel disagrees, saying that forfeiture should be where you raise an objection but then give it up through conduct in litigaiton.
Either way, Griffin should win.
He argues you don't have to file any kind of appearance, so if you do it's a waiver.
That would be weird.
Boom.
Judge: Uh, same thing with the tweet here.
lol.
More from Legal
1/
In light of this serious cyber attack and this being the second in a row that I've heard in the past few weeks, I'd like to take this moment to talk about the cyber attack known as #phishing so that others do not fall prey to it and stay safe online.
Thread starts:
2/
Phishing is usually a means of contacting you by impersonation to gather data, oversimplifying it. This can happen in several ways:
1. URL similarities: Usually when people visit a webpage, most people never check the URL (Uniform Resource Locator). For example, a fake URL of
3/
https://t.co/x0brAMyKgF would be https://t.co/HrdE9hklv1. Seem the same, right? No. I've replaced one single character of "L" in @Google with "I". Therefore, your entire data would be redirected to the server that is hosting GOOGIE, instead of GOOGLE. This is commonly
4/
hackers perform cyber attacks. However this is only one of many.
Many people might forward you genuine links with small "add-ons" which enter your system like a Trojan Horse. A beautiful meme of keyboard cat on the outside but a vicious data-mining link on the inside.
Plus
5/
There's also other means of doing this. And you might think "But dude, who's stupid enough to fall for it?"
LOTS of UNINFORMED people are.
2020 was a record breaking year for phishing websites and attacks as per @techradar. It's not just through
In light of this serious cyber attack and this being the second in a row that I've heard in the past few weeks, I'd like to take this moment to talk about the cyber attack known as #phishing so that others do not fall prey to it and stay safe online.
Thread starts:
2/
Phishing is usually a means of contacting you by impersonation to gather data, oversimplifying it. This can happen in several ways:
1. URL similarities: Usually when people visit a webpage, most people never check the URL (Uniform Resource Locator). For example, a fake URL of
3/
https://t.co/x0brAMyKgF would be https://t.co/HrdE9hklv1. Seem the same, right? No. I've replaced one single character of "L" in @Google with "I". Therefore, your entire data would be redirected to the server that is hosting GOOGIE, instead of GOOGLE. This is commonly
4/
hackers perform cyber attacks. However this is only one of many.
Many people might forward you genuine links with small "add-ons" which enter your system like a Trojan Horse. A beautiful meme of keyboard cat on the outside but a vicious data-mining link on the inside.
Plus
5/
There's also other means of doing this. And you might think "But dude, who's stupid enough to fall for it?"
LOTS of UNINFORMED people are.
2020 was a record breaking year for phishing websites and attacks as per @techradar. It's not just through