Just out of curiosity, if someone popular today tweeted the covid 19 jab still transmits and causes infection would they still be banned? Or does Twitter recognize that is indeed fact and would let it go?
I think it depends on how many followers you have. I've posted plenty of stuff that SHOULD have gotten me banned or temporarily silenced, but I have about two dozen followers so I'm sure Twatter doesn't GAS about me.
I don't know how they define "popular" but I'm quite sure it ain't me!
Not as much, no. They took me off temp for saying Fauci was a murderer, for a week. They usually give you one or two chances. The 'narrative' is shifting, today's conspiracy theory is next weeks set of facts, so they have to improvise.
Alex from a lawyer: Make sure your lawyers’ response briefs have first sentences using power phrases to point out the misdirection. To wit: “Twitter seeks to drag this court into believing…” “Twitter hopes to misguide this court…” Twitter cobbles together… (the first sentence should encapsulate why their argument can and must be disregarded). Two cents from one of the millions pulling for you!
As an attorney who has written many such legal briefs, this sort of sleight-of-hand is a common (and, sadly, acceptable) tactic for an attorney or law firm who can't find favorable authority for their client. Occasionally, it's actually successful, especially in a case where you're in front of a judge who for various reasons (politics?) might be inclined to rule in favor of the side with the weaker case. What they're looking for is enough 'cover' to allow the Court to make its decision without seeming overtly corrupt.
The burden of refuting this kind argument then falls their opponents, who have to go back and read all the cases which are cited, and then systematically knock down every legal and factual misinterpretation, one by one, in order to preserve an appeal to a (hopefully) more objective venue. This is tedious work, requiring many billable hours and considerable resources. The lower court will never be held accountable for their wrong decision as long they as can plausibly claim that they 'interpreted it differently' or even that the judge was too stupid to understand it. But, of course, they are almost never questioned.
Until I started listening to YouTuber "Viva Frei" and his Sunday livestreams with Robert Barnes, I had no idea that the U.S. Court System was so corrupt and/or incompetent. Sadly, it is, and few people who aren't lawyers are even aware of it.
Reminds me of a case where the judge actually accepted an argument that language granting an exclusive easement to a specific utility meant that the property owner was thereafter excluded from any manner of challenge or objection to the utilities use of the easement outside the conditions of the grant up to and including leasing it out to another entity. Needless to say the appellate court unanimously sent it back to the district court.
The problem for Twitter is the tyrannical minded employees that the company refuses to control. They expose themselves in their hyperventilating when musk briefly said he was on the board and now he's not. I'm sure many at Twitter know what musk's survey revealed... We just need you to win so you can force them into freedom. Alex I'm really hoping for you to win this!
He didn't spend $3 billion to back down and say "never mind." I think he realized that a board seat would restrict him more than it would benefit him. (For example, it would have limited his future ownership stake, and would also have potentially created other conflicts.) So expect him to either increase his stake, or to develop a plan, bring other, large shareholders on board, and then do a proxy fight to change the existing board.
Twitter hasn't seen the last of Elon Musk. Don't worry.
While collecting Recall Gavin signatures here in Insane Francisco, we used the Pruneyard decision to great effect at multiple locations that didn't want us there. We even had our own (volunteer) lawyer on call when we headed out to battle. It's now helpful for handing out information (that is not given to the patients inside) outside of vax clinics.
Court is a game of Chess. When Alex announces opposing counsels misstep he may given up his queen and for what good reason? Alex, is wise on many issues but lacks common sense with pointing out the misstep from opposing counsel. If I was a lawyer I would tell Alex to stop discussing his case.
I know you are stating the conventional wisdom here. I just tend to think Alex isn't telling opposing counsel anything they don't already know. They know what the relevant cases say, as well as the underlying facts of those cases. They know when their efforts to distinguish unfavorable precedent aren't working. Alex is just twitting them. Yeah, it might backfire, and it would probably cause his lawyers a lot less heartburn if he'd be more quiet, but bottom line, I think these posts are highly unlikely to have any effect on the course of the litigation.
When I worked as a paralegal for a small firm in NY my boss would say, somewhat jokingly, that "when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you argue the law. When they are both against you attack your adversary." Misstating what a prior decision says or referring to prior decisions in a convoluted manner to hide their true meaning is not something a good judge looks favorably on. Keep swingin' Alex.
Ironically, when they tore down the Pruneyard in Campbell California and built apartments on the site, a fire ensued during construction, causing over $100 million in damages. Foreshadowing for the Twitter case???
I’m glad you’re fighting back.
Yes, glad you're fighting back, but I wouldn't spend too much money trying to fight a state controlled propaganda machine.
ok, fed
j/k
Just out of curiosity, if someone popular today tweeted the covid 19 jab still transmits and causes infection would they still be banned? Or does Twitter recognize that is indeed fact and would let it go?
I think it depends on how many followers you have. I've posted plenty of stuff that SHOULD have gotten me banned or temporarily silenced, but I have about two dozen followers so I'm sure Twatter doesn't GAS about me.
I don't know how they define "popular" but I'm quite sure it ain't me!
Not as much, no. They took me off temp for saying Fauci was a murderer, for a week. They usually give you one or two chances. The 'narrative' is shifting, today's conspiracy theory is next weeks set of facts, so they have to improvise.
Alex from a lawyer: Make sure your lawyers’ response briefs have first sentences using power phrases to point out the misdirection. To wit: “Twitter seeks to drag this court into believing…” “Twitter hopes to misguide this court…” Twitter cobbles together… (the first sentence should encapsulate why their argument can and must be disregarded). Two cents from one of the millions pulling for you!
As an attorney who has written many such legal briefs, this sort of sleight-of-hand is a common (and, sadly, acceptable) tactic for an attorney or law firm who can't find favorable authority for their client. Occasionally, it's actually successful, especially in a case where you're in front of a judge who for various reasons (politics?) might be inclined to rule in favor of the side with the weaker case. What they're looking for is enough 'cover' to allow the Court to make its decision without seeming overtly corrupt.
The burden of refuting this kind argument then falls their opponents, who have to go back and read all the cases which are cited, and then systematically knock down every legal and factual misinterpretation, one by one, in order to preserve an appeal to a (hopefully) more objective venue. This is tedious work, requiring many billable hours and considerable resources. The lower court will never be held accountable for their wrong decision as long they as can plausibly claim that they 'interpreted it differently' or even that the judge was too stupid to understand it. But, of course, they are almost never questioned.
The corruption never ends. It’s truly disheartening that the legal system mainly benefits everyone but the average citizen.
Until I started listening to YouTuber "Viva Frei" and his Sunday livestreams with Robert Barnes, I had no idea that the U.S. Court System was so corrupt and/or incompetent. Sadly, it is, and few people who aren't lawyers are even aware of it.
Yet one more place where America has fallen down.
Reminds me of a case where the judge actually accepted an argument that language granting an exclusive easement to a specific utility meant that the property owner was thereafter excluded from any manner of challenge or objection to the utilities use of the easement outside the conditions of the grant up to and including leasing it out to another entity. Needless to say the appellate court unanimously sent it back to the district court.
Easement law is poorly understood even by experienced lawyers and judges.
Alarming.
Poor lil bird, first the Elon stock strike now a legal sidestep. Best of luck, Alex!
We're rooting for you.
The problem for Twitter is the tyrannical minded employees that the company refuses to control. They expose themselves in their hyperventilating when musk briefly said he was on the board and now he's not. I'm sure many at Twitter know what musk's survey revealed... We just need you to win so you can force them into freedom. Alex I'm really hoping for you to win this!
I don’t get why he backed down from a seat on the board? He could have done some good. Totally missed opportunity in my opinion.
He wants to buy more stock (and control?) than he can if on the board.
He didn't spend $3 billion to back down and say "never mind." I think he realized that a board seat would restrict him more than it would benefit him. (For example, it would have limited his future ownership stake, and would also have potentially created other conflicts.) So expect him to either increase his stake, or to develop a plan, bring other, large shareholders on board, and then do a proxy fight to change the existing board.
Twitter hasn't seen the last of Elon Musk. Don't worry.
While collecting Recall Gavin signatures here in Insane Francisco, we used the Pruneyard decision to great effect at multiple locations that didn't want us there. We even had our own (volunteer) lawyer on call when we headed out to battle. It's now helpful for handing out information (that is not given to the patients inside) outside of vax clinics.
"These are not the kind of games you play when you are confident the law is on your side."
But perhaps they are the kind of games you play when you are confident the *judge* is on your side?
I appreciate your candor and reflection. With respect it's foolish to report on legal missteps from opposing counsel.
why?
Court is a game of Chess. When Alex announces opposing counsels misstep he may given up his queen and for what good reason? Alex, is wise on many issues but lacks common sense with pointing out the misstep from opposing counsel. If I was a lawyer I would tell Alex to stop discussing his case.
I think Alexis knows exactly what he is doing. He has the Ace.
I hope he succeeds. No ill will from me. I've spent 30 years in court and I call it like I see it.
If I'm his attorney I'd have him submit any statement regarding his case to me before making it public.
I know you are stating the conventional wisdom here. I just tend to think Alex isn't telling opposing counsel anything they don't already know. They know what the relevant cases say, as well as the underlying facts of those cases. They know when their efforts to distinguish unfavorable precedent aren't working. Alex is just twitting them. Yeah, it might backfire, and it would probably cause his lawyers a lot less heartburn if he'd be more quiet, but bottom line, I think these posts are highly unlikely to have any effect on the course of the litigation.
Yes, I understand that but, it seems very reasonable to point out the lie that cannot be corrected, with another line of ........!
I know your right Al.
Take 'em down Alex. Become a major partner with Elon!
death to Twitter
When I worked as a paralegal for a small firm in NY my boss would say, somewhat jokingly, that "when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you argue the law. When they are both against you attack your adversary." Misstating what a prior decision says or referring to prior decisions in a convoluted manner to hide their true meaning is not something a good judge looks favorably on. Keep swingin' Alex.
Hopefully, he is a good judge.
Yes, key phrase -- "good judge."
I see a Twitter ask for a continuance
Go Get em!
Ironically, when they tore down the Pruneyard in Campbell California and built apartments on the site, a fire ensued during construction, causing over $100 million in damages. Foreshadowing for the Twitter case???