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?
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 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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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???