We've subpoenaed Twitter, asking it to turn over what it knows about the government and private efforts to censor me in 2021. Will Elon help us get to the truth?
We’ll I know he still believes he was right but I think he also said he regretted taking them on. They are trying to ruin Tesla. And him. He should invest what he has wisely and get a lot of body guards. I also worry about Tucker Carlson a lot. I hope he supports you.
You still face the legal guillotine otherwise known as the Dismissal Regimen. My personal experience revealed how this works and why so many valid cases are not making it to trial. The judge has a duty to consider any plausible claim you put forth as valid, at this stage. However, two horrible Supreme Court precedents (Twombly and Igbal) have "heightened" the pleading standards. (Whatever that means.) So, now, even though you have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, the Court denies that right and conducts an ad hoc bench trial. The other side files all manner of "evidence and facts" that you cannot contest, because you have no right to discovery or cross examination. In other words, they can outright lie. The Bench then "tries" the matter without due process and renders a verdict, which too often is a dismissal. Worth being heads up on these duplicitous moves. (The Plaintiff's Bar needs to challenge this unjust routine now standard in District Courts.)
You'll catch more flies with honey Alex. Tell Musk, with full cooperation, you will consider a coal-guzzler Tesla. Save America and the coal industry at the same time : )
Give me a mug and I'll talk to elon, See what I can do. I literally have Dozens Of followers on twitter. Elon does not want to make me angry Or I will turn my Twitter army on him. Cry havic and
Unleash the birds of war. You can avert it all Alex by simply sending me a coffee cup. This thing can spiral out of control quickly Alex. the world is counting on you, I am currently on Twitter restriction. I violated their rules imagine that. So as soon as I'm released. I will get right on it. but in the meantime send me the mug alex.
Please keep in mind that Elon Musk is, first and foremost, a businessman. He paid $44 billion in overvalued Tesla stock for his stake in Twitter, and be damned if he's ready to risk his investment by exposing it to huge class-action and civil rights lawsuits for a silly little thing like freedom of expression. However, if the folks in the government censorship complex keep attacking Twitter and threatening him with their law enforcement and regulatory agencies, they might just piss him off to the point where he no longer gives a damn, and burns everything down just to spite them.
Musk is a fraud. He doesn't believe in free anything. I've been suspended from Twitter before he owned it. I have no idea why and don''t really care. Anyone that believes in putting a chip in someone's head is the enemy.
Thank you Alex, we need so many more people like you. I’ll happy make a donation albeit a small one but I hope it helps. Nothing has ever been so more important than this.
Yes, Bob, that begins to capture the problem. But there is more. Twombly was a bad decision. The Supremes even admit that their decision was based on helping anti-trust defendants avoid the cost of litigation (but they forgot to consider the costs incurred by those harmed by the defendants). The standard of "plausible on its face" had been in play for some time, but with a stronger emphasis on honoring any claim that met a standard of common sense and was plausible. (See the dissenting opinion for an excellent history of the pleading standard.) With Igbal the damage was taken a step further. We're not talking a Rule 56 Motion but rather a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss. The "insufficient evidence" standard invites the defendant to present opposing evidence (which can be and often is fabrication and misrepresentation). The Bench then abandons/denies the Plaintiff's right to a jury trial and weighs the evidence (tries the case) in an ad hoc bench trial. The Plaintiff is stripped of the "plausible claim" standard and the judge tries the "facts" without the plaintiff being allowed to engage in discovery and challenge the defendants' facts through cross examination. The judge's dispositive decision is often invalid as it can be based on the judge's ignorance of the evidentiary fact pattern or the decision can be based on judicial bias. The Plaintiff is stripped of his or her right to a jury trial and to due process protections, such as discovery and cross examination. The entire process violates longstanding principles of Rule 8 Pleading, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and due process protections. The change in pleading standards have resulted in a rogue judiciary wielding power they do not legally possess.
Does this prove how much intervention by companies and organisations occurs in so many aspects of lives & businesses Some group are virtually mentoring everyone how to live work speak think abiding by their rules and using their equipment People should not be restricted by these ways so that a free flow of improvements ideas beliefs may emerge for good of all Aim for a power of good not of just power of control
Interesting to see how it goes with Cooley because surely they will contest whatever they hold is governed by client-solicitor privilege and can only be released with the consent of the client (twitter/X).
We’ll I know he still believes he was right but I think he also said he regretted taking them on. They are trying to ruin Tesla. And him. He should invest what he has wisely and get a lot of body guards. I also worry about Tucker Carlson a lot. I hope he supports you.
Godspeed, Alex.
Fingers crossed.
You still face the legal guillotine otherwise known as the Dismissal Regimen. My personal experience revealed how this works and why so many valid cases are not making it to trial. The judge has a duty to consider any plausible claim you put forth as valid, at this stage. However, two horrible Supreme Court precedents (Twombly and Igbal) have "heightened" the pleading standards. (Whatever that means.) So, now, even though you have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, the Court denies that right and conducts an ad hoc bench trial. The other side files all manner of "evidence and facts" that you cannot contest, because you have no right to discovery or cross examination. In other words, they can outright lie. The Bench then "tries" the matter without due process and renders a verdict, which too often is a dismissal. Worth being heads up on these duplicitous moves. (The Plaintiff's Bar needs to challenge this unjust routine now standard in District Courts.)
Hoping Elon does the right thing for your case. Would love one of those coffee mugs, Alex!
You'll catch more flies with honey Alex. Tell Musk, with full cooperation, you will consider a coal-guzzler Tesla. Save America and the coal industry at the same time : )
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Winning anything against the feds is just this side of miraculous so we’ll be pulling for you.
Funny how the neo-liberals are anything but. So much for constitutionally protected rights.
Go Biden (right to the retirement home).
Give me a mug and I'll talk to elon, See what I can do. I literally have Dozens Of followers on twitter. Elon does not want to make me angry Or I will turn my Twitter army on him. Cry havic and
Unleash the birds of war. You can avert it all Alex by simply sending me a coffee cup. This thing can spiral out of control quickly Alex. the world is counting on you, I am currently on Twitter restriction. I violated their rules imagine that. So as soon as I'm released. I will get right on it. but in the meantime send me the mug alex.
Please keep in mind that Elon Musk is, first and foremost, a businessman. He paid $44 billion in overvalued Tesla stock for his stake in Twitter, and be damned if he's ready to risk his investment by exposing it to huge class-action and civil rights lawsuits for a silly little thing like freedom of expression. However, if the folks in the government censorship complex keep attacking Twitter and threatening him with their law enforcement and regulatory agencies, they might just piss him off to the point where he no longer gives a damn, and burns everything down just to spite them.
Musk is a fraud. He doesn't believe in free anything. I've been suspended from Twitter before he owned it. I have no idea why and don''t really care. Anyone that believes in putting a chip in someone's head is the enemy.
IF Elon doesn't it is what it is, and he is what many insinuated he was
Thank you Alex, we need so many more people like you. I’ll happy make a donation albeit a small one but I hope it helps. Nothing has ever been so more important than this.
Yes, Bob, that begins to capture the problem. But there is more. Twombly was a bad decision. The Supremes even admit that their decision was based on helping anti-trust defendants avoid the cost of litigation (but they forgot to consider the costs incurred by those harmed by the defendants). The standard of "plausible on its face" had been in play for some time, but with a stronger emphasis on honoring any claim that met a standard of common sense and was plausible. (See the dissenting opinion for an excellent history of the pleading standard.) With Igbal the damage was taken a step further. We're not talking a Rule 56 Motion but rather a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss. The "insufficient evidence" standard invites the defendant to present opposing evidence (which can be and often is fabrication and misrepresentation). The Bench then abandons/denies the Plaintiff's right to a jury trial and weighs the evidence (tries the case) in an ad hoc bench trial. The Plaintiff is stripped of the "plausible claim" standard and the judge tries the "facts" without the plaintiff being allowed to engage in discovery and challenge the defendants' facts through cross examination. The judge's dispositive decision is often invalid as it can be based on the judge's ignorance of the evidentiary fact pattern or the decision can be based on judicial bias. The Plaintiff is stripped of his or her right to a jury trial and to due process protections, such as discovery and cross examination. The entire process violates longstanding principles of Rule 8 Pleading, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and due process protections. The change in pleading standards have resulted in a rogue judiciary wielding power they do not legally possess.
Does this prove how much intervention by companies and organisations occurs in so many aspects of lives & businesses Some group are virtually mentoring everyone how to live work speak think abiding by their rules and using their equipment People should not be restricted by these ways so that a free flow of improvements ideas beliefs may emerge for good of all Aim for a power of good not of just power of control
Interesting to see how it goes with Cooley because surely they will contest whatever they hold is governed by client-solicitor privilege and can only be released with the consent of the client (twitter/X).
Shouldn't they have responded to the subpoenas already? Thought there was a pretty short time limit.