My Authors
Read all threads
==========
THEORETICAL ROADMAP
TO UNDO #SILENTSHAM
==========

Some thoughts on trying to unwind the "settlement" between the NC Division Sons of Confederate Veterans and the UNC system, that is set to create a $2,500,000.00 Klan Annuity
Some obligatory disclaimers:

➡️ This is gonna take several hours to roll out, because I'll be tweeting in between work (gonna be on the road for roughly 2 hours, plus meetings at 2p and 4p)

➡️ I'm a practitioner, not a scholar. There's a non-zero chance I'm very wrong somewhere
➡️ Since I'm going one tweet at a time, please let me know ASAP if you see obvious typos / autocorrect errors so I can delete-and-retweet before I get too far down the chain 😂
*BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS*

M (@m1523751) was kind enough to take the court documents and OCR them plus upload to Scribd, so they can't be DMCA'd

Docs are here:

Several folks, including M, have also posted the full victory statement from SCV Grand Wizard R. Kevin Stone

I'm linking to the one shared by @indyweek though, because they also include an editorial on why this is all hot garbage:

indyweek.com/news/orange/so…
The key documents we'll be relying on during this roadmap are:

1️⃣ The SCV's Verified Complaint

2️⃣ The Grand Wizard's Statement
For the non-lawyers, a "Verified" Complaint is just a lawsuit that includes an affidavit swearing that the facts alleged in it are true

The affiant was R. Kevin Stone

The notary was his lawyer, C. Boyd Sturges III
(For those who followed the Threadnought, yes it looks like Sturges committed notary fraud by notarizing the affidavit on an iPad without Stone directly in front of him like it claims in the jurat. I'll leave that to others to investigate.)

*WHY THE SCV'S LOLSUIT WAS A JOKE*

If you haven't read the Verified Complaint yet, please do

Because I read it

And sweet cherubic Baby Jesus Hisownself is it some gibberish
I would not be the slightest bit surprised if C Boyd Sturges III is a QAanon acolyte
The SCV's argument is basically this:

1️⃣ Married women back then couldn't sign contracts without their husband's permission, so that's why the contract to build the statue was signed by the University of North Carolina President instead of the United Daughters of the Confederacy
2️⃣ The UNC President – a government employee – was acting as an agent for the UDC when he signed the contract

3️⃣ He was also acting as an agent when he raised $5,000 fron UNC students and alumni, toward the $7,500 bill

4️⃣ Therefore the entire statue was a gift from UNC to UDC
5️⃣ Since the entire statue was a gift, the oral dedication speech given at the statue's unveiling provided the terms of the gift

6️⃣ The oral speech had the word "forever" in it

7️⃣ The statue was taken down, so the "forever" was breached
8️⃣ Because "forever" was breached, the gift has to be returned

9️⃣ SCV bought the cause of action from UDC, enabling them to sue in their place

That's it. That's the entire LOLsuit.
There are a *lot* of fatal infirmities in that theory, that we're going to walk through shortly

But let's first address point #9 and talk about the concept of "standing"
Standing is a simple concept that is convoluted af in application

At its most basic, it means you are the proper person to file a particular lawsuit. You have a right to be in court on that issue.
I could spend several days of Twitter threads going over standing and its great many nuances

Some of its key features include:

➡️ a requirement that the Plaintiff must be actually or imminently injured by the Defendant (no lawsuits over "general grievances")
That actual or imminent injury must be "concrete and particularized"

We call this the "injury-in-fact" requirement

The 2nd key prong of standing is showing causation

The injury-in-fact must have been caused by the Defendant. It must be "fairly traceable" to the Defendant's conduct
Then the 3rd piece is redressability

The injury-in-fact that the Plaintiff claims was caused by the Defendant must be the type of thing a court is capable of fixing

It has to be likely, not just speculative, that a favorable court ruling would redress the injury
If you meet those three prongs – injury-in-fact, causation, redressability – you have what we refer to as "constitutional standing"

You've met the *minimum* requirements to sue
There are also *a lot* of what are called "prudential" standing considerations

Think of them as gatekeeping functions – even though you have constitutional standing, it's a bad idea to consider your lawsuit anyway because reasons
Some prudential standing doctrines–

➡️ Ripeness: if the dispute isn't ready to be heard yet – isn't "ripe" for resolution – the court shouldn't hear it

➡️ Mootness: if the dispute is already resolved before the court decides, the court shouldn't decide it
➡️ Political questions: the court shouldn't decide cases interpreting powers the federal or state constitutions delegate to other branches

➡️ Advisory opinions: the court can only decide bona fide disputes (but: some state constitutions explicitly empower courts to give these)
➡️ Third party standing: with only a few exceptions, people who are not part of the dispute can't bring a lawsuit over the dispute

I might be missing some, but those are the main prudential standing questions coming to mind
Midpoint thread integrity test: @threadreaderapp please compile
@threadreaderapp (Yes, there's a typo further up where I tweeted that UNC gifted the statue to UDC instead of the other way around. But if the thread is working fine I don't want to break it trying to fix that error 😂)
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with T. Greg "#SilentSham" Doucette

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!