So a couple of things:
1: This is, it appears a pro se complaint from the same plaintiff that sued Twitch for $25 mil over the summer because he allegedly sustained injury from - how should I put this - repetitively engaging in very solo recreating while watching streams.
2: I'd like to sleep this week, so I'm not going to livetweet this tonight. (Sorry, @wolmanj) But I did skim it.

3: It's every bit as totally off-the-rails-insane as one would expect from a pro se complaint of this nature.
4: That said, the plaintiff did find and attempt to argue (badly, but the attempt was at least made) both Marsh v Alabama and Pruneyard Shopping Center. That alone puts the quality of legal argumentation in this case miles ahead of literally anything Team Kraken produced.
For the nonlawyers:
This is a crazy lawsuit filed by a crazy person. The court and any lawyers who become involved will see this, and the case will be handled professionally and appropriately.

This kind of thing happens all the time. This court will see crazier cases this year.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @questauthority

15 Jan
Election Litigation Update - Michigan

The response to the motions to dismiss is in - kind of. The plaintiffs responded only to the motion for sanctions component. They say they're going to be requesting voluntary dismissal because of mootness.

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
I only had time for a quick skim. But my impression is that:
(1) This is a response to only one of several pending sanctions motions, so even if it's correct it won't get them off the hook for everything;
(2) They're arguing that their stuff couldn't be frivolous because Texas v PA made similar arguments (which, to the extent it's correct, maybe isn't the best argument to be making;
Read 6 tweets
15 Jan
This guy is actively lobbying for a pardon while simultaneously throwing Trump under a bus. It's a very interesting strategy.

Was interesting the word I was looking for?
He just described Q as a cult without kool-aid.

And I think he just said that the President can go into any federal building he wants any time he wants and while that might be true for many buildings has this goofball never heard of "separation of powers"?
This lawyer is....

...a good fit for his client.
Read 4 tweets
15 Jan
I love The West Wing - or at least the first 4 seasons. Some of the best writing, dialogue that's so good I've shamelessly swiped some of it, superb cast, really, what wasn't to love.

But I also haven't really watched it for about a decade.
I've watched an occasional episode, but not the series. Didn't have time when I started law school in 2012, and after 2016 I didn't really have the heart.

This feels like a good time.
"Two Absolute martinis up, another Dewars rocks."

[I'm drinking Jameson's IPA edition.]
Read 33 tweets
15 Jan
Litigation Semi-update - various cases:
1: It looks like there wasn't remote public access for the hearing in the Parler v Amazon case today, probably because they dealt with the issue of sealing filings to protect Amazon employees from angry Parler users.
(By the way - if your user base is so toxic that this is even an issue, and if your contract says that they can boot you if you're a safety risk, you're probably hosed.)
The docket reflects that the judge took the matter "under advisement" meaning that a decision will be issued later.

No decision as of 20 minutes ago, I'll look again tomorrow.
Read 10 tweets
14 Jan
Last night, when I discussed The Big Lie that Republicans are peddling on stream, I wasn't specifically thinking about this particular liar. But she's a damn good example.

Also a remarkably good example of a disgrace to the legal profession.
For the record:
1: It certainly can be - and is - in dispute whether the Republican-led Pennsylvania Legislature violated the Pennsylvania State Constitution.
2: It is also in dispute whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the US Constitution when they extended the deadline. What is not in dispute is that this doesn't affect the Presidential election - those votes weren't included in Biden's total. inquirer.com/politics/elect…
Read 4 tweets
14 Jan
Wow - skimmed Parler's reply in their "case" against Amazon. Entire platoons of clowns must be searching for their missing shoes, because Parler's one lawyer is wearing all of them at the same time.
I'm basing that on the part of the reply that touches on the section 230 defense Amazon raised.

To refresh your recollection, Amazon argued that they were immune under 230(c)(2) - which I've included here as a screenshot along with Amazon's argument. ImageImage
In reply, Parler seems to mostly argue that Amazon isn't immune because they're not being treated as a publisher or speaker. That is, sadly for Parler, what 230(c)(1) says, not 230(c)(2).

Amazon didn't mention (c)(1). Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!