"You are discriminating against us on the basis of race, in that some of us are black and some of us are white" might be the stupidest line in this godawful year of performative political litigation, and that's in a field fucking full of elite level contenders
Lest you think that stupid performative political litigation is limited to the Trumpist right, this is a suit filed by some of the Democrats who fled Texas to deny the legislature a quorum, against Texas' governor, house speaker, and - AFAICT - a random Black GOP house rep
I mean, I kind of get what the Texas Governor and House Speaker are doing in this LOLsuit, but what did poor James White do?
I'm gonna skip Paragraph 2, which is just a list of where each of these reps live, and jump to the rest of the intro, which will of course explain in broad terms what this suit is abo--- oh my god what is this shit?
I mean, it doesn't actually say "we're suing because the House is imposing consequences on us for fleeing the state to avoid a quorum" but that's got to be what this is about, right? If so, in what universe is that "because of [your] protected status"?
Also, how do you ask for what looks to be a fucking class action to protect the class of "state legislators who want to deny the legislature a quorum by leaving town"? Remember that "numerosity" requirement we discussed in the Trump class action thread? There are only 150 of you!
And no, the consequences are not "because you are petitioning Congress". It's because you're refusing to appear in the Texas house to do your jobs of voting on the bills before you. And, well, Texas has rules governing what happens if you do that.
1) This has nothing to do with whether you have a good reason to deny them a quorum (the proposed bills are pretty fucking awful)
2) This has nothing to do with what you're doing on your out-of-state jaunt. The fact that you chose to go to DC instead of bird watching in Alaska
is not a get-out-of-consequences-free card.
Texas's rules on "legislators who refuse to appear to deny a quorum" don't have a "unless you've got a really good reason" exception.
Also, if your case is based on "we did this Constitutionally protected thing and now they are harming us because of it" you might want to include WHAT THE THING WAS and WHAT IS HAPPENING TO YOU in your fucking introdamnduction, you goofballs
Like, Federal civil rights cases against a state governor are not the place to maintain an air of alluring mystery.
Oh come the fuck on, really?
You can tell I'm doing this live, right?
Look, I know I said I was going to skip Paragraph 2, but it turns out I'm not. I'm just going to show it to you now.
Along with Paragraph 6.
I mean why? Why would anyone do this?
I can usually come up with a reason why, in the mind of the lolyer filing the lolsuit, the stupid thing they said or pled contributes to the case, but I'm at a complete fucking loss here.
I mean, were they concerned that the first time wasn't enough? Were they just so proud of the pleading they thought doing it twice would be even more effective? What the hell?
No, really, White is absolutely just a random member of the House (of RepresentativE, apparently)
This sounds really serious. I wonder what that course of conduct was?
No, really, I wonder what it was.
Because they don't bother pleading any specific things
Guys, I have literally never seen this before. I've seen complaints that plead batshit conspiracy lunacy (by amending the Help America Vote act, every person in every government conspired to rig the election). ...
I've seen complaints plead factual allegations that just aren't actionable. "On June 12, 2020, he called me a piece of shit! That's defamatory!"
But I've never seen a complaint that doesn't bother pleading ... anything, at all.
"They're violating my rights!"
"How?"
"By doing what they're doing!"
"What are they doing?"
"Violating my rights!"
And then they top it off with a request for injunctive relief.
"Your Honor, make them stop!"
"Stop what?"
"What they're doing!"
"Which is?"
"Violating my rights!"
The decision in the Laura Loomer fee application is out. She got tagged for 123K. Let's take a look
Reminder of how we got here. Twitter banned Loomer (because she's incredibly awful and an Islamophobe). Loomer, as one does, sued CAIR, alleging that they conspired with Twitter to have her banned.
Florida law lets parties make an "offer of judgment" - basically, "I'll stipulate to a judgment in the amount of [insert dollars] if you will" - and says "if the other party denies it, and you do better than that as an end result, they have to pay your fees"
So... This is NOT actually a crazy defamation suit. It's filled by Stephen Biss, so of course it's filed in the wrong jurisdiction (EDTX, where NBCU isn't subject to jurisdiction and has no connection to the events). But (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the core is viable
The core allegation is simple: Maddow reported that I accepted a package from Andriy Derkach, a Russian agent, refused to turn it over to the FBI, and refuse to tell anyone what was in it. I actually never accepted it & turned it over to the FBI unopened
Those are specific statements of fact by Maddow, which he alleges are false. That clears the first hurdle: he's actually suing about statements of fact, not opinion, which means it's legally possible for them to be defamatory
ScarJo complaint here. This is one of those breach of contract claims that should be a law-school example for years to come. The parties are arguing about whether the contract's requirement that Black Widow be given a "wide theatrical release" precluded simultaneous streaming
This is super important, because ScarJo's pay for the movie was tied to box-office receipts, and there's no question that the simultaneous release on Disney+ cost her loads and loads of money.
Her complaint alleges 50M, and while numbers in complaints are not necessarily the best metric (they can be pie-in-the-sky moonshots from plaintiffs), in a case like this that tells me that 50M was one of the potential bonuses on enough box office sales.
1) That's not a thing; trademark abandonment under US law requires non-use *anywhere* for a period of three years. Registration of your TM gives you national rights, even if you only sell in a small town.
2) US TM law has NOTHING to do with rights in Israel @AttorneyNitsana
4) They say they intend to remain within pre-67 Israel so unless you're suggesting Judea and Samaria are legally distinct from Israel (which you don't want to do, right @AttorneyNitsana?) then...
not selling in Judea and Samaria is no different, for purposes of revocation, from a company deciding it won't sell in Afula but will sell everywhere else in the country.
We begin with the table of contents. It suggests Wood is arguing two issues: 1) I never authorized Sidney Powell to put my name on this complaint; 2) I didn't violate a court order by sending out a clip of the hearing on Telegram. That second one is, of course, new.
Wait - no. This isn't Wood's supplemental brief on the sanctions motion. The court actually ordered him to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for the video thing, entirely separately. I missed that.
I want to spend some time taking you through what looks like a case with actual merit - a discrimination case against the USDOJ. Full disclosure: the plaintiff is a friend of mine - a former mentee, a deeply good human being, and an excellent lawyer.
In other words, while I don't have personal knowledge of anything alleged here, if Shamiso is saying something happened, I believe it. And after you look at the DOJ's answer, I'm guessing you will too.
Here's the basic story: Shamiso got pregnant and had a child who, for medical reasons, needed to have breast milk. That sometimes meant that when Shamiso travelled for work, so did the baby. Her supervisor did not like any of that, and fired her for it.