BREAKING: The @FBIAnchorage has charged a Kasilof resident with making unlawful Threatening Interstate Communications for allegedly sending bomb and other death threats to individuals in Vermont. #aklaw
The response: "What the fuck are you talking about" is priceless.
The dude called the Massachusetts State Police and said he was going to bomb them. The MSP asked if he was threatening them, and he said "Damn fucking right, I am." AMAZING. @SeamusHughes
Tarball had a ticket to fly to Vermont on September 11. It's not clear if he's been arrested yet. There's no notice of arrest on the docket.
Tarbell got a ticket from the Alaska State Troopers in May for driving a motorcycle without a license.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
BREAKING: The settlement agreement in Imbriani v. Quinn-Davidson indicates that the Bronson Administration is limiting the Anchorage Health Department’s COVID-19 vaccine outreach in response to privacy concerns. THREAD:
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
AAG Fox's opening: "APOC is just trying to follow the law."
"[Plaintiffs] haven't tried to distinguish these cases" that hold the campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional.
J. Carney: What if our statute is different [from other statutes that have been ruled unconstitutional by fed courts]?
Fox: AK statute doesn't treat the subject groups differently than statutes in other cases. No difference among the statutes. APOC is bound by fed case law.
Today at 11 am the Alaska Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in APOC v. Patrick, one of the most important cases you've probably never heard of. Harvard Law School Con Law Professor Lawrence Lessig @lessig leads the plaintiffs in a case almost certain to head to SCOTUS #aklaw
2. This case is about whether APOC has discretion to ignore AK's campaign contribution limits for independent expenditure groups. After SCOTUS's 2010 decision in Citizens United, APOC decided AK's law was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed APOC's decision.
3. Senior AAG Laura Fox will argue for APOC. The main point is that AK's statute imposing campaign contribution limits is unconstitutional post-Citizens United and APOC shouldn't be required to enforce it.