"this is not a hidden connection. All of you in this room and hopefully everyone within six degrees of separation from you knows that islamophobia is a well-funded conspiracy- a well-funded project, a well-funded project to marginalize us to imprison us to deport us to silence us
"they're afraid of our advocacy. They know that muslims fight for black lives matter ... and most importantly they know what my parents taught us that muslims fight for palestine that muslims will fight for a free palestine and so they must come after us"
"the organizations that promote zionist agendas materials marketing and legislation are the same ones that want to ban muslims are the same ones that want to pass anti-sharia legislation ..."
"i also want us to pay attention to the polite zionists, ... we need to pay attention to the anti-defamation league we need to pay attention to the jewish federation we need to pay attention to the zionist synagogues we need to pay attention to
the hillel chapters on our campuses
"the next thing i'm going to tell you is to know your enemies, and i'm not going to sugarcoat that they
are your enemies ... i mean the zionist organizations i mean the foreign policy organizations who say they're not zionists but want a two-state solution ..."
Here's the statement that came immediately after her speech (which, again, CAIR is defending):
"and she's absolutely right normalization - normalization has no space with us we will not normalize nor will we respect those who do"
The entire panel was dedicated to "the hidden links and secret agendas" behind Islamophobia - i.e. blaming a Jewish conspiracy and zionism for anti-muslim bigotry.
Video and transcript here
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK, litigation disaster tourists, time to look at John Eastman's lawsuit to stop Verizon from turning his communications metadata over to the January 6 Committee
We'll roll through his arguments, but here's the tl;dr:
This complaint is the legal equivalent of flop sweat - dude is *terrified*, and I look forward to the country finding out exactly why.
Eastman is suing both the January 6 Committee (which issued the subpoena) for a declaration that the subpoena is invalid, and Verizon (to whom the subpoena was issued) for an injunction to stop it from complying
Which is this: The copyright termination provisions apply only to rights grants "executed by the author." Here, she has a Marital Settlement agreement that was (per her complaint) so-ordered by the California state court
AFAICT, she should be arguing that a so-ordered stipulation identifying and providing for the distribution of community property as part of a divorce settlement is a grant *by the Court*, not "by the author", in exactly the same way a contested divorce judgment would be
Hey, litigation disaster tourists: my trials are done or settled and I'm back to a much more normal schedule ... which means we have some time to live-read the TSR v. Wizards of the Coast lolsuit today. Will have to break this thread to get Littler Girl up and to school, but ...
Let's start here. They've filed the case in the Eastern District of North Carolina. This is an interesting choice, given that WOTC is headquartered in Washington and registered as an LLC in Delaware, for a value of "interesting" that incorporates "clownishly ignorant"
As you all may remember from such prior hits as "You Can't sue the Governor of Wisconsin There" and "No, Mr. Biss, that's the Wrong State" ... this is not, so much, a thing.
Remington's lawyer... argued that [he] had no "non-lethal options" ...
"He did have a taser, but in his mind, he couldn't use it because he didn't feel he had the proper spread to deploy it, with the wheelchair between him and Richards," Storie said.
"Oh no, my position relative to the wheelchair means I can't deploy my taser. Should I: (a) change position or (b) empty my magazine into the back of someone suspected of shoplifting and having a knife?"
Anyone acting like the Rittenhouse verdict is a travesty either doesn't understand the law, doesn't have a good grip on the facts, or doesn't care about how the law is supposed to be applied. I said day 1 that the self-defense argument was too fact-specific to be assessed from
a distance and the evidence that came in at trial made it sounder and sounder. The jury finding reasonable doubt? That's our system working the way it should, protecting the accused. That's why a DA needs to prove more than just "the defendant PROBABLY did it"
Of course, there are too many people that the system doesn't work for, and that needs to be fixed. That takes work. But that work isn't "well make it fuck over the white kid too"