Weird, because the anti-Jewish riots and massacres in the early 20th century and the insistence on preventing Jewish immigration, including during the holocaust, seems to say otherwise.
But maybe this is a new development. If so, a shame it came too late
Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists, let's talk about this defamation suit for a minute. Moss and Freeman were the GA election workers on Rudy's CCTV video with the "suitcases" that were "under the table". They're now suing OAN, its owners, and Rudy for defamation
This is a lawsuit that will need to clear the "actual malice" bar. They were election workers performing a government function (counting ballots); commentary on that type of thing needs freedom to be vigorous. So defamation liability can only exist if they can prove1 of 2 things:
1) OAN & Rudy actually knew that the things they were broadcasting about Freeman and Moss were false.
2) OAN & Rudy didn't know for certain they were false but subjectively had serious doubts about whether it was false.
OK, let's talk about this Alex Berenson complaint. It's a chonky boy, clocking in at 228 paragraphs and 70 pages, and I'm actually in quite a bit of pain at the moment (did something to my back) so this will definitely break across a few days. But we'll do our best
So this is a pretty straight up suit, Berenson v. Twitter. California requiring numbered pleading paper (those numbers down the side) is an abomination, but it's always nice to see the causes of action laid out up front. What are they?
Like all good litigators, Berenson's team leads with his strongest argument, which is ... that a private company violated the First Amendment
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
"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"
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