Trump's lawyer: "I can't have Trump take the 5th, it'll be all over the news. He's entitled to immunity, he's not getting his constitutional protection"
Judge: "Can't he get that constitutional protection by taking the 5th?"
Trump lawyer: Wargarble
Judge: Isn't the constitutional right the one against self-incrimination?
Trump attorney: Yes
Judge: OK, can't he take the 5th?
Trump attorney: But then there's an inference against him!
Judge says he'll have a decision by 3pm. Index No 451685/2020 is repeated multiple times, because the court CLEARLY knows non-litigants are watching
This person is Tom Wrocklage, a newly-hired a State and Local Tax Director at @andersen_US, who is accusing @tznkai of being a "race traitor" for supporting Black people.
He's spent the last several days stalking and posting linkedin pages from various women he dislikes, and
has dedicated his account to "parodying" @artemis_nieves - because women aren't his jam. And I have to wonder if @Andersen_US knew what it was getting into when it hired this guy
And before you ask - yes, I'm tagging in his employer on purpose, because they absolutely should either yank his chain way back or fire his ass. Explanation in the next tweet
Apparently dead set on proving the aphorism that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, Sidney Powell and Howard Klownhandler decided that they themselves would handle the appeal from the sanctions they got slapped with in Michigan and ... ho boy, it's a lot
For fuck's sake, stop this nonsense. Are there white PDs with a savior complex? I'm sure there are; in any group of people that's a given. But not everything everyone does is about race just because everything you do is.
I don't *need* to make my every interaction about race because I'm not oppressed along that axis. But I also don't need to make it about antisemitism, or argue that any gentile doing things that help Jews is doing it to feel better about themselves or whatever psychodrama
And before you go there, yes, Jews were absolutely systematically and thoroughly oppressed through the ages, and I'm not even talking about the literal genocide in living fucking memory.
There is & can be no meaningful "philosophical" commitment to free speech distinct from the legal notion of free speech as "freedom from government consequence". (You can argue about what the appropriate limits of that freedom should be, that's not what I'm talking about)
Why do I say there can't be any such philosophical commitment distinct from the legal? Because once you're talking about non-governmental consequences, you're focused on *competing* speech and associations - any private boycott or deplatforming is just private also-free speech
I don't have any moral obligation to actively or tacitly support speech with which I disagree. Of course, we need a modus vivendi to deal with both the mutually-assured-destruction version of "boycott anything I disagree with" and the actual harm of epistemic closure; life in a
Oh, hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists, a Plaintiff that accused YouTube of violating their First Amendment rights just had their case yeeted for all of the reasons that Trump, Berenson, and everyone else suing Twitter for banning them will.
This particular plaintiff is a different band of merry plague enthusiasts than the RFK Jr. led (and Orwellian-named) Children's Health Defense: Del Bigtree's Informed Consent Action Network.
Oh, and claims against FB too.
BTW, I'd say that as a policy, "we're going to remove anything you post if it contradicts what the government says on the topic" is a TERRIBLE policy (yes, even on health info); have a standard other than "what's the government say", guys! But they get to have terrible policy
Every so often, I get people asking me why I do my litigation disaster tours. And the truth is, the *reason* I do them is it's important for people to understand what the law is and how it can impact them.
But I *can* do them because they're also business development
I've gotten terrific clients - yes, including @legalminimum - who found me because they saw threads like these and went "huh ... this guy probably has the skills to do a damn good job in the courtroom"
So ... if you're an in-house counsel reading and enjoying these threads, please feel free to see if you've got a small matter to give us a test run on.