Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
@greg_doucette
Aug 3, 2022 • 191 tweets • 65 min read • Read on X
It's August! Time for a new AMA

Ask Me Anything...

curiouscat.live/tgd
Prior AMA Threads –

2022:

2021:

2020:

2019 and earlier:
Narrative control

For the TV shows, cops get to view all the footage first to ensure it's flattering (and can demand it be deleted like they did in Texas with LivePD). They also know the shows will portray them as Virtuous Big-🍆 Commando Warriors

Can't do that w/ citizen video
Normally you'd first reach out to opposing counsel and say "I f*cked up, please return"

Then, if they don't, you file a motion with the court to order docs returned and enjoin their usage
I have not, hadn't heard of it
It's not, but our system is structured so that it's enormously difficult to get to a point where the riot declaration can be invalidated – and it happens in a court long after everyone has been dispersed, so the only remedy is typically money or a "don't do it again" order
Yes, but they typically won't b/c most attorneys are smart enough to know they could also f*ck up like that and don't want to risk the bad juju of mocking someone
Jones is pretty f*cked

I'm skeptical his lawyer is f*cked, b/c Jones had already defaulted and was going to have a mammoth verdict against him anyway. So he'd need to prove the lawyer's error is the "but for" cause of his damages. Tough to do IMO

State Bar might care maybe
Discovery abuse is sanctionable, though rarely. But yes there's some risk there

The rules are complicated with perjury. Generally there is no obligation to disclose a client's crimes, but the attorney also cannot "ratify" perjured testimony

1/
So normally you'd ask for a sidebar or something to discuss w/ the judge and opposing counsel that you have an ethical conflict. That might result in the witness testifying in the narrative rather than being asked questions, or the attorney withdrawing

2/2
 @thesquirrelfish
Negative
Client holds the privilege, but if there's an inadvertent disclosure they or their attorney have to move within 10 days to fix it (see Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3(d), screenshotted below)

If they don't, the privilege is considered waived; only possible remedy is malpractice lawsuit Image
"Legally," no

In practice, yes. It almost always takes a lot of egregious ratf*ckery before courts will grant sanctions

Many litigators will rightly tell you that's a bad thing that incentivizes more bad conduct
Publicity. Look at the massive sums of $$$$ showered upon Sidney Powell for the Kraken gibberish
Presumably trying to insulate their client from criminal charges for perjury? If they instructed him not to talk about anything they didn't disclose, and they never told him they turned over the phone, there's a plausible argument the perjury wasn't intentional
The fact Jones trusted his attys wouldn't help them w/ a malpractice claim. Jones would need to show his attorney's f*cked up (which seems apparent) and that the f*ckup was the key difference that led to the outcome (impossible to prove IMO)

So it struck me as mitigating fallout
You'd subpoena the plaintiffs' attorney. Trying to get it from Jones or Jones's attorney all but guarantees a procedural fight; the plaintiffs' attorney would presumably cooperate
Yes. But law enforcement's ability to use it may be limited due to chain of custody issues; depends on what is provided, how (just sending it vs subpoena vs etc), what's found, how it's being used (in trial or not), who's using it (1/6 Committee can do whatever), and so on
North Carolina used to recycle bar numbers apparently; see from one of the NCSB staff folks
Make sure you know the procedural posture of the case – what happened in the lower courts, what legal standards apply, etc – and the facts

Law students routinely get the importance of the ruling from the headnotes, so professors often ask questions about the facts
Nah, it provides easy entertainment for the rest of y'all 😉
Hard to say. Had this sort of thing happened in a vacuum, I'd say no and it wouldn't be close. But apparently his attorney is already facing potential sanctions? I haven't verified, but if true it's marginally more likely to happen when there's already bad conduct on the table
I don't think he'll have any. At best, he's got a potential malpractice claim against his attorney, but serious problems winning due to "'but for' causation" issues

IMO he's f*cked
➡️ Yes, they're picking a dollar amount as the verdict for damages

➡️ No, Rule 292 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure only requires 10 of the 12 jurors to agree for compensatory damages; only has to be unanimous for exemplary damages. Screenshot below! Image
No meaningful planning yet on the Foodraiser, Turq has been doing important teacher things over the summer (presenting in DC etc) and I've been swamped with the job transition

New job has been a *blast,* I thoroughly enjoy the team I'm on 🥰
No, ended up stopping all the word games in June due to lack of time through end of July. Haven't gotten back into them (though I might eventually)
Haven't been doing those either 😔
👤: If Biden made contraception or abortion medication available OTC via FDA could Red states still ban it?

👴🏼: No one knows. Normally state actions that impede federal objectives / rules / laws get preempted. But with this SCOTUS everything is Calvinball
curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12758…
👤: [Regarding the person misidentified as Shinzo Abe's killer suing for defamation] how would it work on such an international level? does it just fall under defamation and in the countries of each outlet?

👴🏼: Likely, yes. The law on defamation in...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12834…
👤: I remember you used to call yourself a "never trump" conservative. Do you still feel aligned with that label, and why or why not?

👴🏼: Not really. In describing my ideology I still default to explaining it as conservative or "small-L libertarian,"...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12850…
👤: ...what kinda games you like? I remember you telling me that you enjoyed Diablo 2 a lot, any other kinds of games you're fond of?

👴🏼: I enjoy many/most RPGs and strategy games. All-time favorite is Zelda BOTW

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12852…
👤: How unprecedented was Alex Jones’ lawyers accidentally giving the plaintiff’s a clone of his phone?

👴🏼: Accidentally turning over privileged documents happens not-infrequently. Turning over a whole phone, then not trying to claw it back, then not...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12866…
👤: Should people be seriously considering moving out of the US at this point

👴🏼: I'm a "stay and fight" sort, because if things collapse here nowhere else is immune

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12861…
👤: How tall are you?

👴🏼: 6'0"

1.83m for the metric folks

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12866…
No, but that's also because I made it a point to know what a client was going to say if they wanted to testify! 😂

Honestly I've never seen it done, but it was part of Professional Responsibility class in law school and at least two ethics CLEs since
No. The First Amendment only restrains the Government so there's no basis for a religious discrimination claim, and so far as I'm aware no civil rights statute or ordinance has made The Shirtless a protected class
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §41.008(b) caps punitives at the sum of 2x economic damages + 1x noneconomic damages (not to exceed $750K)

I didn't hear how the $4.1M compensatory damages verdict broke down; assuming it was noneconomic, $750K cap will apply

See below: Image
Subsection (e) of §41.008 prohibits informing the jury about the statutory cap. They'll issue whatever dollar amount they want, then the judge will be the one to cap it at $750K

See below: Image
I just want to know if @TXantislapplaw agrees with my analysis tbh 😂
I just read it as "section," or "sections" for §§
That's for the in-state TX attorneys. Those of us abroad get to pay remotely, as long as we say "yee haw" when clicking the Submit button on the dues payment
I only know of one, who was a criminal defense attorney that got seated in a federal civil lawsuit of some sort back in 2018-ish. But that's the only time I've heard of it

I've been summoned several times, served zero
Several questions relating to Alex Jones and punitive damages are in this thread:
That's he's committed tax fraud? 100%

That IRS will investigate? 0%

Remember, Congress spent decades cutting the IRS enforcement budget specifically so they can't look into schemes like this
1️⃣ Yes

2️⃣ Did not get one, likely b/c I used my law firm as the registered agent -- I'm guessing they don't send to law firms b/c less likely to work
We need a court of appeals ruling first!
All of the defendants live in Texas, so the courts have personal jurisdiction over the defendants there
Most states have "long-arm" statutes that provide for jurisdiction in states where the harm occurs too

Subthread explainer here:

Connecticut is "harder" to prove jurisdiction than Texas, but both qualify
Not a Florida lawyer so I'll defer to @LutherEvers / @btannebaum / others licensed down there

From a not-a-Florida-lawyer looking in from the outside, it seems like a straightforward application of the Governor's powers under Article IV Section 7(a) of the Florida Constitution Image
I got a notification on my phone about the raid but haven't had a chance to catch up on the news, was he posting about it?? 😂🤦‍♂️
lmao yikes
Yes. There is no procedural method to invalidate a presidential pardon, even if it's a pardon of a co-conspirator

The idea was/is that Congress would punish those sorts of acts by removing POTUS from office, disqualifying him from future service, and letting DOJ prosecute
10 seconds is long enough for something to be premeditated, but less than 10 seconds is too -- the point of the counting is to not follow through on the killing 😉
IMO, no – I don't think a President can be successfully prosecuted after his term ends for acts that were part of his presidential powers at the time

Other legal scholars disagree, arguing that self-serving acts violate the Take Care clause and can be subject to prosecution

1/
I don't know that we'll ever really know for sure, because 1️⃣ most Presidents at least pretend to make an effort to not be as corrupt as Donald Trump, and 2️⃣ a theoretical Trump prosecution is unlikely to be for exercising the duties of his office

2/2
 @RemoteClancy
In that case the crime wouldn't be the pardon per se, it would be the accepting of the bribe

In that scenario I'd think the pardon itself would still be valid, but the ex-President could be prosecuted (and the pardoned person could be prosecuted for the bribery too)
Yes, but how much depends on the presumed competence of the DOJ

If we assume the DOJ personnel who approved the FBI raid are competent, they have to know the political sh*tstorm this would kick off and must be planning to prosecute

If they're not competent, well... 😬
I've seen magistrate judges approve some questionable warrants, so I'm not *fully* sold on that argument

But generally speaking, I agree
He'd be sworn in at the prison and would wield the full powers of the office from his cell
Yes, though Secret Service protection is set by Congress so they could pass a bill to take it away
No one knows. The authority to self-pardon is hotly debated, with good textual arguments for both views
Potentially entitled to immunity under the Speech & Debate Clause, but unlikely to be prosecuted even if it weren't
True, but that list is limited and unlikely to be one of the things he's prosecuted for IMO
I definitely agree with #4, mostly agree with #1, generally agree with #3, not sold on #2

Good thread worth reading:
Re-read Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

It's not a long list, but it exists
No. The Fourteenth Amendment amended the Constitution; the crimes contemplated by §3 had the effect of amending the requirements for office

I don't think there's any chance Trump is prosecuted for them though
Yes. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lay out what judges can sign warrants in Rule 41

Condensed version: judges with authority in the district where the warrant is executed, or judges "where activities related to the crime may have occurred," or judges in DC
It would, significantly. I just still have trouble trying to wrap my brain around "ex-President selling state secrets" even for Trump
True, but I also have a hard time thinking they'd raid MAL for that compared to some other location that could also obtain useful evidence
That applies to statutory prohibitions that aren't tied to Fourteenth Amendment §3

The Fourteenth amended the Constitution, and gave Congress enforcement power under §5. Statutes prohibiting "insurrection or rebellion ... or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" qualify
Agreed on this
I'd need to be paid at least 4x my current salary, up front, in cash
Image
I would expect a request for "en banc" review by the full DC Circuit first

The goal is primarily to keep dragging things out until he can get re-elected
Typically the target gets a copy of the warrant and the inventory of items seized, I don't see why they couldn't release that if they wanted to. Seems like a prohibition on doing so would be a First Amendment violation as an unlawful prior restraint
I haven't kept up with the details, but anyone the DOJ indicts can face serious jail time
It's not difficult to believe from the standpoint of Donald Trump, it's difficult to believe from the standpoint of near-certain getting caught and risking prosecution
IMO there was never any chance he would be prosecuted while he was in office, so lawbreaking-while-President doesn't surprise me

Doing it as an ex-President? with something under federal jurisdiction? So massively, incredibly, epically stupid it's surprising to me
Negative. Gonna wait for a bit
Loved it, wasted many hours playing it, and once I discovered the invulnerability cheat code I started turning that on and using the knuckles for fun
Sometimes

When a party does it, the judge has discretion to issue optional "adverse inference" jury instructions

See, e.g.:
➡️ Mitchell v US, 526 US 314 (1999)
➡️ Baxter v Palmigiano, 425 US 308 (1976)
➡️ Farace v Ind Fire Ins Co, 699 F2d 204, 210 (5th Cir 1983)

1/
But when a *non-party* does it – like here, b/c Trump is not being investigated (just Trump Org) – judge has that discretion in narrower circumstances + jury can't solely rely on it for verdict

See, e.g., FDIC v Fidelity & Dep Co of MD, 45 F3d 969 (5th Cir 1995)

2/2
 @JonnyAce
No IMO. A President is the ultimate classification authority and can take classified docs wherever; an ex-President is a private citizen with no government role and can't take them anywhere

I think 18 USC 793 on possessing defense info is more viable
➡️ Yes

➡️ Yes (while President; he can't pretend after-the-fact that he declassified something he never actually declassified)
Yes, and that's usually the outcome. There's a strong presumption that those docs are public records
He's not President anymore

If he declassified all the docs he has as President, even orally on his way out the door for the last time, he'd still be on the hook for one of the more general unlawful possession statutes
No. Taking a document with you as you leave the White House doesn't declassify it. He'd need to memorialize it somehow, either by putting it in writing or telling an aide or etc
I doubt the affidavit will be made public. We'll see, but that's unlikely IMO
18 USC §793 prohibits gathering national defense info regardless of classification

§2071 prohibits willful and unlawful removal with intent to conceal or destroy; §641 overlaps and prohibits stealing / purloining / conversion

§1361 prohibits damaging government property
There may be more that I'm missing, there are an epic sh*tload of federal crimes. But those are the common government property-related ones
@DanielFReal
Fair; there are some statutory limits on declassifying Restricted Data under 42 USC §§2162-69 and government-owned patents under 35 USC §181-88

Unknown whether they actually apply though b/c generally it's plenary Article II power. See Dep't of the Navy v Egan, 484 US 518 (1988)
The declassification statutes and regs are akin to the War Powers Act. It exists, unclear if it actually does anything when applied to a President
@DaveMountain11
There are two issues:

➡️ Circumventing the process has never been litigated. There's a plausible argument that the Atomic Energy Act's declassification statutes violate Art II

➡️ It doesn't matter here though, b/c there's zero chance Trump actually declassified anything he has
What the fuck 😂😬😬😬
Ah, Heritage Foundation toady. That explains it 🤦‍♂️
@Sblendita
Not yet. I'm willing to be open to the belief that there possibly might be some movement that day eventually

I'm still skeptical DOJ will pull the trigger on an ex-President though, even when they should
➡️ Judge can unseal regardless if Trump's lawyers oppose it or not; it being unsealed is the most likely outcome

➡️ No, unsealing the warrant does not mean we get the affidavit too. I think it's unlikely that gets released
Yes, but if there's a ruling to unseal they'd need to get a stay of the ruling from either the judge or the Court of Appeals -- otherwise it gets unsealed while the appeal is pending, which then moots the appeal
Yes, after there's no threat to anyone involved by it being released (everyone's dead, etc)
Probably not. Suing media defendants requires proving actual malice, meaning Kilmeade knew the image was false or had serious doubts about its truth but shared it anyway

He's a moron, so it's more likely he believed it. Tough to prove otherwise
It gets spelled out in the warrant, though there may be some implied wiggle room depending on how the warrant is worded

Example: warrant authorizing a search of a residence to seize a shotgun would give implied authority to search containers large enough to hold a shotgun...

1/
But would not extend to opening a locked mini-safe that a shotgun could never fit into

When searching for documents – which can be stuffed all sorts of places – the wording is almost always broad enough to search any container in the target premises

2/2
 @mattBernius
(In practice, you see this very often with warrants to search/arrest people, with cops then illegally opening every box they find along the way rummaging for contraband. If the box can't fit a human, a warrant for "find this human" doesn't give that authority)
@mattBernius
Discovery could help. But often these sorts of defamation cases get dismissed before discovery really starts, particularly in anti-SLAPP jurisdictions (though some allow limited discovery while the anti-SLAPP motion is pending)
Two things:

➡️ Not enough here for state action. Only where the state "has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State"
Blum v Yaretsky, 457 US 991, 1004 (1982)

1/
➡️ Even if we assume that coercion exists, it would only make Twitter a state actor for the limited purpose of that guy's particular suspension. Not a general purpose state actor like Mr Police Lawyer wants folks to believe

2/2
 @amess
Presumably yes, but idk if there are regs in the CFR that provide for rescission at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security

The authorization statute is 18 USC 3056(a)(3), which is permissive (it does not prohibit protecting a former POTUS in prison)
This morning, no ()

This evening, yes ()

The "explanation" is the crux of the case and makes winning a hypothetical one far more likely than normal
So I'm going to be unorthodox here and say no

For *normal* people, it's 100% always better to STFU when criming

For Trump, the only reason he's not being prosecuted already is because he owns the GOP. Gotta keep doing this communal excuse workshopping as a shared exercise

1/
The group exercises build camaraderie with the spineless politicians he owns, and becomes an implied threat to the DOJ that makes it less likely he'll actually be prosecuted because "it will destroy the Republic!" and etc etc

2/2
 @milesdfarmer
No. Congresscritters have immunity for legislative acts, this would fall under the Speech & Debate clause
Both protected by the First Amendment. So long as no crimes were committed in obtaining the information, redistributing it is protected expression
👤: What chance is there that the iphone image “mistakenly” released to the plaintiffs in the Alex Jones trial is a red herring?

👴🏼: Zero. The data was accidentally shared by a paralegal, and the lawyer replied with "please disregard"; it's the sort...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12866…
👤: Why would Alex Jones’ lawyer ask during redirect if AJ felt that his lawyers had done a good job? Is that just a CYA question for a later malpractice trial?...

👴🏼: Trying to protect Jones from perjury charges by putting the blame on themselves

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12866…
👤: Can a person pull into a school parking lot, while school is in session, claim they are press and say they have a constitutional right to film on school property and refuse to leave?

👴🏼: Generally no, but depends on the laws in that particular...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12850…
👤: How well is legal interpreting supported in the courts where you work? Have you been able to suppress evidence/free someone because of shoddy interpreting in custody?

👴🏼 Honestly it never came up in my cases. The most-frequent issue was...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12872…
👤: Why are your tweets hidden now?

👴🏼: I know this is a super-late reply, but I was interviewing for a new job and wanted to make sure they liked me before letting them see ::gestures broadly::

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12744…
👤: Why aren't you vegan?

👴🏼: I love steak too much. And fried chicken. And bacon.

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12711…
👤: What advice do you have for people who want to be in student government?

👴🏼: Treat it like a social club: meet people, make friends, have fun. Many students join SG because they think it will help their ambitions; my experience is the ambitions...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12713…
👤: My wife has been selected for a jury 2 times out of 2 summons, and is curious what is making her an acceptable juror. What are some common traits that both sides look for?

👴🏼: It really depends wildly on whether the case is criminal or civil, what...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12706…
👤: ...You are showing your email inboxes intermingled - is your new employer not protecting their data on your device or have you given control of your "non-corporate" inboxes to your new employer?

👴🏼: Can't discuss security protocols I'm afraid

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12866…
👤: When you’re innocent, and you know there is absolutely no evidence against you, except the word of the accuser ... on a scale of 1 to 10, how stupid is it to not bring legal counsel to the police interview?

👴🏼: Still very stupid, 8+ on a 10-point...

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12707…
👤: Would you rather attempt a speed run on Hades, Skyrim, or Borderlands?

👴🏼: Out of the three, I've only ever played Hades so I'd have to say that one

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12704…
👤: Do you cook much at home? Is there a recipe book you would recommend?

👴🏼: Yes. Don't have a specific cookbook, I've got a ton (though I do enjoy "Beef for All Seasons")

curiouscat.me/tgd/post/12704…
Different states have different standards on appointed counsel, but "officially" no. Though some judges temporarily get around it by appointing counsel before considering the indigency affidavit, and then there's some spam of time before it's confirmed the person is not indigent
Either. The app is for folks who want to ask something anonymously
Eventually! Currently going back and forth between Super Mario Odyssey and AC Rogue
Not really equipped to answer the first question b/c my entire career has been in the litigation arena where you need a law license

On the second question, I wouldn't say it puts professors in a bind so much as nudges them toward acknowledging reality (everything is Calvinball)
Will depend on the wording (and inevitable litigation)

The theory is that SCOTUS justices can be assigned other duties (e.g. helping circuit courts) that don't involve deciding SCOTUS cases. They still "hold their office" / get paid / etc
Yes
That's the idea. Several circuit courts have already held that being criminally prosecuted and imprisoned doesn't remove someone from a judgeship (see e.g. US v Claiborne, 727 F2d 842, 849 (9th Cir 1984)) so the theory goes that giving them other duties works too
The contours of the "office" is not defined in the Constitution, it's spelled out by statutes and regulations. So the idea is Congress can specify what the job entails at certain points as long as the person still gets to claim the title and paycheck they already had
To be clear: I don't think there's any chance this SCOTUS would actually let SCOTUS term limits go into effect

But 18-year terms for all Article III judges are a good idea
Not sure what the New Zealand legal system is like, or what the Kickstarter Ts & Cs of contributing are

My guess is there's probably a clause preventing lawsuits. Not sure re criminal liability for fraud
If they've truly told Giuliani he's a target (not a subject), they've got enough to nail him regardless of his cooperation. And it's tough to imagine what he could provide them on Trump that they don't already have or can't get elsewhere
It's standard federal practice when doing so would not cause "likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, [or] undue delay" (see DOJ Justice Manual §9-11.153)

It's really just a chance to get a defendant to do something stupid
Very rare for a search warrant affidavit to be released before there's an indictment
Warrant doesn't seem overbroad to me, it's pretty typical for a warrant seeking documents
They don't. Civil asset forfeiture is treated as an action against the property, not the person – and property doesn't have 5th or 14th Amendment rights

Old #Law140 thread here on CAF case law: twitter.com/i/events/85304…
Ah, good point. Georgia's standards for a "target" may be different than the Feds then
Agreed. It's basically goading someone into explaining themselves, which is always a bad idea before trial
Winnable, but challenging given the midterm environment

I'm gonna do a Twitter fundraiser for her this Friday if you want to wait a few days on the contribution 😉
Beasley was the strongest D option; Budd was the weakest R option

The question is whether either/both of those things are enough to outrun Biden's approval ratings and midterm trends

@hrprogressive
Looks like nonsense to me. Gonna get dismissed IMO
Yes, but Paragraph 55 is probably enough to survive a Motion to Dismiss Hadnagy's personal defamation claim. It's the classic "statement of opinion based on undisclosed facts"

There are several other problems with the lawsuit though, and it probably loses in the end

1/ Image
➡️ Actual malice. Hadnagy's lawyer inflates his importance throughout the Complaint – necessary to help claim a high dollar amount in damages! – but does so to the point that Hadnagy is a limited purpose public figure who has to prove actual malice

He fails IMO

2/
 @metalupis
➡️ Personal jurisdiction. Their argument for why the Pennsylvania court would have jurisdiction over a Washington resident served in Nevada is basically "well he's got a website"

I don't think that qualifies IMO

3/
 @metalupis
Courts have often (stupidly IMO) accepted social media posts / tweets / etc as directing enough activity into the forum state to provide minimum contacts, but having a website on a server someone that a PA resident might go to just isn't the same activity

4/
 @metalupis
➡️ Venue. Even if the plaintiffs somehow convince the court to accept their personal jurisdiction argument, the venue is improper and should be in Washington

This would be a transfer instead of a dismissal, but it costs the plaintiff $$ litigating cross-country

5/
 @metalupis
➡️ The contract claims (probably) lose

I'm not a PA attorney so there's a chance things are different there, but in most states tortious interference with contracts via defamation only works if there's no independent business purpose for the statements

6/
 @metalupis
The fact the con was responding to complaints is adequate, and so the subsequent contract interference becomes justified and non-actionable

7/
 @metalupis
➡️ The emotional distress claims lose

You can't artfully-plead defamation in the form of an infliction of emotional distress claim. The same rules on actual malice still apply

8/
 @metalupis
➡️ The corporate plaintiff's claims lose

There's no defamation of the company anywhere, so there's no basis for the company's claims

The company also could have mitigated its damages by firing its owner

9/
 @metalupis
So, at best, the case survives a motion to dismiss just to probably lose on summary judgment

Assuming it's not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction first

10/10
@metalupis
Gotta decide between California or Washington first, then I'll marinate on Pennsylvania 😉
Yeah, if anything survives a Motion to Dismiss it becomes economically rational for both sides to settle, even if it's for peanuts
Nope 😂 I got recruited because of my tech background and business litigation experience

(One of the interviewers loved the fact I did Twitter AMAs though!)
I'm told that Washington requires their GCs to be barred, and Cali just has a lot of opportunity to cause trouble 😬
I should have been more specific: barred specifically in Washington

Most states have some form of what's colloquially called the "GC Rule," that as long as you're licensed *somewhere* that's good enough

WA has so many lawyers between MSFT / Amazon / etc that they want that $$
Learning stuff

Everyone is so busy with running contracts / making $$$$ / turning out new products that knowledge management is an ongoing challenge, esp w/ regular turnover

So it's like a blend of a scavenger hunt + drinking from a firehose when you find what you're seeking
I'm still mystified at least once per day 😂 makes me wish I'd done a better job staying current on the tech stuff the past 10 years
I'm sure that's part of it, but also turnover is insane with tech companies apparently -- I had recruiters in my LinkedIn inbox before I even updated my profile, and tbh I still don't know how they found out
I didn't 😬 nothing searchable, anyway
Didn't want the CHUDlets to figure it out without them at least putting in a little effort 😂
@secos
No, just the ones living in Washington. It's now UPL to not be licensed in Washington but living there and providing legal counsel to a company there; you instead have to apply for a "house counsel" license under Wash. APR 8(f)
We don't have them in NC. I had it in Louisiana once and it wasn't bad
Not separately, but had some mini-threads discussing the concept in re Texas's abortion bill

Try this one here:
That's a fair descriptor, yeah
The problem is that defenses like truth – a total defense to defamation claims – are "affirmative" defenses that only come up after the Motion to Dismiss stage (except in states with good anti-SLAPP statutes)

So it may be another basis the case loses, but costs $$$$$ until then
We're both doing very well! He likes to interrupt team calls, like this appearance yesterday that I turned into my avi Image
In the colloquial sense, yes

In the legal not-1A-protected-speech "true" threat sense, no
Thank you! He's a very regal pain in the butt
1️⃣ It's great -- the appeals court really went out of their way to thoroughly document that Ty Beard is incompetent, and Vic Mignogna is a sexual predator and pedophile. Glorious stuff you don't often see in appeals opinions 🙃

2️⃣ I think so! Haven't had issues lately in RTP NC
I don't really 😔 I can't count on one hand the number of times I've been to Boj's since getting the new job, and still have fingers-with-an-S left over
Me, to myself: "Gary Busey did wha..."

::Googles::

"...oh."
It's gonna be a little bit, I need a new machine before I can get back to it. My poor 2014 MBP is finally on death's door
Yes, IMO
I mean I guess we'll find out 😂

I do not think he's willing to be the first Attorney General to prosecute a former President though
My guess is the judge rules in Trump's favor, arguing that there's no prejudice to the Government for a brief delay to appoint a special master

If the FBI didn't have already every available body working overtime to categorize all this stuff, they're fools tbh
Yes, it's the term for an outside third party appointed to monitor some aspect of a case

NC's recent redistricting litigation, for example, had 3 special masters appointed to propose new maps

They're often appointed to deal with document-intensive work
The motion to appoint a special master would be moot in that case, because the thing Trump wanted to prevent had already happened
One would think so! But it's the Government, which is not renowned for its competence. So ::shrug::
Sadly no, it requires the clients to be competent enough to recognize the malpractice of their prior attorneys

Also, JTDC to that story 😂🤦‍♂️
The Bitboy Crypto v Atozy lawsuit is here: tokenist.com/wp-content/upl…

Nothing in it strikes me as defamatory and under normal circumstances Bitboy Crypto will lose. But Georgia's anti-SLAPP doesn't apply in federal court IIRC so ::shrug::

I defer to the GA attorneys
The issue is that litigation is ruinously expensive, and if you get a judge that has reservations about dismissing a case on the front end (or a plaintiff's attorney good enough at filing a well-pled lawsuit) the defendant ends up shelling out $$$$$ before they win on summary jmt
Standard practice is you do not get attorney fees or court costs at all unless a statute provides otherwise

That's one of the core features to a good anti-SLAPP: pause to discovery, quick resolution, attorney fees paid by the loser
I did not 😂 given the sort of things I talk about on Twitter – and fans of a certain sexual predator and pedophile who have raging hate boners for me calling the guy the R. Kelly of Anime – I figured it would be best if I didn't specify
...wut
Nope, I think it's *great* – Vic and his LOLyers chose to involve me, so they get to enjoy the consequences of their decision

Forever 🙃
Easier than learning the guitar!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with T. Greg Doucette

T. Greg Doucette Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @greg_doucette

T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
Jul 2, 2023
Not here

The facts in the 303 case were stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to them and the Court is required to take them as true for purposes of making its decision

1/
You can have a judgment set aside under Rule 60(b)(2) for "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered"

But – as the media coverage shows – that evidence *could* have been discovered with reasonable diligence

2/2
 @H2OMocassin
There's no fraud when the State of Colorado agreed to it

Even if were, the deadline for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to set aside for fraud would have been 1 year after the trial court's ruling -- so that deadline already passed back in 2018
Read 30 tweets
T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
Jun 13, 2023
::low whistle::

Someone done fucked up
It amuses me to no end that every legal professional involved on the employees' side of this linked together via the Threadnought

It's like an honest-to-God Lawyer Voltron™ assembling to disembowel the bad guy
It is f*cking *hilarious* 😂 Esp having seen it blossom from the very beginning

I'm grateful to know them
Read 9 tweets
T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
Apr 27, 2023
This chart explains a lot 😂

I'm also basically alone in the bottom right quadrant 😔
Maybe. It fits well with my admittedly anecdotal view of election results nationally and locally though
Same, especially since ZIRP
Read 6 tweets
T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
Apr 27, 2023
Love making it easier for dirty cops to stalk their victims in real-time

wral.com/story/nc-bill-…
These days it tends to be the latter

It's very "Government is good when it has a badge"
These are the cops Republicans in the NC General Assembly are trying to give new warrantless stalking powers to –

Cops committing domestic violence:

Cops committing sex crimes:

Cops committing sex crimes with children:
Read 5 tweets
T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
Apr 26, 2023
This lawsuit is superbly written

Read it for yourself here: documentcloud.org/documents/2378…

Pour one out for the poor bastard who had to read DeKlantis's memoir for evidence though 🫡
Also, you might recall a certain lawyer mentioned the Takings Clause issue -- which you'll notice is alleged ahead of the First Amendment issues:
That same lawyer also happened to mention the Constitution's Contracts Clause, which you'll also notice is alleged first ahead of the 1A claims 😆
Read 15 tweets
T. Greg Doucette Profile picture
Apr 5, 2023
::low whistle::
That gives Wisconsin Dems 2 of the 3 branches. And may even jeopardize the Legislature's hard-right gerrymander.

And reduces the likelihood of votes being overturned in 2024

Rs really blew that one
Fair, but I've reached a point where to me the only thing that matters is downstream effects

There will be less sh*tbaggery in WI than there would be otherwise, for at least a brief span of time, and that's a good thing
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(