Hey, new #LitigationDisasterTourists arriving for the Niemann v. Carlsen dust-up, the replies to this tweet link previous discussions "Twiqbal plausibility" - something I mentioned upthread and longtime readers know, but new folks probably won't
Hey, new #LitigationDisasterTourists arriving for the Niemann v. Carlsen dust-up, this tweet is the first in a side-thread of links to older tweets discussing "actual malice" - an important standard in US defamation law that significantly harms Niemann's chances of success
Here's a one-tweet summary of what the "actual malice" standard requires a public-figure defamation plaintiff to prove:
Here's a brief discussion of whether niche fame (i.e. someone super well known in a particular community but not the wider world) makes you a public figure (yes, if the defamation at issue is directed at that niche community)
OK, #LitigationDisasterTourists, by popular request (@yesh222@ariehkovler@crowder and others) let's do a live read. I've got no idea whether what's pled here is viable or not - haven't even read it - but public figure defamation is about the hardest case to prove in US law.
Also, worked opposite Oved & Oved (lead counsel here) and while I had my issues with them, they were standard OC issues, nothing crazy. So I'm really pretty interested to see what this pleading looks like.
Let's start with the caption and identification of parties, because it immediately raises some questions: what in the world is this doing in Missouri? None of the parties are from there, so there's no obvious reason why there'd be jurisdiction there.
OK, #LitigationDisasterTourists, let's spend some time on Trump's latest "legal" filing: an abomination that takes direct aim at the First Amendment and your personal freedom of expression.
Yes, even if you're a MAGA-fan Newsmax/OAN die hard: Yours.
The lawyers here are, once again, James Trusty and Lindsey Halligan, and I'm not kidding when I say that the courts should refer them for discipline for filing this flaming bag of dogshit on their doorstep.
Seriously, were I CNN, I'd seriously think about whether to ask the Court to declare Trump a "vexatious litigant" - basically, someone who routinely files frivolous claims for abusive purposes, who from that point on must get pre-approval by the court for future suits
Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists Judge Loose Cannon is at it again, apparently completely unchastened by the shellacking she received from the 8th circuit and once again handing Trump everything he asks for.
Cannon's order appointing Judge Dearie directed him to verify that the government's "Detailed Property Inventory" was full and accurate.
So Dearie directed the parties to do that. BOTH parties.
Not just the government, but also Trump had to make clear whether he was contending the inventory contained any items that weren't seized from the property ("say under oath that they were planted, motherfucker, I dare you"); or omitted anything, or misdescribed anything.
Yes, what the DeSantis administration is doing to immigrants in Texas is criminal. But let's pretend for a moment it wasn't. That there was no specific statute that adequately covered "lying to vulnerable people to get them to participate in a stunt that harmed them"
Lot's of morally repugnant things aren't criminal.
Being a neo-nazi isn't criminal. Cheating on your spouse isn't criminal. Mocking disabled people isn't criminal.
"OK, was what our governor/candidate did criminal?" should not remotely be the standard
What DeSantis did was morally repugnant.
He stole from the people of Florida, taking money appropriated for transporting illegal immigrants from Florida to other jurisdictions and using it to benefit him personally by transporting *legal* migrants from Texas ...
Seriously. 793 *does not require* the documents to be classified. Just that they contain national defense information that could harm the US if disclosed.
But "I declassified" could still have been a potential defense under 1 and only 1 circumstance:
If he could say that in his capacity as commander in chief, he made a document by document decision that the information those documents contained could not jeopardize national security if revealed.