Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School! Today's topic is how facts are found in court, what appellate courts do with those facts, what stipulations are, why they are important, and how stipulations won 303 Creative. Get your caffeine conveyance of choice and let's get it.
American jurisprudence involves applying the law to the facts of the case before the court. Thus, it is very important to establish what the facts of the case are. Facts are decided at the trial court level, either by jury or, in non-jury matters, by the judge.
Facts are decided at the trial level because the trial level is where live testimony is presented and, as a result, the trial court finder of fact can best determine credibility. Even video testimony doesn't convey all nuances. Also, objections are handled by the trial court.
When I say the facts of the case must be decided at the trial court level, I mean every single fact. Everything. As you can imagine, this can be very time consuming. For example, if you are going to introduce a copy of, say, medical records, you can't just put those in evidence.
You have to have a person from the medical provider show up to testify that the records are true and correct copies of the records on file. If you want a copy of a government documents, you have to order a certified copy that contains that true and correct copy attestation on it.
This is massively time consuming. As a result, courts have developed short cuts. Certified copies are deemed to be true and correct so long as the certification is there. Courts can take judicial notice of facts that are established elsewhere (sunrise/sunset time, for example).
The biggest tool used to do this is called stipulations. Stipulations are statements of fact that are agreed to by all the parties in the case. When the parties stipulate to a matter, that fact is established as true for that case. The court rules based on that agreement.
Courts LOVE stipulations and push parties to enter into them. It saves time and it is one less matter for appellate review. Remember, appellate courts do not determine the facts independently. Appellate courts review findings of fact by comparing the findings to the record.
The appellate court is limited to the record, which consists of all the evidence and testimony at the trial court. The parties do not get to introduce new evidence to the appellate court. The appellate court can say a ruling on a fact was erroneous but it can't take new evidence.
So stipulations are very important because that is an absolute determination of a fact and the parties cannot contest it on appeal. The parties can only contest how the law applies to the facts. Thus, a case can be won or lost on stipulations. And Colorado did just that.
Here are the stipulations for 303 Creative. The moment that CO stipulated that Ms. Smith's services were expressive, the case was over. Why? Because expressive speech has long enjoyed robust First Amendment protections. Conceding it was expressive invokes strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny means that the state must have both a compelling interest and that there are no less restrictive alternatives to secure that interest. It is the highest standard of review. Both the district court and the 10n Circuit conceded that and then misapplied the test.
It should have been clear that conceding it was expressive speech was going to result in another loss before SCOTUS. This Court isn't the Masterpiece court. This Court was always going to find the strict scrutiny test would fail. It is beyond me why this stipulation was entered.
It is going to be very interesting indeed to see if, in the future, CO is going to try to claim that creating a custom good is NOT an expressive activity. Why? Because CO just made a judicial admission that such activities are expressive and courts take that seriously indeed.
So the moral of the story is that it is very important to get the facts determined in your favor at the trial court level, stipulations are a great way to do that, and you better know all the ramifications when you enter into a stipulation. Here. Have a red panda. /fin
@ZombieJohnGotti Oh also note that it is not just wedding stuff she refuses to do. The other things, frankly, are what any smart business person would refuse to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Let's chat about the FBI and the DOJ, Brady violations, the hiding of evidence, and why this has all happened before, it will all happen again is clear to anyone who has paid attention at all. I'll use the Bundy ranchers case.
Let's start with what a Brady violation is. The Supreme Court decision in Brady vs Maryland made very clear what should have been obvious all along: the prosecution's withholding of evidence material to a determination of guilt or punishment is a due process violation.
On the Federal level, the DOJ has an absolute and unwaivable obligation to provide to the defendant any material exculpatory evidence. The DOJ's obligation extends down to the agencies who investigate matters, such as the FBI.
Below are screenshots of my conversation with Grok in which Grok completely made up a quote on that page, denied that the actual language on the page existed, provided an inaccurate transcript, and finally had to be pushed to cite the information I could see with my own eyes.
🧵I'm going to use an article that reports on a tragedy with an outrageous outcome to illustrate just how many questions a person has to know to ask to determine if the outcome was improper. I chose this because it's not a complex issue. The article. cbsnews.com/colorado/news/…
Screenshots of the article in the next two tweets.
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we are going over civil liability vs criminal liability and then strict liability and mens rea. Get yourself caffeine conveyance beverage of choice, a nice knosh, and let's get it.
Let's start by defining terms. Civil liability is a legal obligation that one party owes to another for damages. It requires that the liable party owe some kind of legal duty to the harmed party. This is a private cause of action, though a government entity may bring civil suit.
Criminal liability is when a person commits a violation of a penal code or a regulation that carries a criminal penalty. That is a public action, which means that it is brought by the government against the individual as the harm is to both the specific victim and the public.
🧵 I went looking for the actual text of the EO on prescription drug prices since no one is actually linking that and I have to do everything around here and I found this that was issued on Friday and I missed it.
What does this do? The most important part is that every agency has 365 days to list out all the regulations that have a criminal penalty and then that report has to be made public. Right now, there is literally no one on this planet that knows this information. No one.
That report must be made public and must be updated annually.
🧵When I see the "Is this what you voted for" posts re: immigration, my response is well, yes, it is. It is, however, not in the way the person posting that means. I mean that this is what I have voted for in every election since 1988, the first year in which I could vote.
The laws which make up Title 8 of the US Code are those which have been negotiated in Congress, voted on and passed by Congress, and then signed by whichever President was in power at the time. While those laws obviously are not all to my liking, they are the ones duly passed.
Those laws represent what the duly elected representatives negotiated and passed into law. So, yes, I voted for that. So did everyone else. In a representative democracy, the laws represent that actions of those who were voted to represent the public.