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
🧵I'm going to use this, with permission, as a starting point for a discussion about IEPs, the use of the "model peer", the abuse of confidentiality, and the abrogation of parental consent in the education context. Get caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it.
What is an IEP? An IEP is an Individualized Educational Plan. This is a plan developed under the IDEA statute (20 USC 1400 et seq.) to meet the educational needs of a child with some kind of physical or emotional disorder or disturbance.
The key issue is that an IEP is a legal document. Public schools are required under Federal law and various and sundry implementing state laws to follow the terms of the IEP. The school can, and will, be sued for not following a student's IEP.
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we'll be doing a very high level overview of what is medical malpractice, what is the standard of care, and what is informed consent. Get caffeine conveyance of choice, a nice little nosh, and let's get it.
Very important caveat here: this is going to be a very generalized overview. Every state has different laws and rules on med mal. This is a very generalized overview that, of necessity, is not going to get into much nuance. This is merely to provide a conceptual framework.
Medical malpractice is when a medical provider violates the standard of care that a reasonably competent medical provider in that provider's specialty in that provider's geographic region would use in treating a patient.
🧵A significant problem in modern life, both in and out of politics, is the refusal to accept that both sides of an agreement must be honored or people will no longer be willing to agree. When only one side of a bargain receives the benefit of that bargain, why bargain at all?
I'll start with the obvious - immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed in 1986 with explicit statements that the amnesty would be the only one ever done and that enforcement would be implemented promptly and fully. We've seen how that's worked out.
It's nearly 40 years now that every attempt to implement the enforcement provisions that are current Federal law are met with backlash and immediate law suits to stop the laws on the books from being followed.
🧵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.