🧵 So. Here's the story about how I got thrown out of a pro life group because people did not want to hear what I had to say. This was in the late 2000's. I was asked to assist a group with drafting legislation designed to test Roe/Casey and secondarily to be the trigger law. I agreed, though I had some hesitance since I knew a couple of people running it and let us just say that their passion for the pro-life movement, which has high and admirable, was not matched by being overly fussed with the practical details of implementing such restrictions.

Good afternooon and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is judgments, execution on judgments, appeals, stay of execution pending appeal, statutory interest, and just how all of this works. Grab a snack and beverage of choice and let's get it. It's an old not remotely a joke in the legal profession that I can get you a judgment but what you want is money and those are not the same thing. This is absolutely true. Getting a judgment is just the first step of getting money. So why is that the case?

🧵On media literacy, media reliance, and why people should be justifiably enraged at having their good will and faith abused. Everyone have their beverage of choice and a snack? Let's get it. Another round of headline having one sentence from a longer statement, people flipping out about the sentence, the sentence in context being the opposite of the implication of the headline, and the media entity going we linked the whole thing, we didn't lie is happening.

Good afternoon and welcome to Twitter Law School, what is per curiam, concur in the judgment, and judicial restraint and what does that have to do with keeping people off the ballot? Others will delve into the Sec 3 and Sec 5 of the 14th, I'm here for the sniping at each other. The important part is this: in Trump v. Anderson, SCOTUS help unanimously that a state cannot remove a candidate for Federal office from a state's ballot. Not only that, that part of the decision was joined by all nine justices. There is no doubt about this at all. It's settled.

🧵
New Gemini test - this time about how did Mary Jo Kopechne die. Here is the answer if you ask the question the way a human being would - how did Mary Jo Kopechne die?





Further pushing as to why the initial answer was nah brah I can't do that. And then there's the what are you calling misinformation response.

🧵 Back to the employer expectations vs. employee expecations argument. Someone I know is the manager for a team that brings in the most revenue for the company. Her team routinely assits other divisions to hit goals. Everyone is a high performer who brings value. She had to fight like hell to get raises over 2% for her team and only did so because she showed up at the meeting with the CEO and CFO with what people could get if they went somewhere else along with the data on how much money her team brought in. They still lost three people.

🧵

This is re: work. You sacrifice when you are young to be rewarded later requires there to be a reward later other than getting let go in second round, not first. I can't quantify it but there really does seem to have been a sea change post 2008 to make everyone widgets. Loyalty is a two way street. Far too many employers seem to take it as a given that an employee owes, as a matter of course, highest loyalty to the employer while the employer owes nothing at all for the employee. People have caught onto this and are saying I don't think so.

Twitter Law School🧵 All the SCOTUS order does is vacate (make like it never happened) the Fifth Circuit order granting injunction pending appeal. That injunction said that DHS couldn't cut down the wire, except for medical emergencies. What does that mean each side can do now?

https://twitter.com/lucentile/status/1750217529631416512

Texas can put up more wire. DHS can take it down. I will type this slowly so people get it. SCOTUS did not rule that TX cannot put up more wire. SCOTUS didn't say DHS has the right to cut the wire. SCOTUS issued an order vacating a lower court's order granting an injunction.

🧵
This is a very interesting thread and it dovetails nicely with @CompanyHooch's discussion earlier today about needing to understand the complaints of younger Millennials and upper end Gen Z. Let me digress for a bit.

https://twitter.com/jollier_raptor/status/1741868541270241727

PE has been around for ages. Pretty Woman actually addresses this with the but what do you make question by Julia Roberts. The character growth by Richard Gere's character is that he buys a company and has the company continue to make things instead of selling it for scrap.

🧵
To follow up on my TLS about spoliation, here's story time about one of the weirdest procedural matters I've even been involved in. The law speaking folks will likely find this even more mind bottling than you normies. And. here. we. go. Former firm had a med mal case in which the ER doctor completely misread a scan as normal, and, as a result, the patient ended up dying. The radiologist who read the scan behind the ER doctor got it right. When it came time to sue, firm sued both the ER doctor and radiologist.

🧵

Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is spoliation and this is absolutely a matter that is important yet boring. So get your caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and gather round. Ready? Let's get it. What is spoliation? Spoliation, not spoilation, even though that would make more sense, is the legal doctrine under which when a party who is in possession of evidence that is or is likely to be detrimental to that party's case loses the evidence, that party faces sanctions.

🧵
I have been seeing educate yourself more and more frequently and, boy howdy, is this setting my teeth on edge. Why? Because almost never is this being said from a neutral position. It is being wielded as if the person typing it has a Sword of Truth and that is not the case. Let me clarify what I mean by objecting to educate yourself. I do not, of course, object to the concept of educating yourself. I know very little about very few things. I do, in fact, what to educate myself about more and more areas because knowing things is awesome.

Good afternoon and welcome to Twitter Law School in which I pterodactyal about the ethical duty owed by prosecutors, the ethical duty owed by defense counsel, overcharging, plea deals, and the toxic combination of the above. Get a snack, this will be long winded, even for me. I will disclose my bias immediately. I loathe prosecutors and consider prosecutor to be the vilest epithet I can hurl at someone. This is due, in part, to overcharging. I consider overcharging to be immoral and I am not persuadable to the contrary. So what is overcharging.

🧵
On self defense: Does an individual or a group have the right to self defense? The answer to that question impacts many areas, not simply the obvious one of right to not be harmed physically by another. If I can defend myself, that extends to all areas, including reputation. The gap between those who believe that it is a given that the right to self defense exsts and those who reject self defense is immense. If someone rejects the right of self defense, then my appeals to that right will never persuade that person.

🧵
Good afternoon and welcome to Twitter Law School! Today's topic is the structure of the Federal court system, how appeals work in that system, and what do these terms about what SCOTUS does mean? Grab beverage (adult or otherwise) of choice and let's get it. This is going to be limited to Federal court because state courts vary and ain't no one got time for that. The Federal court system is set up like so: the district courts in each state (how many depends on size of the state), the Circuit courts, and then SCOTUS.

🧵
If opening an impeachment investigation into whether the President, while he was Vice President, participated in, at least, influence peddling, based on authenticated documents, bank records, and statements from named people is not the hill to die on, then there is no hill. For those in the GOP Establishment, from elected officials to those running the party to members of the commentariat, this is it. This is your final chance to prove that there is, in fact, an actual hill upon which to die figuratively. Because this is as serious as it gets.

🧵
Okay, since someone mentioned in reply to my thread on the Granholm road trip that it appears there was a circuitous route taken, I went looking for the itinerary and let's just say that was an exercise in frustration. I did find this list of cities.

wfae.org/energy-environ…
So over the course of four days it was Charlotte to Columbia, SC to Athens, GA to Atlanta, GA to Chattanooga, TN, to Murfreesboro, TN to Memphis, TN (which sounds like someone's SEC bucket list trip but I digress). So let's look at those distances.

🧵
You know what, I'm going to go at this one by one because this is ticking me off on a purely learn to argue level. So let's go through this part by part, shall we?

1. Define some. What percent of that 24 billion is staying in the US? Cite, specifically, the amount. Is it also being argued that this old gear would not have been replaced? If the old gear would need to be replaced at some point, which logic dictates it would, is there current capacity to do so and, if not, wouldn't the plants have to have been built/upgraded anyway?

🧵
Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is what is a docket, what are filings, how are filings made to a docket on the Federal level, what must be redacted, and what is done when a redaction isn't made. Get your caffeine conveyance of choice and let's go A docket is the list of what documents and exhibits have been entered of record in a case. Of record means that a party submits or a judge enters a document into the docket as an official part of the proceedings. The docket is the official listing of all those documents.

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.

For what it's worth, here's what I think about the remaining SCOTUS cases. I'll say what I think and then what I want. Get your caffeine conveyance of choice and let's get it. 303 Creative - Yes, yes, technically this is a compelled speech case but, c'mon, it's a religious freedom case. I have absolutely no idea how this is going to go though my guess is that Roberts will do everything he can to avoid having to rule directly on the issue.