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
Mike Dunford Profile picture
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Father, Army husband, lawyer, international copyright geek, PhD alum @ QMUL CCLS, powerpoint streamer. He/Him. questauthority everywhere I go online.
31 subscribers
Aug 17, 2023 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Taken to its logical conclusion, Judge Ho's concurrence in the 5th Circuit ruling in the mifepristone case would grant any man who has a pregnancy fetish standing to challenge any law that allows abortion.

That's not hyperbole.

And it gets worse.


In addition to the injuries analyzed by the majority, Plaintiffs have demonstrated another basis for Article III standing: the aesthetic injury they experience in the course of their work. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734–35 (1972) (recognizing aesthetic harm as “injury to a cognizable interest”); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562–63 (1992) (“[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing.”); id. at 566 (“[T]he person who observes or works with a particular animal...
It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has “concrete plans” to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal. See Lujan,504 U.S. at 564. See also Humane Soc’y v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 52 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (standing where agency expanded approval for hunting, “depleting the supply of animals . . . that . . . [plaintiffs] seek to view” and causing plaintiffs to witness “animal corpses”); Am. Bottom Conservancy v. Army Corps of Engineers, 650 F.3d 652, 657 (7th Cir. 2011) (standing for bi...
[A] partner of mine and I cared for another patient who also suffered complications from chemical abortion. I had taken care of her when she was hospitalized . . . at 9 weeks 5 days gestation. She was discharged home in good condition after significant improvement with medications. During that hospital stay, she had an ultrasound, which showed a healthy pregnancy with no apparent complications and a strong fetal heart rate. . . . Approximately one week after her discharge, the patient presented back at our emergency room with heavy vaginal bleeding and unstable vital signs as a result of ta...
Am. Bottom Conservancy, 650 F.3d at 656–60; Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Engineers, 645 F.3d 978, 985–86 (8th Cir. 2011); Cottonwood Env’t Law Ctr. v. Forest Service, 789 F.3d 1075, 1079–83 (9th Cir. 2015); WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1196, 1206–07 (10th Cir. 2014); Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 781 F.3d 1271, 1280–83 (11th Cir. 2015); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 56 F.4th 55, 66–69 (D.C. Cir. 2022). In all of these cases, a federal agency approved some action—such as developing land or using pesticides—that threatens to destroy the animal or ... Judge Ho reaches this legal conclusion by applying a legal framework typically used in cases involving plants and animals. And he gets to the conclusion by asserting that those who like *seeing* pregnant women and pregnancy are "aesthetically harmed" when a pregnancy ends.
Jun 27, 2023 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
I'm going to take some time to read and think about Moore v Harper before I comment in detail. But one thing is immediately clear:
The entire decision - *including* the Thomas dissent - is a thorough repudiation of Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen. This is a point that's often missed: Trump's entire legal theory that 2020 was "stolen" never - well hardly ever - rested on the theory that there was actual fraud. That's why (eg) his own lawyers never claimed in court that there was actual fraud.
Jun 10, 2023 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
STORYTIME! 🧵

When I went back to college - my undergrad career spanned a dozen or so years - I went to a community college. Best damn decision I ever made, but that's a story for a different night.

Tonight's story: I went back with a plan to be a scientist. Paleontologist, something with evolution. Another long story is how I went from there to here.

But anyway - Bio 102 covered taxonomy, some basic evolutionary bio, that kind of thing. The instructor was wonderful.
Jun 10, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Damn -
I remember buying this issue. Cold as shit, walked down to Complete Strategist on 33rd after school, then walked back up to 86th - because I was going to spend money on games, not subway fare. And my pass was valid only from Mosholu Parkway to 86th. Yes, of course I got in at least one jam for attempting to exceed those limits. I was a high school kid in NYC.
Jun 8, 2023 • 35 tweets • 9 min read
Just based on the first few tweets - Judge came in pretty much in the mood we've already seen. Looks like LoDuca is quintupling down (to be fair, quite likely by telling the truth) on "I complied with none of my Rule 11 obligations" as a defense for frauding the court with fake cases.

May 27, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Hey, lawtwitter -

Check out the last few entries on this docket. Trust me.

ChatGPT making up citations, notary fraud, this has it all. Oh and an incandescent federal judge.

courtlistener.com/docket/6310779… Oh, did I mention that this isn't a pro se?
May 24, 2023 • 19 tweets • 4 min read
Y'all, the arbitration award in the case where some guy sued Mike Lindell for failing to pay a $5 mil contest award is kind of amazing.

Not so much the award itself, which is pretty basic, but the picture of utter insanity it paints.

Here's the tl:dr:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… It appears - a lot of this is my reading between the lines - that Mike Lindell put together the contest because he was really excited about some "election data" that he'd been given.

And, apparently, put the contest together before even his own people had reviewed everything.
Apr 5, 2023 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Lost my grip on an albatross's beak and got my finger bit pretty damn good. To respond to the questions:
1: Yes. Literally.
2: I was not only person in my peer group to sustain this type of injury. I think (hope!) @AldrichPatrick can vouch for that.
3: My mistake was being distracted by "oh god it's shitting all over you."
4: Which was also literal.
Apr 4, 2023 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
How many veterans are on the WaPo editorial board? How many of them understand the physical toll that a career of military service takes on the body?

Predictable aaf, though. War's over, let's question how much Veterans really need disability payments. Because why not, amirite? Let me give you some of what the WaPo editorial board, possibly because they elected to opine on a subject about which they are pigfuckingly ignorant, didn't mention.

Background: my wife has over 20 years in, as a physician. Our friends and neighbors are in similar demographics.
Apr 1, 2023 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Twitter apparently accidentally and without request 'verified' a fan game.

On the one hand, this is funny af because of the incompetence involved. On the other, if I'm Rovio I actually really need this to be fixed immediately. Twitter's utter incompetence has dumped everyone else into a terrible situation.

Rovio isn't going to want to be seen to take action against a fan project. But at the same time, they're now at greatly increased reputational risk for anything that the ABF: Reboot project does.
Mar 31, 2023 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I don't have time/energy to do a livetweet through this right now. But here's the bottom line on this:
1: It appears that Dominion won summary judgment on *every* element of defamation *except* actual malice.
2: Fox lost all its key affirmative defenses.

That means: 3: Absent a settlement, this goes to trial.
4: The only liability question for the trial is "did Fox know that the lies that they were broadcasting were lies when they were said."
5: The damages question is basically just "what is Dominion really worth."
Mar 23, 2023 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
This isn't the first time, or the third, or the eighty-ninth, that something like this has happened. And it's also not like channel hacking is the only area where YouTube fails to protect even creators at the @LinusTech level.

Sadly, creators currently have little recourse. YouTube is functionally an unregulated monopoly that has placed itself in a position where it can - and does - insulate itself from the consequences of not providing even the barest minimum of service toward the creators that are its lifeblood.
Mar 8, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
OK - "Introduce Yourself With Seven Books, The Fourteen Book Version"

Only I couldn't figure out what the hell "introduce yourself" means so I went with "introduce myself to me." So, fair warning - this list probably makes no sense and some of the books on it are objectively terrible.

But even the terrible ones hit me at the right time and place. So in they go.
Mar 4, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
This is a remarkable take.

Such a failure to comprehend some basic parts of human communication. What is love if the embrace of someone's personal quirks and foibles isn't part of the package?

And what is love if you're not laughing together about these things.
Mar 2, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
All these people tweeting #GoWokeGoBroke as if businesses don't very carefully think about the business implications of the decisions they make around their public image. My dudes, you smashed Keurigs but k-cups are still easier to find than whole bean.

You cut swooshes off your socks and let them dangle limply around your ankles. Nike is still here.
Feb 24, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
OK - quick contract interpretation thread. And a serious question for the lawyers. Check me on this, please - I'm reading a social media site's terms and conditions, and it looks to me like they may have accidentally made their equivalent of retweets a violation of their TOS. OK - so here we have the user granting a sublicensable license to the site. And the site, in turn, granting a sublicense to its other users. But the sublicense only allows use "subject to these Terms and Conditions." Spoutible allows all registered users to post, share, publis
Feb 23, 2023 • 27 tweets • 6 min read
Let's look at the Bouzy/Romancelandia thing one more time, but only at a limited aspect: why vague policies - like Spoutible's adult content policy - can be problematic. What, in other words, is the big deal?

Some things I want to make clear at the start: 1: Bouzy has every right to run his platform by his rules.
2: What those rules are is up to Bouzy.
3: There is no reason that the rules need to permit any specific content.
Feb 22, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
The whole bill is terrible. It effectively undoes anti-SLAPP (to the limited extent Florida has it), creates an assumption of falsity for anonymously sourced reports while also removing the journalists privilege against being compelled to identify sources, and more.

But this--- This bill would, as I read it, let anti-LGBT+ bigots sue people who are mean to them in Florida, judicially assume that their bigotry is the declared truth, and grant them statutory damages if they win.

And it only does that for them - not for any other bigots or racists.
Feb 22, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Red. You keep making everything about "sides." It's not. I don't care if Keffals is (to borrow a phrase) literal faeces. Their doxxing and harassment were still wrong, and Kiwi is still a cesspool.

Not thrilled with Bouzy right now. Nate's lawsuit is still hot garbage. If there is one thing - just one - that I really wish you would take from all of the times you've banged your head against lawtwitter in the last few years, it's this:

You don't have to be on anyone's "side." People are complex. The world is complex. But we have to live in it.
Feb 21, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Spoutible and Bouzy and Courtney. A very quick thread:

1: I have a Spoutible account, although I haven't used it yet. Getting it seemed prudent, all things considered.

2: I'm not Bouzy's biggest fan. That's not news. But I would love to see a true twitter alternative thrive. 3: I don't always agree with @courtneymilan. But I do listen when she talks, because even if I ultimately wind up disagreeing with her, her views are still generally well-reasoned and very clearly expressed. I'd have to be a fool to not listen.
Feb 14, 2023 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
I haven't had a chance to read through the filing itself yet, but I'll look at it on stream later today. (If that's not enough to convince you that I'm not involved in this one, I don't know what is.)

As for the article, and the things Browder says therein, I haz some thoughts. 1: Browder - I assume the quotes from @donotpay are actually from him - radiates some very familiar energy throughout the article.