And it starts out strong.
Good morning, all. There's a little bit of news out of Michigan already this morning - it looks like Judge Parker wanted to start the work week this week with unnecessary and stupid distractions cleared away.
So she dismissed the MI Kraken tentacle sometime after midnight.
Sorry. I'm tweeting without caffeine and it shows. The order rejects the injunction, but it doesn't dismiss the case (yet). Skimming ahead, that appears a foregone conclusion, but technically the case isn't dismissed.
"Benchslap" is an official term of art, and is defined in Black's Law Dictionary. See below.
On this court's reading, all the Kraken suits should be done and dismissed on these grounds, I think.
And that there is prejudice to the defendants. So the plaintiffs also lose on laches.
Abstention is a doctrine where federal courts decline to rule in a case even if they otherwise could to give the state courts a chance to weigh in on the matter. There are a few variants. It's technical; I'm going to skip past most of it.
There's no standing for the equal protection claim. There's also no standing for the Elections Clause and Electors Clause claims.
So - for those keeping score:
The defendants lose because: 11th Amendment, mootness, laches, abstention, and standing.
With that out of the way, it's time to look at the merits of the request for injunctive relief.
And, as most of the lawyers weighing in on these cases have pointed out, federal courts Do Not Like theories that would make every violation of the law a federal matter.
This was a "you lose for all the reasons" ruling. The case may technically not be buried, but it's a zombie at this point - all that's left is to finish it off.
https://t.co/gMyu2IyODj
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason https://t.co/KAgZK8NYPt
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 7, 2020
More from Mike Dunford
Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice? https://t.co/p8d3flDkGm
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 25, 2021
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
More from Law
A Warning:
The 'Freeports' in at least 10 locations in Britain will evolve into Charter Cities with their own laws. They will NOT be legally bound to ANY of the trade agreements between the UK and EU or any other country. They will be used to bypass all International scrutiny
'Sovereign UK' makes deal with Charter city (physically but NOT legally part of the UK) which then trades to other countries OUTSIDE of the constraints of International laws
Thus bypassing all restrictions , tariff, tax, human rights, climate change legislation - everything
https://t.co/f35zFvkCHQ
The 'Freeports' in at least 10 locations in Britain will evolve into Charter Cities with their own laws. They will NOT be legally bound to ANY of the trade agreements between the UK and EU or any other country. They will be used to bypass all International scrutiny
'Sovereign UK' makes deal with Charter city (physically but NOT legally part of the UK) which then trades to other countries OUTSIDE of the constraints of International laws
Thus bypassing all restrictions , tariff, tax, human rights, climate change legislation - everything
https://t.co/f35zFvkCHQ
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
You May Also Like
Took me 5 years to get the best Chartink scanners for Stock Market, but you’ll get it in 5 mminutes here ⏰
Do Share the above tweet 👆
These are going to be very simple yet effective pure price action based scanners, no fancy indicators nothing - hope you liked it.
https://t.co/JU0MJIbpRV
52 Week High
One of the classic scanners very you will get strong stocks to Bet on.
https://t.co/V69th0jwBr
Hourly Breakout
This scanner will give you short term bet breakouts like hourly or 2Hr breakout
Volume shocker
Volume spurt in a stock with massive X times
Do Share the above tweet 👆
These are going to be very simple yet effective pure price action based scanners, no fancy indicators nothing - hope you liked it.
https://t.co/JU0MJIbpRV
52 Week High
One of the classic scanners very you will get strong stocks to Bet on.
https://t.co/V69th0jwBr
Hourly Breakout
This scanner will give you short term bet breakouts like hourly or 2Hr breakout
Volume shocker
Volume spurt in a stock with massive X times
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
