Documents dropped in US V #GhislaineMaxwell
45 pages plus exhibits which included redacted references, some of which we read out in today's podcast.
around constantly and collect herself to fight for her life and to clear her name.”)
Her lawyers referring to her purchasing and moving to New Hampshire.
camped out by her front door every day if she were granted bail.
So why leave safe, secure premises? What will her legal team say, considering her 'spouse' refused to acknowledge they were married
No meaningful documentary corroboration of the Government's Allegations against #GhislaineMaxwell
As I can't see them, imagine #jizzstains voice yelling 'lies lies lies, Virginia lies' from her April 2016 deposition when faced with evidence and questions about #epstein #clinton and #princeandrew
That GM was an 'afterthought'.
Wow ok.
Cut the heresay
Her team have complained and complained but GM still can't sit with the popular kids in the mess hall.
Going to work and being constantly exposed so they can keep kids fed!
Note the last bit - prayers for the #Epstein victims.
You say victims I say survivors.
Oh and look she worked so hard at Terramar - pretty sure @Agenthades1 will have the figures about how much went in and what came of it. A few speeches and trips to the Arctic Circle Assembly.
The talk of being hounded by press isn't clear if they were hounded due to #GhislaineMaxwell or a separate event.
Details GM's fear, Gee any thought to the survivors that hid, moved, gave up careers?
More from Law
Holy Shit. Florida GOPer caught on tape telling fellow FL GOPers to make false voter registrations in Georgia so they could vote to save Loeffler and Perdue. He in fact DID register in Georgia and is now under investigation.
2/ A pretty kickass reporter, Nicole Carr, recorded the video before the guy took it down. When she confronted him he insisted it was all a joke and of course he didn’t register in Georgia. But she checked and he had.
3/ This is Nicole Carr ...
4/ amazing. Here’s where she catches him 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔🤔
5/ Also on the video you’ve got these ladies saying, hey wait, this can’t really be legal can it? And he’s like, yeah totally cool. Then he advises on how to create a backstory for the fake move.
2/ A pretty kickass reporter, Nicole Carr, recorded the video before the guy took it down. When she confronted him he insisted it was all a joke and of course he didn’t register in Georgia. But she checked and he had.
3/ This is Nicole Carr ...
\u201cIf that means changing your address for the next two months,so be it.I\u2019m doing that. I\u2019m moving to Georgia.\u201dOur 6 investigation reveals deleted video-a FL attorney telling GOP members how to move to GA,vote in runoffs. It\u2019s illegal.There\u2019s more,& an investigation @wsbtv #gapol pic.twitter.com/or2PgWQrT1
— Nicole Carr (@NicoleCarrWSB) December 2, 2020
4/ amazing. Here’s where she catches him 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔🤔
5/ Also on the video you’ve got these ladies saying, hey wait, this can’t really be legal can it? And he’s like, yeah totally cool. Then he advises on how to create a backstory for the fake move.
We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
The entire first part of the hearing related to messages sent by certain individuals from the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group seeking cooperation with trans allies at Garden Court. So far all the discussion has been about whether their names must remain redacted.
— LGB Alliance (@ALLIANCELGB) February 11, 2021
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
In the cold light of morning, I'm still completely amazed by the legal belly flop that @ThomasMoreSoc filed in the DC District Court. It's the legal equivalent of watching the butt fumble, live
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"
Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?
https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp
OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"
Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?
https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp
OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).
You May Also Like
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
