Wondering whether Canada & BC might domesticate UNDRIP seems besides the point since UNDRIP itself explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of settler colonial states (above Native sovereignty) in Article 46. Article 27 recognizes colonial law as able to "adjudicate" Native rights.
https://t.co/7bONGKuv2q
https://t.co/reqklbGe7G
https://t.co/Ia8L6U6qU9
https://t.co/FYkI6w0KCs
https://t.co/mOLEvZMDm4
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.
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...