Legal Mountain

North Carolinan, rejoining here to have a front seat to the show

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@girlCPA @JoshFerdelman Naw, it would be foolish to renounce US citizenship, because Vatican citizenship is temporal, being contingent on remaining in office. If he resigned like Ratzinger did, he’d be stateless (or worse, under an agreement with the Vatican, Italian).

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@damintoell @robynngarfield That’s what I told myself about X…

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@Ryan_Reilly78 @SlowBarney @wolmanj

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@SlowBarney @Ryan_Reilly78 @wolmanj Jay, on the other hand, seems solid. I too have only met Marc and not Jay, but I’d trust Jay as much as I’d trust someone I’d never met who had been vouched for by a close friend. I’d also expect Jay and Marc have different politics. Jay’s are at least probably coherent.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@SlowBarney @Ryan_Reilly78 @wolmanj lol Marc is nuts, and he’s definitely taken very anti-speech positions. I wouldn’t trust him to watch my dog for 5 minutes. It’s like he went down to Georgia and sold his sanity to the devil in exchange for phenomenal 1A legal advocacy skills, he can only be trusted in court.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@ClassicKavorka @Trillest115 @FanaticDeac The problem is Hasan doesn’t actually allege that Jennings knew that prior to making the relevant statements. In fact, he specifically acknowledges that Jennings didn’t make the edited video.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@ClassicKavorka @Trillest115 @FanaticDeac An opinion based on disclosed facts (the clip). Hyperbolic paraphrasing is protected, indeed it’s exactly what Hasan himself is doing in the stream. He claimed the black conservative said things he didn’t literally say.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@Trillest115 @FanaticDeac They don’t call it a heightened standard, but it’s a heightened standard.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@Trillest115 @FanaticDeac For better or worse, the practical federal standard is that factual allegations for actual malice need to be pleaded with sufficient specificity to meet the plausibility requirement.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

Jay is right. I mean “incredibly stupid” might be a little harsh, it’s stupid in entirely conventional ways, though this firm in particular should know better.

Piker is a public figure. Unless he lucks into discovery he’s not entitled to and amends, there’s no actual malice.

[Jay Marshall Wolman @wolmanj]

Piker should thank his lucky stars that kavanaugh made the DC anti-SLAPP statute unenforceable in federal court.

I’ve read a lot of stupid libel suits before. This one is incredibly stupid.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@wolmanj Yeah, you’ve convinced me. It’s kinda funny, because his best argument for actual malice (still a failing one) would be on Jennings’ hyperbolic paraphrase of the clip, which is the exact thing Piker himself was doing to someone else in the clip.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@wolmanj views of what makes a defamation claim particularly dumb. I think there’s an argument for getting to discovery on actual malice.

Eh, maybe you’re right, funny enough I think he’d have a better shot in state court, even with the anti-SLAPP law, if only for the quality of judges.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@DialecticalMax @wolmanj @Gustakook While I disagree with Jay here that it’s particularly bad (I think there’s a reasonable case for demonstrating actual malice from the clip edit), he’s one of the best defamation attorneys around.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@OneFineJay A small quibble, irrelevant to your point, but my wife could not have ever done that because she didn’t do the paperwork, I did. She was perfectly content to just return to Europe when her student visa ended, in fact it was her preference if not for me.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@Mark___Taylor existing law says an alien doesn’t accrue unlawful presence while an AoS application is pending, with some exceptions not relevant here. Technically accruing unlawful presence is different than actually being unlawfully present, but every prior admin assumed this was the intent.

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@Mark___Taylor What she describes is consistent with current Trump Admin policy. Under it, if you apply to adjust status, but lose existing status before that application is adjudicated, they consider you removable. Every prior admin has interpreted existing law to prohibit this, because…

[Legal Mountain @LegalM19786]

@shipwreckedcrew This is just a paraphrase of what the government’s witnesses testified to…