4 ms·

Is there prior art to suggest that tweets about going private indubitably result in damaged warrants? This notion seems dismissible by pointing out that correl

by sova 5y ago

Is there prior art to suggest that tweets about going private indubitably result in damaged warrants? This notion seems dismissible by pointing out that correlation is not causation, but I am oversimplifying and that would be for a judge to determine. Come to think of it, there are probably numerous episodes where such things happened but maybe not in tweets, but newspapers of yore and the like.

shapefrog 5y ago
An announcement that you are going private is a corporate action and triggers an adjustment of the warrant. > the announcement by the Issuer of any intention to enter into a Merger Event or Tender Offer As to the validity of a tweet being a public statement: prior art is Tesla themself > In a Form 8-K filed on November 5, 2013, Tesla had identified Mr. Musk’s personal Twitter account as a source of material public information about the company and encouraged investors to review that account. The adjustments happened both ways, for the announcement of going private and them abandoning going private.
zcw100 5y ago
IANAL but wouldn't the argument "correlation is not causation" basically exclude all circumstantial evidence?
- voakbasda 5y ago
  And a case with only circumstantial evidence should be thrown out with prejudice. Those cases are akin to witch hunts.
  - zcw100 5y ago
    Unless someone actually witnesses a murder you want it thrown out? Someone could walk into a room with a knife, screaming is heard, "no, no please don't stab me with that knife", the person walk out of the room covered in blood and a dead body is then found and you want it to be thrown out with prejudice? That's all circumstantial evidence.
    - sova 5y ago
      I think hearing something would be direct evidence, as opposed to indirect. Plus, aren't we supposed to err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty?" And I think for such a crime as you were describing there needs to be motive and action, not just one without the other. However, I must agree with you that indirect proof can certainly still be proof. Especially with regard to inductive reasoning and ascertaining truths without direct knowledge (or before/leading up to direct knowledge).
      - zcw100 5y ago
        People scream for lots of reasons. I could argue that being murdered is the least likely reason for someone to be screaming. Some legal systems err or the side of "innocent until proven guilty" but you're leaving the last part off, "beyond a reasonable doubt". There's no need to establish a motive for a crime. I believe it may strengthen the case against you but it's not like you can get off for committing a crime just because they couldn't establish a good reason for you to have done it. "So, Mr. Chayote, why did drop that anvil on my client's head, Mr. Roadrunner?", "No reason, that's just what I do", "Case dismissed due to lack of motive!"
        sova 5y ago
        You bring up a great point and humorously at that. Thanks for the clarification.

by sova 5y ago

shapefrog 5y ago

An announcement that you are going private is a corporate action and triggers an adjustment of the warrant. > the announcement by the Issuer of any intention to enter into a Merger Event or Tender Offer As to the validity of a tweet being a public statement: prior art is Tesla themself > In a Form 8-K filed on November 5, 2013, Tesla had identified Mr. Musk’s personal Twitter account as a source of material public information about the company and encouraged investors to review that account. The adjustments happened both ways, for the announcement of going private and them abandoning going private.

zcw100 5y ago

IANAL but wouldn't the argument "correlation is not causation" basically exclude all circumstantial evidence?

voakbasda 5y ago
And a case with only circumstantial evidence should be thrown out with prejudice. Those cases are akin to witch hunts.
- zcw100 5y ago
  Unless someone actually witnesses a murder you want it thrown out? Someone could walk into a room with a knife, screaming is heard, "no, no please don't stab me with that knife", the person walk out of the room covered in blood and a dead body is then found and you want it to be thrown out with prejudice? That's all circumstantial evidence.
  - sova 5y ago
    I think hearing something would be direct evidence, as opposed to indirect. Plus, aren't we supposed to err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty?" And I think for such a crime as you were describing there needs to be motive and action, not just one without the other. However, I must agree with you that indirect proof can certainly still be proof. Especially with regard to inductive reasoning and ascertaining truths without direct knowledge (or before/leading up to direct knowledge).
    - zcw100 5y ago
      People scream for lots of reasons. I could argue that being murdered is the least likely reason for someone to be screaming. Some legal systems err or the side of "innocent until proven guilty" but you're leaving the last part off, "beyond a reasonable doubt". There's no need to establish a motive for a crime. I believe it may strengthen the case against you but it's not like you can get off for committing a crime just because they couldn't establish a good reason for you to have done it. "So, Mr. Chayote, why did drop that anvil on my client's head, Mr. Roadrunner?", "No reason, that's just what I do", "Case dismissed due to lack of motive!"
      - sova 5y ago
        You bring up a great point and humorously at that. Thanks for the clarification.