4 ms·

How does any of this change or contradict what I said? And doesn't the US legal system allow for escalation to the Supreme Court, which can override lower cour

How does any of this change or contradict what I said? And doesn't the US legal system allow for escalation to the Supreme Court, which can override lower courts? So technically whatever the Delware Court is not the final say on whatever happens. >Trial date set to October This is so so awesome, I will get to see Twatter defenders rage and fume for 2 more months? ^__^

dragontamer 4y ago
> and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. There's no twist or turn of the law I can possibly imagine between today, and October, in the Delaware Court of Chicanery. There is a reason why contract laws are written to be argued in this court. Its considered one of the most straightforward courts in the entire country, with legal expertise / judges who specialize in corporate contract law. -------- But sure, I'm all ears. What kind of "surprise legal twist" do you think will happen over the next 2 months? I really don't think its too complicated of a court case. Its just fun / fascinating to watch from the perspective of internet celebrities. In any case: the time has been set. October 2022. The location has been set, Delaware Court of Chicanery. The arguments have been set: we know what Elon is seeking to argue, and we know what Twitter is seeking to argue. Not much else to hypothesize here, really.
- Banana699 4y ago
  >There's no twist or turn of the law I can possibly imagine If you're not a lawyer, this has 0 value. If you're not a highly paid team of several top lawyers, this has less than 0 value. Their entire profession is to spin circles around common sense or naive reasoning, so just wait and see. Law is harder than you think. Don't Dunning-Kruger your way into a highly complex domain, it never works. >What kind of "surprise legal twist" do you think will happen over the next 2 months By my own admission, I'm not a lawyer. So I don't understand why you think you or me can answer or predict this question better than those studying for decades and highly paid for months to think about it.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    You're performing some kind of weird Russell's teapot applied to legal arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot * "There's a good argument for Elon Musk's side of the case out there, floating between Earth and Venus if only you'd look at it". * "Oh, I'm not an astronomer, you shouldn't expect me to point out this teapot to you or tell you where it is". Okaaaaaaaay. But that's not how discussions work in practice. I put forth the best arguments I'm aware of, and you put for the best arguments you've thought of, then we both evaluate the evidence for ourselves. That's... normally how discussions work. If you're not interested in the legal minutia, then you don't have to discuss them with me? I'm not saying I'm a perfectly good lawyer myself (indeed, I'm an engineer). But there's value in the struggle to understand these things, even things outside of my field. ---------- The legal arguments for this case so far, are actually really simple. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand: 1. That the Court of Delaware has been chosen. 2. That the judge (Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick) has been chosen. She has set the date on October 2022. Her history of cases is public and well known. 3. The contract in question is public, well known, and well discussed. All of these items are publicly available to you and me. Maybe I'll get some facts wrong, as I struggle to understand the case, but we're not exactly in rocket-science level or PH.D levels of legal theory here yet. You're seemingly trying to make some kind of weird... meta-Argument like this is too complicated to understand? But its actually really simple so far.
    - Banana699 4y ago
      Acknowledging your ignorance and the limits of your capability is not Russell teapotting. >If you're not interested in the legal minutia How can I be interested in that which I don't even know ? I'm neither interested nor disinterested, I simply don't know. This doen't require a big brain to understand. >The legal arguments for this case so far Those are not arguments, what you listed are the facts of the case. Some of them are even 'future facts' that have not happened yet, but are scheduled to happen with high (but not certain) probability. All of those facts are and will be subject to the experience and argumentation of a team of lawyers who spent the last decades learning and practicing how to extract the most favorable interpretation out of any set of facts, and dismiss and trivialize those facts which can't be interpreted favorably. Here is a game you can play with a person you know : Tell the person to select N public cases at random from a source you are not allowed to read. For each case, the person should tell you the facts of the case but not a single argument from the trial, the facts include anything known about the case prior to the trial. See if you can guess which party will win the case. How many cases out of N you think you will get correct on average ? You will not exceed 40%. >All of these items are publicly available to you and me. The entire history of China is publicly available to anyone with an internet connection, can anyone be a foreign diplomat to China ? A vast trove of medical and biological information is publicly available to anyone, can anyone be a doctor or even an assistent to one ? Facts are not knowledge. Books are not knowledge. Records are not knowledge. These are "String Representations" of knowledge, crystallized and ossified remains of true knowledge, which are the mental representations inside the brains of people who studied and thought hard about the domain. You're not going to replicate those mental representations simply by reading their dead remains, you can say something, it's just not going to be very useful or truthful.
vba616 4y ago
An expert commenter on the topic (not me) wrote that there is only one potential step in the appeals process, and that is a "Supreme Court" which is in Delaware, not the famous "US Supreme Court" you may have heard of. First Google hit for "delaware chancery court appeal": "The Supreme Court is the State's appellate court which receives direct appeals from the Court of Chancery, the Superior Court, and the Family Court"
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  If there is an issue of federal law raised (which can emerge during the case, e.g., if there is a due process issue with the handling of the case, even if it isn't initially part of the case) state Supreme Court decisions can be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, though (like all appeals to the Supreme Court) such appeals are heard at the discretion of the US Supreme Court, not by right.

dragontamer 4y ago

> and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. There's no twist or turn of the law I can possibly imagine between today, and October, in the Delaware Court of Chicanery. There is a reason why contract laws are written to be argued in this court. Its considered one of the most straightforward courts in the entire country, with legal expertise / judges who specialize in corporate contract law. -------- But sure, I'm all ears. What kind of "surprise legal twist" do you think will happen over the next 2 months? I really don't think its too complicated of a court case. Its just fun / fascinating to watch from the perspective of internet celebrities. In any case: the time has been set. October 2022. The location has been set, Delaware Court of Chicanery. The arguments have been set: we know what Elon is seeking to argue, and we know what Twitter is seeking to argue. Not much else to hypothesize here, really.

Banana699 4y ago
>There's no twist or turn of the law I can possibly imagine If you're not a lawyer, this has 0 value. If you're not a highly paid team of several top lawyers, this has less than 0 value. Their entire profession is to spin circles around common sense or naive reasoning, so just wait and see. Law is harder than you think. Don't Dunning-Kruger your way into a highly complex domain, it never works. >What kind of "surprise legal twist" do you think will happen over the next 2 months By my own admission, I'm not a lawyer. So I don't understand why you think you or me can answer or predict this question better than those studying for decades and highly paid for months to think about it.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  You're performing some kind of weird Russell's teapot applied to legal arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot * "There's a good argument for Elon Musk's side of the case out there, floating between Earth and Venus if only you'd look at it". * "Oh, I'm not an astronomer, you shouldn't expect me to point out this teapot to you or tell you where it is". Okaaaaaaaay. But that's not how discussions work in practice. I put forth the best arguments I'm aware of, and you put for the best arguments you've thought of, then we both evaluate the evidence for ourselves. That's... normally how discussions work. If you're not interested in the legal minutia, then you don't have to discuss them with me? I'm not saying I'm a perfectly good lawyer myself (indeed, I'm an engineer). But there's value in the struggle to understand these things, even things outside of my field. ---------- The legal arguments for this case so far, are actually really simple. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand: 1. That the Court of Delaware has been chosen. 2. That the judge (Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick) has been chosen. She has set the date on October 2022. Her history of cases is public and well known. 3. The contract in question is public, well known, and well discussed. All of these items are publicly available to you and me. Maybe I'll get some facts wrong, as I struggle to understand the case, but we're not exactly in rocket-science level or PH.D levels of legal theory here yet. You're seemingly trying to make some kind of weird... meta-Argument like this is too complicated to understand? But its actually really simple so far.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    Acknowledging your ignorance and the limits of your capability is not Russell teapotting. >If you're not interested in the legal minutia How can I be interested in that which I don't even know ? I'm neither interested nor disinterested, I simply don't know. This doen't require a big brain to understand. >The legal arguments for this case so far Those are not arguments, what you listed are the facts of the case. Some of them are even 'future facts' that have not happened yet, but are scheduled to happen with high (but not certain) probability. All of those facts are and will be subject to the experience and argumentation of a team of lawyers who spent the last decades learning and practicing how to extract the most favorable interpretation out of any set of facts, and dismiss and trivialize those facts which can't be interpreted favorably. Here is a game you can play with a person you know : Tell the person to select N public cases at random from a source you are not allowed to read. For each case, the person should tell you the facts of the case but not a single argument from the trial, the facts include anything known about the case prior to the trial. See if you can guess which party will win the case. How many cases out of N you think you will get correct on average ? You will not exceed 40%. >All of these items are publicly available to you and me. The entire history of China is publicly available to anyone with an internet connection, can anyone be a foreign diplomat to China ? A vast trove of medical and biological information is publicly available to anyone, can anyone be a doctor or even an assistent to one ? Facts are not knowledge. Books are not knowledge. Records are not knowledge. These are "String Representations" of knowledge, crystallized and ossified remains of true knowledge, which are the mental representations inside the brains of people who studied and thought hard about the domain. You're not going to replicate those mental representations simply by reading their dead remains, you can say something, it's just not going to be very useful or truthful.

vba616 4y ago

An expert commenter on the topic (not me) wrote that there is only one potential step in the appeals process, and that is a "Supreme Court" which is in Delaware, not the famous "US Supreme Court" you may have heard of. First Google hit for "delaware chancery court appeal": "The Supreme Court is the State's appellate court which receives direct appeals from the Court of Chancery, the Superior Court, and the Family Court"

dragonwriter 4y ago
If there is an issue of federal law raised (which can emerge during the case, e.g., if there is a due process issue with the handling of the case, even if it isn't initially part of the case) state Supreme Court decisions can be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, though (like all appeals to the Supreme Court) such appeals are heard at the discretion of the US Supreme Court, not by right.