Threat from a Public Official?

Politics Second Amendment
61

You cited “not a government document” as a defense to prosecution which is listed under Sec. 37.10 (j) under this statute. Want to try again…

However, I will entertain your absurd analysis… .The section you cite now is:

Sec. 37.01

(2) “Governmental record” means:

(A) anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record;

(B) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government;

Do tweets from the personal accounts of local government employees belong to the government? Can you give examples of where I can access the thousands of local governments in Texas employee personal twitter accounts?

62

It isn’t a defense to prosecution even if it is stamped “not a government document”.

It is being sent and received as an official communication from the cheif. Go back to school “counselor”.

63

LOL… Where can I find the contents of the thousand of local employees twitter accounts? Come one, give us a hint…

64

On Twitter Servers. Unless they are tweeting in their official capacity it would not be a covered. He was. Or are you asserting that he could threaten police harassment by the Houston PD which he directs as faceless civilian Art Acevedo?

It was an official communication by a public official in the State of Texas according to the statute provided.

Accept your loss gracefully or keep making a fool of yourself, your choice.

65

LMAO… Are you NOW claiming he was tweeting in his “official capacity” on an account that clearly states these are his personal opinions? Please, please hire a lawyer for even traffic court…

66

Yes. It is.

67

Check out the title.

There is such a thing. A federal judge said there is less than a week ago.

68

Back with that reading deficit I see. Even if it were stamped “not an official document” it is an official document under the posted statute.

I can’t stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself “counselor” but you should.

69

They can’t read with their left eye closed.

70

When can we expect you lawsuit? Representing yourself? Please be sure and post the case number for us all to watch… LOL

71

Who knew police chiefs were covered under the Presidential Records Act… Are you suing with Wildrose?

72

Right after you post a copy of your law degree.

73

What is it there that you think is legally binding?

74

You really need to read the judge’s ruling.

75

Here’s some more Acevedo Gold.

76

And Houston hired him after that. Tells you what they think of our rights in both Austin and Houston.

77

Sylvester Turner hired him.

78

What part of this do you not comprehend?

This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from
his Twitter account in response to the political views that person
has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public
official is the President of the United States. The answer to
both questions is no.

Our analysis proceeds as follows. We first set forth the
background facts regarding Twitter as a platform, the
@realDonaldTrump account that is the center of this dispute, the
plaintiffs, and this case’s procedural history. Because
defendants object to our adjudication of this case based on
plaintiffs’ lack of standing, we then turn – as we must – to the
consideration of those jurisdictional arguments.

  • We conclude that the plaintiffs have established the prerequisites to our jurisdiction: they have experienced a legally cognizable injury, those injuries are traceable to the President and Daniel Scavino’s
  • conduct, and a favorable judicial decision on the merits is likely
  • to redress those injuries. … .
79

What an idiot!

80

I read that book too.