Thread uses facts and receipts to torch libs' claim that SCOTUS' 303 Creative ruling was based on fraud

The Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis really pissed off liberals and Democrats. Imagine, a ruling that upholds the First Amendment! Few things piss of the Left more than the idea that the First Amendment is for everyone, even people with whom they disagree.

It didn't take long for so-called investigative journalists to dig up what they claimed was dirt on the case, or, rather, evidence that proved that the Lorie Smith's legal team's case was built on fraud and thus made SCOTUS' decision illegitimate. And that narrative certainly got very popular on the Left very quickly. The problem was that it was a garbage narrative.

Megan McArdle touched on that in a recent thread, but if you're looking for a more detailed explanation about why the Left's smear and disinformation campaign is so baseless and egregious, you won't find a better one than this thread from legal eagle @alexthechick:

I should let this go but I'm not going to do that because of who I am as a person. I am going to do something that the articles and the people caterwauling about Ms. Smith being a lying liar who lies have not done. Cite to the original source documents. Here. We. Go.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

I timed it and it took me all of four minutes to pull the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, which is where the affidavit of Ms. Smith and the copy of the email containing the website submission set out in the Appendix thereto are from, off of PACER. This is not hard to do.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

To be fair, I've been using PACER for a few decades now *stares bleakly into the distance* and thus know a. how to find a case, II. what filings I'm looking for, and trois. how to download them. Still. This is an annoying process, not a difficult one. So. What do these say?
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

The only reference to the contact is on page 2 of the affidavit. This notes that the contact info is transformed into an email which is then forwarded to her, er, email. That email is in the appendix pp 1-2. Those are below. I HAVE REDACTED THE EMAILS AND PHONE NUMBER. pic.twitter.com/hti5MEQvP7
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

So there are the original documents with my acknowledged redactions on contact info which I redacted because people are idiots and do stupid things and if they are going to do that, let them get their own PACER accounts and look it up themselves, at least work for it.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

What does the affidavit say? It sets out, in paragraphs 3-8 on page 2, how a submission is made at the website, how that is transmitted to her, and, in paragraphs 6 and 7, that a request was received. And that's it. That's all it says. It simply says that it was received.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

It is important to note that the statement to which Ms. Smith attested was that she received the email with the contact information. That's it. I have yet to see anyone claim that she did not, in fact, receive that email.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

All of the references to her providing false information to the court appear to be stemming from claims that the "Stewart" whose name is on the affidavit was contacted at the telephone number provided and he says that's not him. That's it. However, that proves nothing.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

In order to be a false statement, and thus subject to perjury, it must be that she did not receive that email at all and I have yet to see any proof that is the case. She provided not only an affidavit but the email itself. If anyone has proof, not an allegation, proof, link it.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

There are three options about the content of that email with the contact info:
1. "Stewart" is lying when he says he didn't submit it. That's a possibility but I have no proof of that. He, sensibly, refused to give his last name so his claim to being married can't be confirmed.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

II. Someone submitted it and simply used someone else's email address and phone number. Also a possibility though there's no proof of that either. People submit false info on sites all the time so it's at least within the realm of possibility.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

C. She and/or someone she knows made the request herself/at her request on the day after she filed her complaint in order to create a paper trail that she did receive a request. Do I think that's possible? Sure, people do stupid stuff all the time. But there's no proof.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

That is my issue. The people out there stating that she lied and that her lawyers entered false information into the record have absolutely no proof at all that this was done. At least none that I have seen. Now, if people want to believe that, go right ahead. That's not proof.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

There is a difference in kind between I believe that a false affidavit was entered into the record and a statement that it is certain she committed perjury and her lawyers committed a fraud on the court. If you make the latter? You better have proof. Here's a corgi. /fin pic.twitter.com/PCeQB8akmz
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) July 5, 2023

Thank you for the corgi, Alex.

And thank you for for taking the time to put together a thoughtful thread based on sound legal protocol and reasoning. We desperately need more reality-based discourse in this country.

***

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!