Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34422
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. It's mostly because Merchan holds a mental health court on Wednesdays and considers it too important to push off. Good for him.
  2. Yeah, I've gotten bad vibes off of them for quite some time. They were actually a client of a colleague of mine for just this type of shit. Guy built a helluva business in a short time. Makes you wonder what's up.
  3. One thing it does do that's actually maybe nice for the lawdog is this. Under Texas law, at least, a covenant must be confined to a reasonable geographic area, which usually means the cities, or county, or region where the employee actually worked. And that almost always means a less-than-statewide, much less nationwide, territory. For most major corporations, that is entirely unsatisfactory. They think if a former employee can damage them, it can be from anywhere, at least in the US. And that is at least theoretically true. So, whoever is tasked with drafting such a covenant is often forced into drafting one with an overbroad territory to satisfy management, with everyone knowing that it's likely unenforceable. And that just doesn't feel good if it isn't unethical. So, maybe this will take most of that off the table.
  4. It's costly for the employer as well as the employee and competitor/employer (if they get sued as well or foot the employee's bill). Presumably, the employers are better able to bear that burden, but not always. And yeah, spite and vengefulness seem to play a large role in these deals. Or at least the notion that the departing employee should be terrorized as a warning for others.
  5. That sounds super-unenforceable. I think that's the real problem here: upward of 90% of covenants not to compete are unenforceable under applicable state law. But the cost of defending an enforcement suit is such that it is overall a considerable burden on the parties concerned. One way to look at it is that employers will no longer be able to burden their former employees and competitors with the costs of defense of a likely unenforceable covenant. Rather than banning the enforcement of legitimate rights.
  6. https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/trump-designed-white-house-key-to-flatter-guests-kushner/ Total cheesedick Jaycees move devised by Trump himself.
  7. Shitass is an underrated term. It was my mother's pretty much ultimate insult.
  8. Well, what they were arguing is that there is not a conspiracy charge in the indictment. But, the charged crime may incorporate an uncharged crime if the falsification of documents is in furtherance or for the purpose of committing another crime, which I think is thus far unspecified and only guessed at by the peanut gallery. That crime might be a conspiracy between NE, Pecker and Trump to conceal information or some such.
  9. Floggin those court reporters.
  10. Y'know, at least they title it "The View," implying that it has a viewpoint and is infotainment and not news. Would that some other channels/networks were that candid with their infotainment.
  11. Sustained objections, even objections at all, to an opening or closing statement are regarded as serious business by lawdogs. Although the jury is not instructed, as gator notes, they seem to intuit that objections during such statements are rare and if sustained a bad sign for the party making the statement. The thing about openings and closings is that they are one of the few opportunities either side gets to fully narrate a story, uninterrupted by the rules of direct and cross examination of witnesses. An interruption endorsed by the judge is something.
  12. Someone should check her papers.
  13. His attorneys didn't misjudge much of anything, I practically guarantee. They have a very difficult client who is a pretty terrible criminal defendant.
  14. An explanatory note. It appears that the bond is secured by securities in a brokerage account. In most jurisdictions, he could not pledge that account directly as a bond or undertaking. He could, however, liquidate it and bring cash certified funds to the court for a virtually unimpeachable bond. There is, of course, no guarantee that those securities would liquidate timely and in the amount of $175M, and that would pose some tax issues, I would imagine.
  15. Saw that Kona is throwing in the towel. I think wd40 had a Kona not too long ago. Fairly storied brand that had fallen behind. https://road.cc/content/news/kona-bicycles-winding-down-and-sale-307945
  16. https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/39869353/fort-myers-high-school-baseball-racial-slur-walkout-boycott What a fuckin mess. A bunch of white grievance, but I can't help but think that none of the adults handled this very well.
  17. Yeah the quoted thing was some kind of summary not the rule book.
  18. You can't try or convict someone who is incompetent to stand trial. That whole Constitution thing.
  19. Man, haven't heard the name Nakamichi in years.
  20. Yeah and even in a civil case, where it is not required, it is highly advisable to show the jury your level of commitment by attending. You cannot underestimate the stress of a trial, any trial, but especially a criminal trial. You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride is a serious truism. Even for a psycho like Trump.
  21. I am grateful that I know of very few of those people. I also find it interesting that about half of the Qbaits don't use a real name, just their Truth/rumble handle. Luceferian pedos indeed.
  22. I didn't ask a question, I made an observation. The problem is that even the best intentioned lawyers are or get competitive in a trial scenario. Again, that's intended to benefit "the system," but on occasion it goes overboard and things get fucky because of it. The example here is jury selection, where the ostensible goal is to keep the biased off the jury. But the line between that and putting people biased in your favor is thin, maybe imperceptible. But if keeping biased people off the jury is "right," then intentionally putting people biased in your favor is "wrong." And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the odd situational ethics of law dogging may even actually require that attempt. Does anyone here not want Trump-opposed jurors on this case? Didn't think so. The one limiting factor that maybe avoids some of the problem is that people are incomprehensible, so you may not be doing what you think you are.
  23. No one here has ever contended that it's perfect. But the latter two are probably more the result of bringing charges when you don't have the evidence or the law to convict. And if you want evidence of gamesmanship negatively affecting outcomes, the better examples are prosecutorial and police misconduct.
×
×
  • Create New...