Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34424
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. There's more sane responses on there than I would expect.
  2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-and-gas-companies-seek-esg-loans-pledging-emissions-cuts-11672147496 From a series of similar articles, it appears that O&G is voluntarily implementing ESG measures to attract investment and avoid shareholder backlash. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/esg-financing-takes-flight-in-north-american-oil-gas-pipeline-sector-65099299 One bank is phasing out upstream lending entirely. https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/Press-releases/ING-takes-next-steps-on-energy-financing-after-COP28.htm And it does appear that that is a trend constraining O&G lending. Sounds good to me.
  3. Fun story about me and semicolons. When I was in high school writing essays, I'd get these comments from teachers like "great point say more." I was confused because I thought usually my point was self-evident and did not require elaboration. Later on bearing this in mind, I apparently started crafting dense, complex sentences to pack in more of the requested information. Finally, in my last year of law school in an advanced writing class, Terri LeClercq, truly one of the Texas Law greats, pointed out my complex sentences and suggested that I retreat to very simple sentences and then perhaps combine them with semi colons to increase readability and comprehension and avoid the see spot run problem. Still use to this day. This is mostly a tribute to Dr. LeClercq. https://cla.utexas.edu/english/news/alumna-terri-leclercq-fights-uphill-battle-to-preserve-prisoners-rights
  4. Well in some cases, the crimes are obvious. But at least to a lawdog, what was televised on J6 wasn't necessarily a crime. We know that "incitement to riot or violence" isn't really a thing unless it's pretty explicit.
  5. And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way.
  6. The problem with that is that what he did on January 6, alone, is not a crime. You have to know and be able to prove his intention on January 6, which includes all the background activity and run-up to January 6. None of that was on video, but apparently some of it was on audio.
  7. Which variant of e-shifting? My best riding buddy converted his GX to AXS and seems pleased. The engineer in me is intrigued by Transmission. On the other hand, I am currently rocking Deore and quite pleased with it. Unless my bike gets stolen again, I can't see myself adopting any e-shifting, unless it's a Sramano deal, which I do understand works just fine (GX AXS with Shimano cassette).
  8. I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.
  9. Maybe it means the end times are upon us, Marge. So, you best get your cracker ass in good with the Jews and get you some space lasers. Goddamn crazy cooze.
  10. As a recovering addict myself, trying to get a moral turpitude clause excluded is really bad news. That means you know and acknowledge on several levels that alcohol or other drugs are adversely affecting your life and are trying to avoid the consequences of that. I'm not judgy of addicts much, but there comes a point when they know they need help and for whatever reason they're declining it and continuing to do things that adversely affect their lives and attempting to avoid consequences. That deserves judgment, imo.
  11. No doubt all of us lawdogs have had a shitty opponent and a judge that is slow to or refuses to rein them in or punish them. It's one of several frustrations that lawdogs endure from various sources. One of the primary ones being general slowness, which is an electoral problem moreso than inherent to the courts. You just have to accept some of it. In the civil context, big-picture perspective generally requires you to accept or understand that it's about money (far less so principle most often) and thus not that big a deal in the grand scheme most of the time. And as ponderous as the system may be, it reaches the "right" result more often than not. Right is in quotations there because right is often or always dictated by the laws passed by the legislature, which can be pretty far from right sometimes. For those who have the luxury of not having to participate in it or pay close attention, I'm sure it's extra-frustrating.
  12. I think technically until a bond is posted successfully and any court orders extending the 30-day "deadline" are expired, James must hold off on further collection efforts and would probably do so, prudentially, until the bond tussle is over, either with or without a bond.
  13. I went and skimmed some of the cases cited by the government. In the main one, the government asked the judge to declare the applicable law, which he did, erroneously and they sought mandamus, which was granted and the judge ordered to vacate the erroneous order and issue one consistent with the law that the appeals court determined. If she simply denied such a motion as premature, that would be grounds for mandamus, I'd think, but whether the 11th Circuit would reach the issue of actual applicability of the PRA seems uncertain at best. They might rule that she has to rule, necessitating another appeal/mandamus. The 11th Circuit has shown a willingness to expedite those appeals, however, so that's nice.
  14. In his response thing to the jury instructions order, he did note that there is case law supporting the idea that the judge must rule on jury instructions with sufficient time to take appeal/mandamus if the instructions are flawed, before jeopardy attaches. I didn't read the cases, but it was somewhat heartening to see that the judge can't seem to push everything off until after the jury is sworn, effectively insulating it from review. In a civil case, this would be perfect for summary judgment. There is no summary judgment in criminal cases. I don't know what the substitute vehicle for this kind of issue is.
  15. What's infuriating is, for average, we have six regular hitters above .300, one over .400, and four with ops over 1.000. There have been long stretches when we would have killed for that kind of output. But situationally, when the pitching shits the bed, so does the offense. It's uncanny.
  16. Fuck. Nice RPI hit but I guess we can still take the series. 😬😬
  17. Fuuuuck. Edit to add that that is somewhat common with evidentiary MIL, maybe not so much with the question of law type. But it would be a helluva yoink.
  18. Interesting question. I think you can mandamus the failure to rule, but that is a less severe error than making the wrong ruling and less likely to be overturned. However given the stakes and the potential for her refusing to rule on jury instructions and MIL before jeopardy attaches, there might be some traction there.
  19. Very likely also patent infringement and pharma doesn't tend to fuck around with that. The FDA might have some questions, as well.
  20. The latter is the rub. There needs to be some sort of ruling to appeal. Currently, there isn't one. A motion in limine is usually filed on the eve of trial but there is nothing that says it has to be. They are also usually evidentiary in nature, while this one would be more to resolve something as a matter of law (PRA does not apply here). But I think her denial of one would give Smith the ruling he needs.
×
×
  • Create New...