Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34428
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

    That's rough. Even if I don't have co-counsel, I try to have a legal assistant, secretary, or even a tech, anyone, sit by the client. 

    Agree that that is tough to the point of brutal. Lone rangering litigation, especially trial, is tough tough.  Respek. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

    It is somewhat rare, but I was involved in one trial when the defendant knew that the jury was going to find against them, so they spent their entire case making points for an appellate court challenge on the legal elements down the road - and NOT for jury consideration.   They did not care if the jury got what they were saying. 

    That may be the case here.

    Sounds like, though, Bove is attacking credibility more than anything, as well as trying to make the testimony fit their narrative (SOP). I don't think they're going to get very far on appeal with those issues. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. I'm not sure where Hartzell stands politically, but I worry about it a bit.  As pointed out above, wherever he stands, he's in a fairly impossible position given that the BOR is mostly MAGA as is the governor who appointed them and wields some authority here.

    I do imagine that he was trying to avoid the fate of his ousted peers at various Ivies.  But I also wonder if that bespeaks cowardice.

    That letter is  . . .  something.  But, I'm not sure it really reflects Hartzell's opinions/feelings on the matter, as Pancho notes.

    What a clusterfuck.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    They've convinced themselves that it's all a conspiracy against dear leader.  It's really wild and sad.  

    It's kind of ironic all the way around. 

    There is some truth to the notion that the criminal justice system, including and especially the FBI, is overzealous (but not against people like Trump, where they are under-zealous).  That's something they've heard from librul civil libertarians in the past.

    But these are the same people pissing down their legs about (falling) crime rates and prosecutors who are deliberately under-zealous about petty crimes.  And, relatedly, about another federal LEA being under-zealous with respect to scary brown immigrants.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 6 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

    What's a mental health court?

    A diversion court in which people with mental illnesses connected to their crimes avoid criminal sanction by receiving mental health treatment.

  6. 3 minutes ago, bluto said:

    Of course Brint Ryan is first up to sue the ftc over the ruling. He has a tax consulting giant that has swallowed up most of his competition via PE funded buy outs with the rumor of rolling it all into going public. Hundreds of millions spent buying competitors, a shit ton of which goes up in smoke if the property tax system in Tx goes away/significantly changes. Dude is feeling the heat from all sides now, and the wolves are knocking on his door.
     

    oh, he’s a prick in general, just to be clear.  

    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.

  7. 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.

  8. 39 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    Wrapped up litigating one within the last 6 months or so.  It’s a very personality-specific thing.  Employer felt sort of like dad and needed to teach the kid that rules are rules. 

    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.

  9. 12 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

    Yep. I can’t consult and be staffed on any projects for a F100 organization with a new company, until 2025, because of a non-compete. I wonder if this is now retroactively trashed or if this only for moving forward.

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  10. 2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

     

    wishes do come true. he thinks the lack of crowds is because they're being held back. he can't handle the fact that no one is showing up to support him. fester you shitass. wallow in your loneliness. you alone created it

    Shitass is an underrated term.  It was my mother's pretty much ultimate insult.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
    • Drool 1
  11. 1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

    To be fair, the justice system was never designed to or for protection of the Republic. It should work slow as state removal of liberty is big AF. 

    The people through their congressional representatives were given the ability to impeach, remove, and restrict from office those who would imperil our system of government. There's no such thing as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in politics.

    However, half the people are broken in their brains. Partisan interests have trumped loyalty to the constitution due to monied gentry, religious zealots, and legally anthropomorphic corporations using their $ and power to pervert the very system of government meant to represent the people. Instead it represents entrenched wealth and ideologues who themselves prop up power hungry sociopaths who use politics as a personal means to enrich themselves. 

    And therefore the only real lever designed to protect us has been perverted to the point where we have to rely of the justice system as a last resort.

    tenor.gif?itemid=5034430&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=

  12. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Doubtful.  Trump's lawyers are just trying to downplay any malfeasance possible.

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 6 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    FYI for those with interest:

     

    There’s some good news for people who want to follow the Trump trial in detail, but can’t make it to the courthouse. The New York state court system has just agreed to publish a transcript of each day’s proceeding by the end of the following day on its website. You can find the daily transcripts here.

     

    https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml

     

    Floggin those court reporters.

  14. 2 hours ago, Truth Hurts said:

    sorry to offend our big fans of The View @safe sex @Schulz2.0 LOL..

    There are intelligent, rational women on that fine program

     

     image.png.d52a139a3a790dc509f85b74580b9c00.png

    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.

  15. 1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

    This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

    Women of Trump calendar?  

    I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

    Someone should check her papers.

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  16. 1 minute ago, The Dog said:

     

    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.

    • Haha 2
×
×
  • Create New...