Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34421
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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=

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. On 3/20/2024 at 7:54 AM, Orange&White said:

    I wasn't aware that the prisons got a vote or an option on who the courts sentence to prison? Are you saying that the prisons have a right or ability to deny a prisoner that has been convicted to prison time?

    You can't try or convict someone who is incompetent to stand trial. That whole Constitution thing. 

  13. 6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    I never realized in a criminal case the defendant has to be physically present all day every day. 6-8 hours a day 4 or 5 days a week over how many trials? Last week already had him nodding off multiple days. I expect it to take a tremendous toll on him physically, not to mention the mental stress of not being able to do as he pleases at all times. If he has to beg off from being present due to illness he is done imo

    Cultists can forgive just about anything from their leader except physical weakness. Gods don’t wear down 

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 12 minutes ago, TexPx said:


    d0871898decb08178d5f9a2b296483f3.png

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    I totally agree, but an image of some poor brown dude that got railroaded into a wrongful conviction wouldn't draw recognition like the ones I posted.  I just found it amusing that you would ask such an obvious question especially considering your response shows you knew the answer already.

    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. 

  16. 14 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Gee, ya think?  Surely not, the legal system is the most bestest greatest thing ever and is as pure as the driven snow.

    Or,

    wirestory_a62a6c79869955b546691f9dc4b7a8

    1373769451000-AP-Neighborhood-Watch-1307

    t_128f3b961d7b43ad8b79245a7040324e_name_

    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. 

  17. 1 hour ago, safe sex said:

    I know the human motivation: greed. I was interested in the utility beyond personal wealth, which appears to be putting needed liquidity into the market, which is fair enough, but I think the practice needs guardrails that it currently lacks (and that feeling applies to almost the entirety of our financial system).

    I think the distinction needs to be made between "personal wealth" in the form of "retail" investments that you and I can make and some people richer than us can make. 

    And those investments made by institutional types that make money only for institutions, some of which are "worthwhile," like those that benefit universities and retirement funds, and some that only benefit private, wealthy interests like banks, ibanks, hedge funds, etc. 

    I think a lot of the latter have lost most or all connection to benefit the capital markets. Or at least it's very tenuous. 

×
×
  • Create New...