Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34494
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 32 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    lofl.

    i have a ton to say on this stupidity but I'll have to wait until after work. 

    but this sounds a lot like "some people are saying that these people falling down and shaking are actually sick! everyone knows it's demons and if they pray harder and ignore their disease it'll go away."

    She seems to use a lot of anecdotes and stereotypes of dubious validity to prove her points, or actually generate outrage.  Like her generalization about how US troops are treated for PTSD.

    Some of her points are probably valid to a degree, though.  There is a lot of overindulgent parenting going on, but I don't think it is in any way exclusively a librul phenomenon or centered around polarizing ideas like gender identity or whether kids are getting good therapy.

  2. Just now, dcbc said:

    Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward.  I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum.  The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve).  But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review.  We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real.  Her fuck-ups are magnified.  Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade.  But those of us in the business have seen it all.  If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

    That is some valuable perspective, right there.

  3. 4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

     

    I'd be in over my head too.  But in that circumstance, I'd fall back on "no reason to reinvent the wheel" and K.I.S.S.

     

    And, at least in my realm, I'd be willing to posit that appellate experience does not wholly prepare someone to excel in a trial setting, nor does trial experience wholly prepare someone to excel in an appellate setting, particularly at the judge level.  There are people who do both well at the practice level.  See, e.g., BrisketTexan, et al.  But they are distinct skill sets.

    Agreed on reinventing the wheel.  But, in this particular case, the wheel was never really invented in the first place because, again, we are looking at some novel legal questions.  There's not much law on the interplay between the PRA and the courts and zero on the interplay between the PRA and Espionage Act.  Not that either of these pose particularly difficult questions.

    She definitely seems overawed by the fact that this is the first presidential prosecution in history and seems to be wanting to find differences in this case and others that preceded it that don't really exist.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

     

    Bring it again and get a different judge? 

     

     

    Who fucking knows.  Smith played the venue choice straight as an arrow to begin with:  he went to the closest division within the SD Fla to Trump with a virtual certainty that she would get the case.  I don't think he had to go by division, he could have filed anywhere in SD Fla and let Trump try to contest it.

    Obviously, he wouldn't want anything to do with Cannon again.

    Then again, he may be able to straighten her out on this and minimize any harm.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    It's either one, the other, or both.  I don't think neither is an option.

     

    Optimistically, I tend to think that she was appointed for her loyalty as opposed to her potential as a skilled jurist and that she's in way over her head in this case, i.e., doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

    She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

  6. 17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Member when that would get you labeled as hysterical? I member. 

    I have never not contended she is apparently stupid af.  So stupid in fact that it camouflages any corruption and makes it damn near impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  7. 19 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    So is the only option for the Government to seek mandamus relief?  The judge has no discretion to misstate the law to the jury, and you've just made a good case for inadequate appellate remedy.  It would mean more delay, but that beats the alternative.  I know they aren't actually jury instructions at this point, but just looking down the road.

    Yeah I don't know what interlocutory appeal options the government may have. 

    Because she denied the vagueness motion to dismiss, but not the PRA, I initially thought this was some gambit to paint the government into a corner on it, making it easier to dismiss the indictment.

    But the "extended" idea of her giving really bad/wrong jury instructions didn't initially occur to me. 

    One thing I believe I have seen is that despite the federal civil practice of lengthy and detailed jury questions, federal criminal questions are short and singular, generally. 

    Here is an example of the questions in an espionage act case.  https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/5c5cdc7f03

    And here's what the instructions look like in a different case.  https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/2f9194cd67

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 7 hours ago, C-Man said:

    And what exactly are we looking at in this situation?

    If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

    However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

    The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

    She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

    The PRA does no such thing. 

    My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

    But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

    • Rage+1 2
  9. So Dallas got it's first in-town new trail in like 20 years. Just south of Tension GC in a large wooded spot right off the existing paved trail network. 

    Creekside Trail. 

    Huge disappointment. 

    Less than a mile of actual trail and green and poor drainage apparently. 

    There are green, blue and black "skills areas" that seem to be mostly jump/drop lines. I haven't visited so maybe that's kinda cool, but I am disappoint. 

    • Like 1
  10. 27 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

    I'm worried about that double jeopardy thing. 

    When is Jack Smith going to ask to have her removed?

    Good point. I was thinking in terms of her using this procedure to boost an attempt to dismiss the indictment on these counts. 

    If she just flat fucks the jury instructions and that results in an acquittal, we will all be holding our dicks. 

  11. 20 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    There are ways to get shitty judges removed from cases when they constantly fuck up.  Use those.  

    Actually not many if any. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  12. 4 hours ago, BamaATL said:

    Bullshit.  Right now we have a neighbor dealing with an adult daughter with tremendous mental difficulty and there is literally no where for her to go.  Specifically blaming Reagan may not be entirely right, but he and his ilk, and their cost cutting no government services platform are to blame for this sort of thing.  He was the ring leader of this movement that found power and his doctrines have guided us to where we are today. Trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich have a direct correlation with the suspension of government services, like mental health.  He doesn't get a bad rap, if anything he gets far more of a pass from most Americans.  Fuck him, and fuck that movement.  

    Except it wasn't that movement responsible for the closing of state hospitals, and the shift to "community care," which was due in large part to Medicaid and well underway by 1970.

    Reagan did some to lower/end federal spending on mental health, but by then it was on "community" care, not institutions.

  13. The reason I think Cannon is galactically stupid is not limited to the fact that she is bungling the law so badly.

    If she wants to throw the case for Trump, this is among the most unwieldy, obvious, and obviously appealable and reversible ways to do it.  And if that is her plan, she apparently is too stupid to realize it.  

    All this will do is delay the case.  There are subtler, more discretionary, and unappealable ways to do that.

    She hasn't fucked this thing up yet, but if she persists on her current course, she's going to get another public spanking from the 11th Circuit.

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  14. After mostly getting its ass handed to it by Masimo over patented blood oxygen and pulse sensors incorporated into the Apple Watch, Apple is now trying legislatively to alter the jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission to institute patent infringement investigations over technologies imported by domestic entities, such as Apple Watches.  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/technology/apple-patents-lobbying.html and elsewhere.

    Historically, the ITC has provided an alternative venue for patent infringement claims against foreign importers of patented technologies.  Monetary damages are unavailable, but the proceeding is extremely rapid, concluding within 24 months, and may result in an exclusion order, which prevents importation of the infringing devices.

    Now that almost everything is manufactured outside the US and imported, the ITC has "jurisdictional relevance" (RIP Tom) in more patent infringement cases than ever before, and where the defendant is a domestic entity like Apple.

    In a lot of ways, I do think the ITC 337 proceeding may be abused, but somehow I find it distasteful that Apple is doing this.  Apple is far from the only domestic entity whose ox has been gored by this feature of the law, but is the only one whinging about it.  

  15. Also, I listened to the oral argument in the Sidney Powell appeal.  The bar did not seem particularly convincing on the issue of a trial court having to dig around the record to find the evidence, meaning all the evidence the bar mislabeled and bungled, so that's bad.

    On the other hand, on the Georgia federal complaint and its attachments, which I believe were clearly of record, the bar had the upper hand on that providing sufficient evidence of lack of candor with the Georgia court that I think they may have won the day.

    Highly speculative on my part.  Decision should be imminent.

  16. Bit of a sidenote here, but I was looking at Texas' supersedeas bond requirements, which I haven't looked at in years, but Texas does limit the bond amount to half of the defendant's net worth.  So, at least some places, "ability to pay" does come into it at this stage of proceedings.

    Proving one's net worth would be a bitch, though, and highly embarrassing most likely.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  17. On 2/28/2024 at 6:16 PM, Ghost of LL said:

    I'm just slightly gratified to see Mitch McConnell live to see himself drummed out of the party that he did a lot to create.

    Revolutions always eat their young, do they not?

    Need more ice axes. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 17 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

    She says that over-focusing on ones own emotional state, which is championed by therapists, Social Emotional Learning advocates, and modern school counselors, leads to more instances of anxiety, emotional weakness, and depression. It's a concern about where we tell kids to focus, inwardly vs outwardly, in a way. By ruminating on "our feelings" too long or too much, we give them more power over us, not less. We feel more helpless and anxious through this self-focus.

    She makes the argument that therapy is an intervention needed for people with real issues, but when applied to otherwise "normal" kids, we actually can and do cause harm. We've turned every parent into a "mini-therapist", every kid gets a diagnosis, resulting in over-intervention in our kids otherwise normal emotional development, and stunting their ability to deal themselves with negative emotions in a healthy way.

    She didn't say this, but it reminded me of the classic parable of the butterfly, where the kid can't stand to see the butterfly struggle, so they help it out of the cocoon, only to watch it die from lack of wing strength. 

    Someone called it high "self-regard." In the context of addiction, I can attest personally and observationally that it is a real and negative, damaging trait or behavior. 

    I have often called it inward-dwelling. AA and related 12-step programs focus on service to others as a way to break out of it and find one's rightful place in the world, which oddly seems to bring peace. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 18 hours ago, chainsaw said:

    I think of it as a reverse Mao policy. (In China, the government says that the praise to criticism ratio for Mao should be 70:30). I think Reagan was 70 percent demon (terrible on the environment, destroyed the mental health system, deregulated and cut taxes to favor the wealthy, was probably the worst president ever for unions and labor, appointed Scalia, Nancy's "Just Say No" bullshit and the "war on drugs", he destabilized Central America, and he was behind the Iran-Contra scandal, he also supported a federal ban on abortion), 30 percent decent (immigration amnesty, seemed to be a public servant rather than a grifter).

    Honestly 30:70 is the wrong ratio for Reagan. Probably closer to 10:90, if that.

    Point of order, the destruction of the mental health system, which mostly occurred at the state level, was well underway long before Reagan. And it is as much the fault of civil libertarians, ie libruls, as fiscal conservatives. 

    He gets a bad rap on that. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...