Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39355
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Well that is certainly a more pointed statement than "the legal profession is in crisis," which implies that at one time it was not in crisis and doesn't really give a clue as to what the crisis might be. I didn't intend to make you defend a straw man. Your premise, in keeping with your more pointed statement immediately above, was that rich and powerful law firms, or more accurately their constituent lawyers are rarely disciplined for acts like "defrauding the courts." I submit that rather than being a result of their being rich and powerful, it's because they don't regularly defraud courts or commit other professional violations. Sure, they do unto others, but well within the letter of the law the vast majority of the time. One other factor relating to my practical considerations post above. Rich clients (eg corporations) tend not to file malpractice suits, or grievances on lawyers, they just fire them. Despite its presence in the Model Rules (and preambles are typically regarded as surplusage anyway), it's still a near- or completely meaningless phrase, aspirational rather than enforceable. See, e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and scads of other gobbledygook in legal prose from the Constitution on down.
  2. That's not the issue. The issue is disciplining lawyers for filing unpopular lawsuits, no matter how justifiable is that lack of popularity, is highly problematic, because it is often unpopular or sketchy-looking cases that are the vehicle by which the law is improved. Or, take away discipline entirely, curtailing the ability of lawyers to file unpopular lawsuit and proceedings is similarly problematic. Take tort reform. Although the narrative was a) largely false and b) highly promoted by moneyed interests, it was a popular narrative because everyone knows someone that was sued in a "bullshit lawsuit." We curtailed the ability of lawyers to file injury lawsuits, medical malpractice in particular, on the basis of a popularity contest. Bad business. But just because the un/popularity is based on true or accurate facts, or is justifiable, doesn't make this good business. A real example. It is, indeed, very difficult to find medical experts to testify against their brethren in civil medical malpractice suits. A friend of mine, now an orthopedic surgeon, reviewed malpractice cases for a plaintiff's law firm (but did not and could not testify, as he wasn't actually a doctor yet). But he was super hush-hush on the QT about that whole thing lest it affect him professionally. You will find no shortage of lawyers willing to testify against their brethren in malpractice cases or any other kind of professional discipline thing. The reason bars and medical associations have problems with discipline is two-fold, or three-fold. First, unlike a CPA license or many other professional credentials, it is absolutely necessary to practice (an accountant can still count beans quite lucratively without a CPA license, for example). For many docs and lawyers, their license is a ticket to wealth and personal self-regard and they're not going to let it go without a helluva fight. This is related to the second, or 1(a): many lawyers and doctors will fight like hell, are reasonably or unreasonably wealthy, and willing and able to fund a stout defense. The third, or second independent reason, is State Bars and Medical Associations aren't particularly wealthy or well-funded and they cannot attract or retain (ie pay) top flight lawyers to oppose these stout defenses, and they are also spread too thin and overworked in most cases.
  3. Taken on it's face, it's price controls. That thing they were so made at Kamala about. And, at some point, he was all hot and bothered about tariffing imported drugs, which is a whole lot of them.
  4. As to the first point, I don't believe the richest and most powerful law firms often defraud courts. Do they do other possibly unsavory things within the letter of the law, sure they do. So do the poorest and dumbest lawyers. Is Susman Godfrey a rich and powerful law firm? What about Perkins Coie? Williams & Connolly? I don't know what "uphold legal process" means. Obey the rules of Civil Procedure? Criminal Procedure? Someone's interpretation of the Constitution? Never try to change the laws? Never make an argument that goes against or is unsupported by existing precedent? Never file a lawsuit that is skimpy on facts and relies on discovery to establish the facts to support it? Only file lawsuits that someone determines "support democracy" or some other halcyon notion of righteousness? The most glaring recent example of a lawyer that tried to "defraud" a court was Sidney Powell and her Kraken bullshit. She was sanctioned in one court where the opponent asked for sanctions, she was not in other courts because the opponent didn't ask for it. The State Bar of Texas acted on one or more grievances, and brought disciplinary "charges" that failed basically because the Bar lawyers were incompetent. So, the legal profession then, temporally, has always been in crisis. Marbury v. Madison is now considered a foundational principle of this country, but there were actually people arguing against the judiciary's power and duty to declare what is the law. So, I guess those opponents were so unamerican, or undemocratic, or anti-judicial-review, combined with the fact that their dispute made it to the Supreme Court that the legal profession has been in crisis in this country basically from the outset. Worth noting that Marbury is Calvinball. And John Marshall, as Adams' Secretary of State, should have recused himself. I think what you and many are trying to argue is a more sophisticated version of "criminal lawyers are scum because they represent criminals." There's a lot of actual scum running around these days and they're getting representation, as tends to be their right. But, they're also being opposed and the opposition is winning at a handy rate. The composition and decisions of the current Supreme Court, and some of the Courts of Appeals are worrisome to a crisis extent, but that's a product of political processes, not the legal profession or system itself.
  5. It's really not yet blatant. They're pussyfooting around it in court and seem actually to have backed down in AARP. I'm not counting the ejaculations of clowns like Leavitt and Miller here.
  6. If they actually defraud the court, there's usually a remedy, notwithstanding bad bar lawyering. And those convicted of violating laws are routinely disbarred. But then you resort to "upholding the law," whatever that means. But anyway, you've been bitching about that for a decade or more, so that can't be the crisis in the profession.
  7. I raised factually analogous situations relating to your opinion that the legal profession is in crisis. An opinion that I don't believe I share. I didn't ask you to do fact-finding, I asked you about your opinion. But I'm willing to entertain non-conclusory argument. Problems with the legal profession/system: Politically corrupt/incompetent judges (longstanding problem, possibly more acute today). Delay in the system (also longstanding problem, no more acute today than the last 50 years or so, at least). The "pay to play" nature of the system (longstanding, virtually inherent to any legal system), One problem that I don't really see as a problem is parties arguing for popular or unpopular positions based on strained or "interstitial" constitutional arguments. If you somehow quash those cases before they start, then you don't get Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Counties, Reed v. Reed, and countless others. You seem also to tie the crisis to incompetent lawyers that are not disbarred or otherwise disciplined, sometimes equating "political" incompetence with plain ol' incompetence. I'll accept for purposes of argument that the bar is perhaps not zealous or competent in disciplining incompetent lawyers. But I think political incompetence is far too subjective to be a basis for discipline/disbarment. And once you open that can of worms, like "wEApoNiZation," it's too easily turned on the good guys.
  8. Of course I don't. I don't think half the shit my opponents dredge up is valid at all. But you see, Bondi's opinion sidesteps the existence and enforceability of the Emoluments Clause by claiming that it's a) a gift not to Trump but to USAF and b) to Trump's library post-office. It of course ignores that Trump is the beneficiary or beneficial owner of the aircraft completely and at all times. And the ludicrousness that it isn't conditioned on an official act. But as we have seen from prior cases, without a statutory enactment from Congress implementing the Emoluments Clause, it's difficult to enforce. But, if we disbar or discipline or whatever all the lawyers that make shitty arguments, like "frivolous tort lawsuits," we're gonna have a problem. I'm not addressing or defending in any way the shitass arguments and positions of Trump and Trump lawyers. But again, if we disbar every lawyer that makes a shitass argument, it's gonna be a problem. I'm addressing Bozo's contention that the legal profession is somehow in a greater crisis than ever before. Is there a crisis in this country? Yes, absolutely. Is it somehow more acute for the legal profession? I'm not really seeing it. The larger proportion of the legal profession on the front lines of this stuff is fighting it and winning. I mean, you have a couple hundred lawyers doing shit legal work in support of a shit regime. The greater balance of lawyers oppose it. You have several thousand legislators sitting idle or actively passing unconstitutional and "UnAmerican" legislation. Even the ones ostensibly on our team can't get off their ass. You have 50 million American voters voting for lies or hatred or some combination of both.
  9. Did the profession stop being in crisis during the Clinton and Obama administrations? Was it in crisis when FDR was pulling his stunts? Should the government lawyers defending Korematsu have been disbarred? How about when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional consent? Should he have been disbarred? There are two sides to every dispute. One ends up being wrong most of the time. Sometimes they're more wrong than other times. In some cases, they actually advocate an unconstitutional position. Gasp. Does that make them un-American? Or does it depend on HOW unconstitutional it is? Who's the arbitrator of that? How do you solve this alleged crisis? Do you disbar every lawyer that advocates an unconstitutional position? Or one that isn't actually supported by facts (short of actually lying to the tribunal)? What if a lawyer brings a righteous civil rights case that's borderline frivolous in view of settled law, or requires development of facts in discovery and the fact don't develop? Disbarred or disciplined if they lose? Or is it the purity of the motivation that matters?
  10. And also that it wasn't "conditioned on an official act." Mhm.
  11. Yep. And when it comes to actually spending money, like on one of his projects, he seems to be a colossal cheapskate, even though it's not his money. No or less spending means Trump richer. No consideration whatsoever for what the spending purchases or its value. If he's spending, it means someone's getting over on him. The zero-sum, transactional nature of that fucking guy. That's why he loves licensing his name more than anything else. He doesn't come out of pocket at all.
  12. His first bit of analysis here was that before income taxes, tariffs were a or the primary revenue source of the US Government. So, more tariffs = no income tax. Someone else told him that tariffs can also be used to incent domestic purchasing and manufacture. That's about all the analysis he's ever done.
  13. It's a weird thing they do. They're good hunters and that's fairly obviously not conducive to stealth. They only seem to do it when they're indoors and birds outdoors, or birds are clearly beyond reach, like in a tree if the cat is outdoors.
  14. I have been keeping an eye on it and have identified some of the Trumpkin advocates. There's too much workaday, apolitical work in the US Attorneys offices and they're largely staffed with longtime civil servants and I bet that won't change too much even if the USAs wind up being pieces of shit like Ed Martin and Judge Jeannine. For example, Chad Meacham, USA ND Tex was appointed by Biden for part of his term and re-appointed by Trump as acting. Not sure if he's up for the full appointment. He's been there at least 20 years. SD Tex seems to have a bit of a hack, but has been there a long time. Main justice is getting a lot of turds for sure. It's gonna need a high colonic.
  15. Well, we are talking mostly TREC contracts, and it looks like Bevo's contract may be in Montana, and you're in Cali, so the sort of standard terms may not be so standard, elsewhere. But, you're right, approval does not necessarily equal funding. And the form provisions (as opposed to something the realtors or parties make up) only addresses approval. So, a buyer could receive the requisite approval but the financing doesn't fund on closing for whatever stupid reason. The buyer then is technically in breach of the contract and would probably have a claim against the financing entity. But in the real world, in 99/100 cases, the closing date isn't that critical and everyone would rather move it a few days than go through the hassle of a lawsuit. Or if it's that big a deal, fucking rescind the contract altogether.
  16. I mean by the cat. They make funny little noises when they see birds, at least small ones.
  17. Excellent point. DOJ lawyers keep the feebs on their toes. And notwithstanding Trumpco, AUSAs and other DOJ lawyers are pretty head-and-shoulders above most other agency lawyers, and state prosecutors, for that matter. Threadjack a little. I have read this guy's, Robert Dugoni's, crime fiction for a while. It's decentish, like a lot of other sort of pulpy crime fiction. But he was an actual lawyer, and wrote this non-fiction account of an early EPA environmental case and the politics, small p, among federal agencies and how the EPA really was quite a bit of a bastard in the early going.. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743246527/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=bsio-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0743246527
  18. Kind of wonder if White is maybe overly sensitive to the chemistry issue given the disaster that the UO gals apparently wrought.
  19. Good analysis, I think. All LEO have a tendency to suffer self-righteousness and becoming true believers in whatever harm or crime they are directed against and to cultivate contempt for those they arrest, and probably a goodly number of those they don't. It takes some intelligence, empathy, and higher-order thinking to restrain that tendency. Education and training don't guarantee any of that, but probably help and I think FBI is the leader in the clubhouse on those things.
  20. Well fair point, but not every contract. Those with a third-party financing addendum, with certain boxes checked.
  21. Fun article, in a sad way. Not necessarily eating faces, but eating nonetheless. https://www.buzzfeed.com/meganeliscomb/trump-tariff-receipts-may-2025
  22. I don't actually think the buyer has the right to exit the contract if the seller won't agree to a new closing date. Technically speaking, if you aren't funded on the closing date, you're in breach. But the damages are probably going to be small and not worth the headache of the lawsuit that will be filed by the title company/escrow agent if a breach is declared. Therefore, as a practical matter, a new closing date should be agreed to and yeah, the buyer's agent should have been proactive on that so the closing date doesn't pass unfunded, thereby creating a breach.
  23. Although they're all cops, I think the feebs are by and large a significant cut above most DHS agents in education, training, and sense of their role in government. It's probably unlikely across the board, but much more likely in the FBI than other federal law enforcement.
  24. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/newark-mayor-arrested-at-ice-facility-in-new-jersey-where-he-was-protesting-prosecutor-says Somebody's lyin.
×
×
  • Create New...