Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34676
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. That could be, for sure. Joey Two Scoops is surely willing to do that consistent with his long career. I overall like the guy, but he knows his political expedience and I consider that a significant black mark. I would not expect that from Garland, but I again am not sure how privy he is/was to this, at least before the indictment dropped.
  2. Overall, though, I detect a tendency to judge the actions of prosecutors pretty solely on the relative merits of the defendant. That's an unavoidable part of all this, prosecutorial discretion and all, but it is inconsistent with notions of the rule of law.
  3. That is a fair point indeed. I haven't been following super closely but in a related area, criminal theft of trade secrets, DOJ has been pretty aggressive in prosecuting, particularly as prodded by civil plaintiffs. Also the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act seems to be being abused somwlewhat also pertaining to unauthorized access. In the trade secrets area, it seems to stem from some misguided effort to be tough on intellectual property theft. Which I think is probably valid in the case of foreign governmental actors, but far less appropriate for domestic cases. I'm not a fan of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Like a lot of the shit complained about elsewhere, we needed a cumulative federal remedy for that like a hole in the head. On a positive note, though, most federal judges are less tolerant of failure to specifically allege and identify misappropriated trade secrets than a lot of state judges which is where a lot of mischief occurs in the trade secrets area: uh yeah he stole something, we'll let you know what it is... once we figure out If we can prove it.
  4. Accepting that characterization is about as credulous as accepting Trumps characterization of 1/6 as protected speech. The guy is accused of hacking en route to reporting newsworthy events. I hope he beats the rap, myself, but the issue is hacking or not hacking. AFAIK there's no first amendment defense to hacking and I was unaware that hacking was a foundational idea of our country.
  5. Yeah true, it does push things to the bitter end. But if she doesn't gaf about appearances, just push the trial date right now and cite CIPA problems. That is a major Kings X for her if she is inclined to use it because none of the filings are public record and no one can talk about them.
  6. This raises an excellent point. This is I assume a day to day exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The only reason this might have crossed Garlands desk is any policy about prosecuting journos with first amendment defenses (worth mentioning that the Obama DOJ didn't have a particularly liberal record on these prosecutions). Not sure it's fair or accurate to blame Garland for this. And, I suppose stranger things have happened, but US Attorneys aren't known for bringing charges they can't prove. I'm all for the guy publishing this shit, but if he hacked to get it, that is a problem for him. That to me would be a lot less problematic than when a journalist reles on criminally obtained information that s/he had no part in obtaining. Funny too how now we want to believe everything the defense lawyer says instead of calling him an unethical liar playing fast and loose with the facts. Hmmm.
  7. Anything could happen I guess, but why go to this trouble? That's about as subtle as a cold douche and opens her to accusations of wasting everyone's time, not to mention it is appealable by the government, I believe. Kirschner is a little bit crazy.
  8. I think you are absolutely correct. No one with half a brain was fooled by the attempt to change the correspondence address or address for service/registered agent whatever that was. So any lie involved (it's not a lie if that what that address wad with the secretary of state) is immaterial. That shit can be anything and doesn't change the status of the corporation/entity. Example TRUMP HOLDINGS INC Texas Taxpayer Number 30117699006 Mailing Address 5595 EQUITY AVE STE 500 RENO, NV 89502-2397 Right to Transact Business in Texas FRANCHISE TAX ENDED State of Formation TX Effective SOS Registration Date 03/03/1995 Texas SOS File Number 0134764800 Registered Agent Name DAVID EPPERSON Registered Office Street Address 700 N. PEARL ST. STE. 1100 DALLAS, TX 75201
  9. Don't know. Besides the obvious thought that she is, there are alternate explanations for her "behavior," to wit being dumb/inexperienced. One sign she's not in the bag is that she didn't push this pretrial motion deadline, which he moved her to do and it seems they were less than precisely prepared to meet . Maybe she thought that too obvious.
  10. No, not per se. But it is possible that the appeals court reassigns it on remand for any of a variety of reasons, stated or otherwise. If no appeal, that possibility, already slim probably, is reduced. I think as it stands, the Chief District Judge has discretion to reassign, but probably wouldn't do so except on cannons request.
  11. Still haven't read the motions to dismiss, but I think even Cannon will make short shrift of the Fitton Socks case based one. It just doesn't hold up and it's not a subtle argument. One that does kinda pique the curiosity is the lawful/unlawful initial possession problem. There are two provisions of 793 that focus on wrongful withholding of NDI. One specifies that initial possession was lawful and the other specifies unlawful. Trump is indicted on the latter. Seem easier to prove the lawful one, because depending on when you consider possession to occur, seems like POTUS might have a good argument that he's legally entitled to initially possess. There may be some other subtleties in there and I defer to Smith but I always thought it odd that they indicted under the provision that requires unlawful initial possession. Just seems like more to prove when the guts of the thing is wrongful retention.
  12. You can postpone but you can't usually entirely avoid, see, eg, 100M in prejudgment interest for dotard. Delay has benefits and drawbacks.
  13. Judge has to approve any plan of reorganization. A minimum requirement is that one class of creditors has to approve the plan, a class of creditors that will take a haircut under the plan or is impaired. Generally speaking, secured creditors are not impaired unless they were under secured as of the petition date (collateral worth less than debt). That leaves unsecured creditors. I don't know what other impaired creditors may exist that might approve or object to the plan. This is a nice start, though. I find it difficult to believe that a judge will approve a plan that lets Jones live lavishly while delaying payment to the Sandy Hook plaintiffs. But often, legitimate businesses are permitted to operate as normal or close to it while funding a chapter 11 plan. But those creditors getting hosed are voluntary meaning they extended some form of credit to the debtor and deserve to take a haircut, while these creditors are involuntary. Then again the amount owed is somewhat arbitrary. As a general observation, a bankruptcy judge can be pro-debtor or pro-creditor, and most start a case as the former because that's the purpose of it. But they can turn on the debtor for a variety of reasons, mostly related to a sense of abuse of the bankruptcy code. This would seem to be a good candidate for that. @Chad Fuck can confirm or deny the accuracy of this. There are some special provisions related to small businesses that are implicated here that I don't know much about, but I think the above is generally accurate.
  14. Actually we point out that in a lot of cases, it's not our fix, but congress' or the lege's fix and, therefore, yours.
  15. Well, Trump doesn't really have to file a bond as I expect James will await the outcome of the appeal before doing any hard core execution. However, there's been so much speculation about it, I think he's going to feel pressure to put up the bond or look like he can't. And, he might need the stay of the judgment if he wants to avoid the supervision/receivership from going into effect, moreso than to stop execution on his assets.
  16. Man it's 77 here right now. Ain't ready for this. And I have a spot of a cold so I am not quite ready for prime time. I did rinse the bike off and add sealant today, though. We've also had a good bit of rain, so the trails are still mostly moist.
  17. Steve Miller or Boz Skaggs probably. At least for a longer while.
  18. https://txpenalcode.com/sec-43-23/ Read up, my dude. I was taught this by one George Dix,as likely were several of the lawdogs round here. RiP, professor.
  19. My main beef is with the proliferation of federal crimes, many or most of which overlap with state crimes when states have the initial and primary jurisdiction over crimes in the first place. But yeah, proliferation of crimes is a problem in every jurisdiction because tough on crime is so easy and reliable political fodder. But a side effect is that yeah there are so many damn crimes all over the place that just about anyone can probably run afoul of something. As mentioned previously, the problem with Hunter is not whether he's guilty, because that seems about as obvious or more so than Trump's, but whether his prosecution is selective,especially for a privileged white guy.
  20. Yeah there's no way this goes to Washington. And NYS appeal to the top court (NY State Court of Appeals) is also discretionary, so unless they can come up with something more than they have in terms of a novel or important question of NY law, the forthcoming appeal (Supreme Court Appellate Division) is probably the end of the road.
  21. Yeah agreed it sounds absurd, but isn't really, subject to the ins and outs of NY practice. Kise is beclowning himself but is a serious enough lawyer to be taken seriously until shown otherwise.
  22. I was like wtf but now I understand the issue. There can be a difference between an opinion that explains the reasoning and a judgment that states the conclusion and operative terms of the judgment. Like the DC Circuit released the opinion and a judgment on immunity simultaneously as separate documents. Sometimes it can be hard to tell if an opinion IS the judgment or not. The test is whether the document in question disposes of all the issues and all the parties. This is an incredibly common controversy. One of the problems it causes is that you usually have 30 days from the date of the judgment, not the opinion, in which to appeal. So it can cause premature appeals or belated appeals. Belated appeals are untimely and do not go forward. Engorons order left some issues open namely the precise terms of the supervision. So it is probably not a judgment. Recognizing this, James' office filed a proposed judgment for Engoron to sign finishing everything off. This is not uncommon, but usually the other party has the opportunity to object to the proposed judgment and propose their own. Maybe in NY practice that's called a counter judgment. In Texas and federal practice, that's a weird name. As scottsins points out sometimes the trial judge will give the winner the sole right to draft the judgment, at the risk of creating an an issue for appeal if they are too heavy handed. But that is in accordance with what the judge orders and Engoron didn't order anything as far as we know James office just did this unilaterally apparently. The process does present something of an opportunity to negotiate, not with Engoron, but with James office over the precise terms of things like the supervision. The whole mess may add a few days to the time for appeal, depending on when Engoron signs a conclusive judgment. But that's more his fault for leaving matters unresolved in the opinion that we have seen than anything anyone else is doing.
  23. We don't actually know how it can be tied up. Lowell can probably be counted on to do a better job of that than the strip mall lawyers. But yes initially it looks like a big legal "Squirrels!"
×
×
  • Create New...