Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34424
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. So, are your clients "little guys" or moneyed interests of the type who in the past supported tort reform?
  2. Maybe try not being a cunt. And keep your shitty politics in the cloak room.
  3. Article is kind of fucky in the sense that it implies or states that remaining Trump's lawyer insulates him from testifying against Trump in the documents case. It does not.
  4. Been tried before, not gonna work. Well, if you did it, you would certainly be prosecuted. 😬😬 We said rare, not never.
  5. It is true that perjury of some sort goes on in courtrooms all across the country, not to mention in affidavits and declarations, every single day, multiple times. And prosecutions for perjury are rare, whether of rich or of poor. Exceedingly rare compared to the amount of perjury. A lot of this is due to the materiality of the perjury: it's either a minor, immaterial point or the credibility of the witness is so bad everyone knows they're lying. The other issue is that to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt can be quite difficult.
  6. Suing is a civil liberty in the United States that is unmatched elsewhere in the world. As brisket notes, efforts to "get the lawyers under control" always hurt those with meritorious claims more than anyone else. How about we try getting the insurers under control?
  7. Key takeaway (yes I clicked on fox dammit): On Wednesday, House republicans derailed Speaker Mike Johnson’s effort to renew the legislation after former President Trump confused Section 702 with FISA Title 1, directing lawmakers to tank the bill on Truth Social. "KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!" he wrote. Fucking lickspittles.
  8. Smith's appointment did not signal the commencement of the investigation. Smith was appointed when Trump announced his candidacy and created an apparent conflict of interest between him and the administration (prior to that, it was theoretical). That is the ONLY reason Smith was appointed. Special Counsel are not roving badasses. They are appointed when there is a conflict of interest between the DOJ/Administration and the target of an investigation. Smith, being appointed to do one thing, did focus the investigation, most assuredly, and freed it from the hierarchy and bureaucracy of the DOJ. There are some innuendos that various factions in the DOJ didn't want to indict Trump and others were in disagreement about what crimes he committed and for what he should be indicted. Smith bypassed a lot of that, and it's pretty clear that he is single-minded and tough.
  9. I have skimmed things. The objection from James is that Knight Specialty Insurance is a "non-admiited carrier" without a certificate of qualification under Insurance Law S. 1111. The objection is here, if the linky stays live. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=s4dpZ_PLUS_u0rxLM_PLUS_xsccBGwbw== The bond, known as an "undertaking" in NY law, is a quite informal document compared to what you might see in another jurisdiction, where the bond is likely an instrument of commercial paper paid to the order of the Plaintiff upon certain conditions, to wit, affirmance of the judgment, affirmance of part of the judgment, or dismissal of the appeal. The undertaking may be viewed here. https://eddsa.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/452564_2022_PEOPLE_OF_THE_STATE_OF_v_PEOPLE_OF_THE_STATE_OF_BOND_UNDERTAKING_1707.pdf According to the law, CPLR 5519, the undertaking is: an undertaking in that sum [the amount of the judgment] is given that if the judgment or order appealed from, or any part of it, is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, the appellant or moving party shall pay the amount directed to be paid by the judgment or order, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed; So not just a hell of a lot of precision there. But the AG's objection is set forth above and appears to be directed to the capacity of Knight to do insurance business in the State of NY.
  10. See, here's where you're wrong. The Supreme Court has never really cared about facts. Those get handled in the courts below. It may be more obvious that the court is cherry-picking cases with certain fact patterns now that it is full-on activist, but that's the way it has always been.
  11. It is an inherently pay-for-play system. I'm not sure how we escape that. Public defenders are getting better in the criminal arena because of the spotlight you mention. There are other areas, such as contingent-fee litigation, where little or smaller guys are getting top-notch, vigorous representation, but that's in pretty limited circumstances in civil cases. Trumpco is milking available procedures for all they are worth, but it's not working very well outside of Cannon's court, as you note, even in the pretty short term. One thing we have to acknowledge is that Trump is unprecedented in virtually every area that pertains to government institution and his abuse of same. The institutions were unprepared for the likes of him. In the courts, that lack of preparation takes the form of novel legal questions, so-called "issues of first impression." As a corrupt former President, Trump has presented those in spades unfortunately. But the judicial system has dealt with them better than other institutions of government. As has been noted, courts are a fundamentally fact-based forum, where Trump's bullshit is far less likely to work than other fora.
  12. Imputation or presumption of a cause of action or offense, particularly the elements of an offense like fraud (usually requires clear and convincing evidence, etc.) poses pretty serious due process concerns in a criminal context, possibly civil as well.
  13. I think the various weather reporting outlets may be "over reporting" severe weather for clicks. It may just be the weird weather patterns, but it often seems like they make things more dire than they actually are. Of course, the Storm Prediction Center can make that easy and I don't think they're angling for clicks.
  14. Probably a decent argument that 1.5 hours after the crash, it rose to .105 and at the time of the crash was below.
  15. I remember when it happened, I was just venturing outside of the sports boards and wasn't very integrated into the community. I do remember that information about it was hard to come by as the mods quickly deleted anything that referenced it much, particularly in any way that might have implicated her privacy or that of her family. It was shrouded in mystery at the time, particularly for someone who hadn't known the back story.
  16. And, it's kind of nutty to spring the idea of a confidential deposition when there are not any previous protective orders or other secrecy provisions. Because, unless you can claim some kind of surprise inquiry at the deposition, it's pretty hard to go back to the court and try to make discovery/depositions confidential after the fact. Quinn Emmanuel is, overall, a super-competent firm like Susman Godfrey, meaning they rarely fuck up. But this would seem to be a fuck up if they're serious or Musk is about keeping it confidential. Quinn Emmanuel attorneys are frequently dicks, too. Arrogant.
  17. Right, I guess that's part of it. I think, though, that captainant is right, until the bond issues are resolved one way or another, execution is halted.
  18. Who said I trust Trump? I do not. I am, generally speaking, pro-defendant yes. So I appreciate the rights that are afforded those who take advantage of them (sometimes that's an issue of nothing but money, sometimes it's not). The very issue we are discussing is the supersedeas bond and whether it is adequate under the law. Neither I nor gator are assuming that it is. We are explaining that Trump's lawyers likely have little or no control over the bond document itself and whether it is adequate under NY law. That is mostly or entirely the purview of the bonding institution. Whether Trump and his lawyers made misrepresentations to the court about his financial condition to secure the reduced bond is a separate issue from the bond document itself. As noted above, reduction of the bond from the full judgment amount to some fraction of the defendant's net worth is not a novel concept. It is embodied in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, for example “the amount must not exceed the lesser of:(A) 50 percent of the judgment debtor's current net worth; or(B) 25 million dollars.” And it is present in the law for the benefit of the little guy facing a jumbo judgment. Is it possible that Trump's lawyers instructed the bonding institution to work in some unlawful loopholes to the bond? Fuck yeah it is. But that's going to require some proof, not an assumption that that is the reason for the inadequacy of the bonding instrument. And it's risky as hell, because the court could order the institution to make good on the bond, regardless. Either way in this process, the judgment will be at least partially secured or James will be permitted to execute. It's basically a win-win for the plaintiff. If you consider the right to execute a win. Although watching the execution might be a total blast from the "fuck with Trump" perspective, its purpose is to satisfy the judgment and from that perspective, it might not be so much fun for James.
  19. Itemize for us the lenient shit he's gotten from Engoron's court.
  20. This isn't a penalty scenario. The bond represents cash on the table to the plaintiff if they prevail on the appeal. If there's no bond, there's execution. 99/100 plaintiffs would rather have the bond, provided it's a legitimate bond. Even if it's only approximately half the judgment, if that is affirmed. That's 150M they didn't have to lift a finger to get. Everyone keeps rooting for execution of the judgment as if that's some kind of penalty. It's the natural course of things and a slow and awkward way to collect a judgment, likely in cents on the dollar. It's not designed as a penalty, just as putting up a bond is not a penalty, but both are costly for the defendant.
  21. The institution prepares the bond, and their lawyers. As a general proposition, the defendant's lawyers don't really know shit about the bond itself. It's sounding to me like this Knight Hankey outfit doesn't know what it's doing with judicial bonds in the first place, perhaps complicated by the favorable terms granted Trump.
  22. Elaborating a bit on gator's post, in a normal business Chapter 11, the business carries on, pretty much as normal. With the exception that the business is in Chapter 11 for some sort of business reasons and the operations usually are tailored to address whatever business judgments or conditions got them in Chapter 11 in the first place. So, that can mean people are fired, certain business segments curtailed, etc. What it is not is bankruptcy court imposed austerity, in most cases. So, outside his personal bankruptcy, Jones had businesses and those businesses mostly get to operate "as usual" even if they are crazy, fucked up businesses, especially if they are still throwing off money. The personal Chapter 11 is a different deal, though. And to avoid liquidation, he's going to need to find something substantial. And, I am surprised the court/US Trustee has allowed his profligate spending. The 85M settlement came at a cost to Jones, though, at 8.5M annually, substantially more than he proposes. And, you can be reasonably sure that the 85M is not some generous forgiveness, it's probably a realistic assessment of the cost and benefit of the plaintiffs trying to collect the entire judgment over a reasonable period of time. And, the liquidation in bankruptcy, kind of like executing judgments on assets, is not guaranteed to return more money to the plaintiffs, by any stretch.
  23. Except Trump ain't getting away with much here. And the fact is no middle class person is going to get hit with a 454m judgment.
  24. Yeah, I wasn't all for it and have had quite mixed feelings about it for many reasons.
×
×
  • Create New...