Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34428
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    Tell that cunt I will personally shoot her when she starts her shit. But not a clean kill shot. I want her to feel her agonal breathing as her lungs fill with blood. I want her to experience those last moments, knowing that she fucked around with my country, and she found out.
    I’d say the same thing about any fucking terrorist who tries to overthrow my country by violent force. She’s worse than Bin Laden, and I hope her cocky ass meets his same fate.

    Fuck that, I'm gonna gut that fat ass pig-eyed bitch like a fish.  Except I'll leave her entrails sitting her lap so she can look at them. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 3
    • Drool 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  2. 3 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    It seems to me, based on my observations, that the trustees are even shorter on their bullshit fuse than the judges, particularly in the Southern District (Houston).  As an aside, trustees clean up financially.  It's a lot of work, but what a gig.

    Unlike a Chapter 7 and 13, where a panel of private attorneys do the work of supervising the debtor and collecting the bankruptcy estate for liquidation or distribution according to a 13 plan, the only trustee in an 11 is the US Trustee and they are pretty hands off for a legit debtor. But like most court things, a judge, whether severe or lenient, doesn't exercise much power until moved to do so by one of the parties which includes the US Trustee in an 11.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Clueless Movie Aww GIF by filmeditor
     

    MAGA going to have to jerk off to Reacher in private.

    Interesting article.  Although Reacher may be kind of trite and he a bit wooden, he seems oddly likeable, but I wondered about his Christianity and other things.  Seems like a solid dude.

  4. On 4/10/2024 at 8:58 PM, Hefeweizen said:

    I must have touched you where the bad man did.  I can tell you that in my field, permits from the state of Texas, there has been a sharp increase in contested case hearings, so much so that SOAH is backed up like a bad toilet.  
     

    My point remains with my narrow focus.  I am personally doing more legal adjacent expert work than I ever have before.  And I only do it for clients I am already working for- I am not an expert for hire.

    So, are your clients "little guys" or moneyed interests of the type who in the past supported tort reform?

  5. 10 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Rumors are that Trump’s legal strategy will be to fire his attorneys before the start of the trial next week in hopes of creating yet another delay. Most likely his attorneys are behind it. Hopefully the judge calls bs and doesn’t allow another delay. Of course, if the judge rejects this move, those attorneys will request an opportunity to appeal that ruling. 

    Been tried before, not gonna work.

     

    1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    TIL that if I'm ever testifying in court I can lie my ass off w/ zero repercussions.  

    Thats Nice Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

    Well, if you did it, you would certainly be prosecuted.  😬😬

    We said rare, not never.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 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.

  7. 4 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

    I’m reading that services inflation came in hot. That is not good, but is not surprising given the ridiculous increases in insurance rates. 

    And by the way, we need to get the lawyers under control. The lawsuits are getting out of control. People suck and will sue for anything and everything. 

    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?

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  8. 7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

     

     

    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.

  9. 5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

    I have not read any of the language involving the bond transaction, so I don’t know if the reporting is correct when they say the surety and Trump have agreed that the surety doesn’t really have to pay.

    Video of negotiations to follow.

    IMG_2542.gif.3da60c5fd7411618e3f96e7327c593ac.gif

     

    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.

  11. 6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    the highest court in the land would disagree with you

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

    I have all the respect for you, TwiceHorn and all the real lawdogs on this site. I think what has become painfully obvious to many of us non-attorneys is that while this is apparently following the law for the most part -- Cannon's fuckery aside -- but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots. This stands to reason because the system was set up -- and tweaked over the years -- by this wealthy, ruling class for the most part. Of course the rules will favor this sector of the public.

    These cases against Trump are the highest-profile cases this country has ever seen. Period. There is a massive spotlight being shined on the system and it's forced many of us who don't live it day-after-day like y'all to take a 30,000-foot view and say, "Hey, this system fucking sucks in many ways." Hopefully, we will ultimately get where we need to get. Anything short of Trump convicted and in financial ruins is a loss for this country and the judicial system.

    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.

     

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  13. 15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    Under the Louisiana civil code fraud is never presumed. Silence or inaction, without fraudulent intent, does not constitute fraud. Fraud cannot be predicated upon mistake or negligence, no matter how gross.

    Obviously, Louisiana is only one state. I am actively involved in a bunch of cases against a manufacture.  Fraud is our only remaining available cause of action. You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.  For example, It is well settled that fraud cannot be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events.  And statements promissory in their nature and related to future actions, if not honored, do not constitute actionable fraud without evidence of intent.   

    My earlier comments questioning whether or not some of the bond irregularities constituted fraud were not me minimizing or condoning the Trump teams behavior.  They were merely my opinion of how it would be difficult to prove fraudulent intent - as you cannot assume it.    

    I admit to being ignorant of New York’s fraud, statutes and jurisprudence

     

     

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 24 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

    I like to follow tornado warnings this time of year and local news stations are obligated to cover tornado warnings in their area. On the broadcast side with rabbit ears/cable/YouTubeTV/etc they keep the coverage going without interruption. Well, there's an alarming trend now that while streaming through their website you first have to sit through commercials like you would any other news story.

     

    There is something profoundly American about waiting through a furniture sale ad to see if the F5 is going to hit your house or not.

    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.

  15. 50 minutes ago, Orale said:

    .1 BAC is not very much, even after an hour or two. Hell, that would nearly be legal in Texas 25 or so years ago. 

    Probably a decent argument that 1.5 hours after the crash, it rose to .105 and at the time of the crash was below.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  16. 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. 

  17. 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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  18. 9 hours ago, dcbc said:

    There seems to be the notion that keeps getting floated (not by you) that Trump is being allowed to appeal despite the deficiencies in the bond.  I wasn't aware that a bond was required to appeal.  He's appealing because he's appealing.  The bond isn't a permission slip to appeal.  If he doesn't fix the issues, James can collect before the appeal is done.  If she chooses to wait, that's her decision.

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  19. 32 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Motherfucker this is not a singular instance of fuckery. This has been happening over and over and over and is an established pattern. 

    Yeah and if the bond doesn't actually guarantee a single red cent of cash, then it doesn't actually make a shit. 

     

    You and gatoroubet are counting chickens before they hatch if you think that trumps judgement has been bonded. It fucking hasn't, and he's getting the appeal relief for fucking FREE and playing a confidence game with the court to run the clock. 

    Because you are inclined to trust defendants over the state, you have a blind spot for being taken advantage of by conmen. Trump does not speak in truth. EVER. Why are you choosing to trust a man who lied on the record thousands of times during his presidency?

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  20. 1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

    I mean, even lawyers could see the utter ridiculousness of this motion.  Just because one of the more egregious attempts to delay wasn’t granted doesn’t mean he’s not been the recipient of some extraordinarily lenient shit so far. 
     

    Nevermind the triple negative there. 

    Itemize for us the lenient shit he's gotten from Engoron's court.

    • Haha 1
  21. 16 minutes ago, miguelito said:

    The bullshit part is that the "incompetence" seems to reset the clock, or at least delay any kind of penalty. We know this is Trump's strategy, he's said so publicly.

    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.

    • Like 1
  22. 6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    I would assume a bond would pretty much be boiler plate. Do you really think we should believe that it is common for hundred plus million dollar agreements to be drafted by incompetent dumbasses? 

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...