Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34428
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 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.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    It's crazy what's going on the trump bond. Further investigation and journalism have turned up some crazy shit that no mere middle class person would never have access to:

    So trump is pushing a week past his bond date, has submitted a false and fraudulent bond that doesn't do what he says it does, and is facing zero fucking consequences for it.

     

    There's a different set of rules and laws for you if you're rich enough. It's fucking enraging.

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-and-gas-companies-seek-esg-loans-pledging-emissions-cuts-11672147496

    From a series of similar articles, it appears that O&G is voluntarily implementing ESG measures to attract investment and avoid shareholder backlash. 

    https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/esg-financing-takes-flight-in-north-american-oil-gas-pipeline-sector-65099299

    One bank is phasing out upstream lending entirely. https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/Press-releases/ING-takes-next-steps-on-energy-financing-after-COP28.htm

    And it does appear that that is a trend constraining O&G lending.  Sounds good to me. 

  4. Fun story about me and semicolons. When I was in high school writing essays, I'd get these comments from teachers like "great point say more." I was confused because I thought usually my point was self-evident and did not require elaboration. 

    Later on bearing this in mind, I apparently started crafting dense, complex sentences to pack in more of the requested information. 

    Finally, in my last year of law school in an advanced writing class, Terri LeClercq, truly one of the Texas Law greats, pointed out my complex sentences and suggested that I retreat to very simple sentences and then perhaps combine them with semi colons to increase readability and comprehension and avoid the see spot run problem.   Still use to this day. 

    This is mostly a tribute to Dr. LeClercq. 

    https://cla.utexas.edu/english/news/alumna-terri-leclercq-fights-uphill-battle-to-preserve-prisoners-rights

    • Hook 'Em 6
  5. 2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    And what you saw isn't a crime until a court says it is. That's what y'all seem to not understand. In your mind, he's guilty, and you're playing judge, jury, and executioner. But we don't do these things that way here and for very good reasons. And if you even give the appearance of doing so, you hand-deliver to Trump everything he wants.

    You're trying to make this simpler than it really is and very conveniently forgetting some very important things. And by doing so, you are being the very authoritarians you are accusing Trump of being.

    We don't get to stop playing by the rules just because they stop. Otherwise, we're hypocrites, full of shit, and deserve to lose.

    Well in some cases, the crimes are obvious.  But at least to a lawdog, what was televised on J6 wasn't necessarily a crime.  We know that "incitement to riot or violence" isn't really a thing unless it's pretty explicit. 

    • Like 1
  6. 29 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

    This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

    In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

    And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way. 

  7. 17 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    My problem with this, specifically with January 6th, is WE ALL SAW HIM COMMIT THE OFFENSE IN REAL TIME.  Oh, maybe he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol?  YES HE DID.  WE ALL WATCHED IT.

    It's just frustrating to have to pretend all this shit didn't happen because of some decorum of "law" that has to be followed because reasons and slippery slopes.  God dammit, the motherfucker was on video.  

    I guarantee if someone were on video assassinating a president, that person would be in prison until trial and I bet the trial would be over within weeks.  But nope, this motherfucker gets to run for president instead.

    The problem with that is that what he did on January 6, alone, is not a crime.  You have to know and be able to prove his intention on January 6, which includes all the background activity and run-up to January 6.  None of that was on video, but apparently some of it was on audio.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  8. Which variant of e-shifting? My best riding buddy converted his GX to AXS and seems pleased. 

    The engineer in me is intrigued by Transmission. On the other hand, I am currently rocking Deore and quite pleased with it.  Unless my bike gets stolen again, I can't see myself adopting any e-shifting, unless it's a Sramano deal, which I do understand works just fine (GX AXS with Shimano cassette). 

  9. 26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    And maybe you can understand the immense frustration of people who have built their entire lives and careers on navigating known and knowable rules, now being told the fucking rules of the game are Calvinball.  There have been quite a few occasions when I am simply unable to give my clients sound advice, to tell them what the likely outcome of a situation is.  I can literally ask the question "what would be the most popular outcome on Fox News?", and that's what will fucking happen.

    The problem with the fucking authoritarian shitbag Trumpists is that they want to change the rules to have just one rule: "the most powerful group does whatever the fuck it wants."  The problem is, they're so fucking dumb and short-sighted that they can't even conceive of the reality that even if they are the dominant group today, they won't be the dominant group forever.  And once you've made "he who has the power does what he wants" the rule....and you've spent the past several years cruelly imposing your will on everyone else....well, payback is a fucking BITCH.

    All the MAGAs are doing is guaranteeing lots of pain and blood....their own included, eventually.

    I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.

  10. 22 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

    The representative from the great state of Georgia has the floor...
     

     

    Maybe it means the end times are upon us, Marge.  So, you best get your cracker ass in good with the Jews and get you some space lasers.

    Goddamn crazy cooze.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 20 hours ago, closetojumping said:

    Again, take this FWIW, but allegedly he’s not signing an agreement with a moral clause in it, so the board has to meet and approve the contract. Additionally the background check has already come back with multiple accounts involving heavy alcohol usage. I mean, they’ll hire him anyway, if any of that is even true. 

    I want the moral clause thing to be true because that is the kind of college sports/SEC coaching villainy that I find highly entertaining. I’m not cheering on any addiction problems, to be clear. I’m enjoying the notion that Petrino probably required them to waive the morals clause too. Please let it be so. 

    As a recovering addict myself, trying to get a moral turpitude clause excluded is really bad news.  That means you know and acknowledge on several levels that alcohol or other drugs are adversely affecting your life and are trying to avoid the consequences of that.

    I'm not judgy of addicts much, but there comes a point when they know they need help and for whatever reason they're declining it and continuing to do things that adversely affect their lives and attempting to avoid consequences.  That deserves judgment, imo.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  12. No doubt all of us lawdogs have had a shitty opponent and a judge that is slow to or refuses to rein them in or punish them. 

    It's one of several frustrations that lawdogs endure from various sources. One of the primary ones being general slowness, which is an electoral problem moreso than inherent to the courts. You just have to accept some of it. 

    In the civil context, big-picture perspective generally requires you to accept or understand that it's about money (far less so principle most often) and thus not that big a deal in the grand scheme most of the time. 

    And as ponderous as the system may be, it reaches the "right" result more often than not. Right is in quotations there because right is often or always dictated by the laws passed by the legislature, which can be pretty far from right sometimes. 

    For those who have the luxury of not having to participate in it or pay close attention, I'm sure it's extra-frustrating. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. 1 hour ago, The Dog said:

    I no lawdog but the filing by NY AG gave Trump 10 days to respond. 

    I'm guessing that if the guys who put up the bond can't prove they have the cash to meet it then it will be rejected. Then the question is does another clock start or can James start collecting immediately? 

    and it's only going to get worse for him before it gets better. we're 10 days from the stormy daniels criminal trial starting and those bill rates are going to skyrocket.

    I think technically until a bond is posted successfully and any court orders extending the 30-day "deadline" are expired, James must hold off on further collection efforts and would probably do so, prudentially, until the bond tussle is over, either with or without a bond. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    I was thinking the same thing about summary judgment in civil cases.  I'm not up to speed on federal, criminal practice, but as far as objecting pre-trial to jury questions, it seems like you'd still have to have a charge conference after the presentation of evidence so that you could object at that point based on lack of evidentiary support.

     

    As alternatives, I guess you could try to make a pretrial motion for directed verdict on a defensive theory unsupported in the law, which clearly has been raised at this point.

     

    Or, you could seek mandamus relief after the charge conference, but that's far from ideal with the jury cooling its heels after the presentation of evidence with it's collective memory of what it heard fading.

     

    I'm rarely surprised when civil cases get procedurally FUBAR as time goes on.  Criminal cases usually have other weirdness, but are procedurally normalized.

    I went and skimmed some of the cases cited by the government.  In the main one, the government asked the judge to declare the applicable law, which he did, erroneously and they sought mandamus, which was granted and the judge ordered to vacate the erroneous order and issue one consistent with the law that the appeals court determined.

    If she simply denied such a motion as premature, that would be grounds for mandamus, I'd think, but whether the 11th Circuit would reach the issue of actual applicability of the PRA seems uncertain at best.  They might rule that she has to rule, necessitating another appeal/mandamus.  The 11th Circuit has  shown a willingness to expedite those appeals, however, so that's nice.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    I still think styling it as a motion in limine is the wrong move because a such is not a final determination on admissibility (be it of a legal theory or evidence to support it) and it doesn't get decided until the argument gets reurged at trial.  I'd probably style it as a pretrial motion to exclude any and all evidence offered in support of the PRA defensive theory because the PRA has no applicability here.  Sure, maybe some evidence could be offered for another purpose, but you try to get her to rule on the question of law and if she doesn't you can file your petition for writ of mandamus pretrial.  After that, you could file a motion in limine as to the defenses mentioning PRA defensive theory itself.  If she's already dodged that by saying any underlying evidence could be offered for another purpose, you've at least got her backed into a corner.

     

    Honestly, I think the current refusal to rule may be enough to take it up, but it's certainly not a lock. 

     

    It's a sticky wicket, as they say.

    In his response thing to the jury instructions order, he did note that there is case law supporting the idea that the judge must rule on jury instructions with sufficient time to take appeal/mandamus if the instructions are flawed, before jeopardy attaches.  I didn't read the cases, but it was somewhat heartening to see that the judge can't seem to push everything off until after the jury is sworn, effectively insulating it from review.

    In a civil case, this would be perfect for summary judgment.  There is no summary judgment in criminal cases.  I don't know what the substitute vehicle for this kind of issue is.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  16. 7 hours ago, dcar00 said:

    staff is ass and hitting is whatever.  this is what they are.

    What's infuriating is, for average, we have six regular hitters above .300, one over .400, and four with ops over 1.000.  There have been long stretches when we would have killed for that kind of output.

    But situationally, when the pitching shits the bed, so does the offense.

    It's uncanny.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...