Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34637
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Bit more context. The rules actually provide for ex parte relief, so that part is according to Hoyle. But, as South Austin observes, one of the ways in which Texas judges have gotten smarter about TROs is to refuse to grant them completely ex parte. Most of the time, they're going to ask you to get the other side on the phone, at the very least. Sometimes they'll set the hearing in a couple of days so any damage is minimized. This is fairly unusual. But, in a pretty non-commercial venue like Llano County, something you might expect, because judges probably don't have much experience with them, compared to the more urban, commercial counties. Politics notwithstanding. Still, I expect there was some kind of "understanding" that this judge would be favorable, so yeah dirty pool. It's only a delay of a couple of weeks, and yeah immediately appealable, but not like most courts of appeal are going to be able to act much faster than 14 days. Still, in this particular context, pretty fucking disgusting.
  2. Good that my experiences, a rather limited sample size, seem to be valid.
  3. So, somewhat astonishingly, Paxton went to a district court in Llano County (Burnet), where one of the whistleblowers lives, and got a TRO against the whistleblower suit proceeding. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/07/ken-paxton-whistleblower/ A bit of broader context. A TRO is granted on a sworn application, often without the judge hearing from the opponent. In the past, I have told clients and people that a Texas state judge would issue a TRO against the earth revolving around the sun if someone would file a sworn affidavit and post a bond. In Texas, a TRO lasts a maximum of 14 days (unless extended by agreement of the parties) and an adversarial hearing is to be conducted in that time to decide whether to maintain or dissolve a TRO. I don't and never have done too much in state courts, but trade-secrets and covenants-not-to-compete were one of those things, and those usually involve TROs. It is my sense, however, that Texas judges have wised up a bit and aren't as free with TROs as they were, say 25 years ago. So, in that context, where TROs can be granted restraining damn near anything because it only lasts two weeks, This is still astonishing. Enjoining a litigation in another court is fairly extraordinary in and of itself (got problems, take em up with the court you're already in). Moreover, the ground for the TRO is that the whistleblowers are in violation of the Settlement Agreement that resulted in the $3M settlement that the lege refused to pay. It's my understanding that that settlement was contingent upon the lege approving the funds. No less authority than the Texas Supreme Court has already sent the case back to the trial court for further litigation after the settlement wasn't consummated. Presumably, that includes a determination that the whistleblowers are entitled to ignore the settlement agreement because the lege didn't pay. This was a "forum shop" but legit as they go because one of the whistleblowers apparently lives in Llano County. But it underscores what a clown show Texas courts can be. The variation in quality of judges is mind-blowing. This I attribute to judicial elections.
  4. Our good friend Chelsea Davis, RIP, erstwhile patent lawyer and florid bipolar schizophrenic, was a TCA grad. ETA: Correction, Clark, son of Lamar, current owner of KC Chiefs, went to St. Marks, not TCA.
  5. Texas History is full of misfit white guys doing whatever the fuck they want, other people or the environment be damned. Well a lot of oil fortunes, which is really what Texas is "about," were made in the early 20th century when education wasn't really a thing here, or much of anywhere. And, the persistence of an oil man back then, despite overwhelming failure, is probably not something a lot of educated men would have possessed (meaning mighty close to stupidity or recklessness).
  6. Well, remember, too, that he was school-aged from about 1900-1908. But also read this. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/daddys-money/
  7. In contrast to the "witness control" on cross-examination of hostile (not favorable or not your) witnesses, when you do direct examination of your witnesses, you want them to narrate their testimony without excessive prompts from you. It makes a more persuasive story (and you aren't permitted leading questions on direct). But your opponent will object successfully if your witness goes on too long, or wanders into irrelevance. Can be a tough thing. A lot of the time, it can be hard to get witnesses to do that at all. But holy shit, what a disaster Trump would be.
  8. You really probably should know who is HL Hunt, as a Texan. And by extension, his children, legitimate and otherwise. Should actually google him up, some interesting aspects to the story and legit (not Trump) richest man in the world for a lot of his adult life.
  9. Uh no. Awl men. Spawn of H. L. Hunt. Herbert, Bunker and Lamar, owner of the Chiefs. Although I think Lamar may not have been involved in the silver heist. Or was the chief. Clarkie, current owner of the Chiefs, went to TCA, which looks quite sane these days, for a private religious school, AFAIK. HL was a white supremacist piece of shit, but he was also born in 1889. He'd fit right in today, though.
  10. Our good friends here in Texas, the Hunt brothers, basically invented the "predatory lending/lender liablilty" lawsuit when the banks called in their silver loans.
  11. So, update on Trump's motions to dismiss. The only serious one is the presidential immunity one, because it is writing on a blank slate. The others are First Amendment and selective prosecution that are borderline frivolous. The government has responded to all of them, and done a very good job. I was worried about one aspect of the immunity motion and that is the appeal. Immunity often carries with the immunity to liability, the immunity from having to stand trial, which sometimes means even pretrial proceedings, pending an appeal. But the government points out that the immunity in addition to liability is just to standing trial, not pre-trial proceedings. In a civil case, it can mean discovery and the 'active" aspects of civil pretrial stuff, but not in a criminal case. So, that would seem to mean that the case will proceed but not actually go to trial as long as an appeal is pending (Supreme Court doesn't count here unless they specifically order a stay of the case).
  12. There's your answer. At that time, DB probably had some bigger fish to fry with CDOs and CDSs.
  13. On the responsiveness to questions, that's usually something counsel will bring up first, making an objection. At some point, the judge might take over in admonishing the witness to answer the questions, but it's the primary responsibility of the questioning lawyer. Lawdogs call it "witness control." It can be tough to do without looking to a jury like you're bullying the witness or being unfair. Because this is a bench trial, though, Engoron didn't want to listen to a bunch of shit and took it upon himself. Apparently, though, he let up when he realized counsel wasn't really objecting. Sometimes you just want to go ahead and let the witness prattle on.
  14. They never married in solidarity with LGBQT colleagues. Dad is a fairly normal lookin dude. He apparenltly is both a respected scholar and a wildly popular professor. I think she's just the former. Academic romances/relationships, man.
  15. One other thing, there is a danger of the "rest of us" becoming complacent in our fear and loathing of Trump. Dodd did a lot to keep that fire burning. But I think these criminal prosecutions and his absurd behavior relating thereto is also having an energizing effect on the anti-Trump base. It sure as hell is me, and I have been susceptible to voter apathy and "fuck em both." Quite often in fact, as recently as 2016.
  16. Well, there's sort of a neverland or through the looking glass aspect to this case. We all know, and his lenders probably better than us, that his SFC are self-aggrandizing bullshit of the purest ray serene. Your last paragraph probably best represents the bizarre truth. But, at least for the portion of the case in which summary judgment has been granted there doesn't need to be proof of intent to induce them to loan with the SFC or reliance on the SFC. Just that he used demonstrably false documents in business transactions. The facts seem to be that the banks gave all his assets a sizable "haircut" during the underwriting process. It also seems that the initial valuations were so out of whack that the haircut didn't even get to the real value, so the banks did actually take on excess risk and probably granted more favorable terms than had the SFC's been reasonable in the first place. But, his admission that he intended and understood the banks would rely on his SFCs, despite all the fairly obvious bullshit and the DISCLAIMERRR, does shore up a lot of all this. And probably helps support giving him "death penalty" remedies.
  17. Absolutely preposterous argument. Trump gets to offer whatever explanation or bloviation during "cross-examination" by his attorneys. That's the way this has always worked unless the cross-examining attorney asks an incredibly unfair question (when did you stop beating your wife?).
  18. No doubt. And Engoron knows it and he's handling it well, I think. Good judge.
  19. As has been explained multiple times on this thread, a sitting President is immune from criminal and most civil investigation and liability. He couldn't have been indicted or sued until some point after January 20, 2021. Investigating and preparing civil suits and indictments takes some time, so, give or take a year or so, at the outside, the timing of the suits and indictments was inevitable.
  20. Yeah, more popular with the assholes that already support him don't make a shit.
  21. The point here is not Trump's popularity. It is that he is finally being called to account for a long history of lawlessness. Politics aside, that has it's own merit.
  22. According to CNN, no. Apparently NY courts are as hostile as federal courts to cameras in the courtroom.
  23. “Mr. Kise, can you control your client?” he says, right on time. “This is not a political rally.” He asks Kise to have a talk with Trump right now. So, I thought they were called by the plaintiff? Is the state questioning? ETA: Yes the state is questioning. I was just distracted by the involvement of Kise. I assume that he is a "hostile witness," which means the state gets to ask "leading" or yes or no-type questions as if on cross-examination. Those type of questions do not invite a narrative answer, which is what Trump is doing and is impermissible under the rules, assuming the judge and questioning lawyer object.
  24. Well, from the trial itself, he's already been found liable for this odd species of business fraud, which apparently triggers the remedies of cancellation of his entities' authorization to do business in NY. Exactly where that goes is a bit hard to tell, but it's not good for him and his properties located in NY. It also triggers a financial penalty in the form of "disgorgement" of his ill-gotten gains. Apparently, the kind of max number there is $250M, which ain't chump change. We'll see what the court awards. There will, of course, be an appeal. And, as has already been indicated, I suspect that's going to hold off any liquidation of Trump's businesses, and the actual collection of any financial penalty, subject to his posting a bond for it. This has already been appealed a couple of times, and, so far, Engoron's rulings have mostly held up. As I have stated previously, I am a little worried that the court of appeals may reverse or modify some of the more punitive remedies awarded. It may, it may not, but I think it's a legitimate concern. Appeal to the highest civil court in NY is discretionary, so I don't really know the odds of it making it to the second level of appeal. US Supreme Court review is pretty much 100% off the table.
  25. Kind of along this line, I saw this article on AP. https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-fraud-lawsuit-business-empire-bd06bf8db3a14a9d2f10eb69b300c1d3 I had misunderestimated how many times Trump had testified in various cases, meaning those cases went to trial. So, he wasn't always able to delay, delay, delay, settle, but I still think that was his number one tactic and that wound up keeping him out of the fact-based venue that is an American court room. I think, though, that in the past he was less pressured than he is now and probably also just generally more sane than he is now. Also, actually, probably more tethered to reality and to facts than he is now.
×
×
  • Create New...