Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34528
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Yeah, so fucked up. The guy has no moral or political compass of any kind, even a corrupt or twisted one. He's in it for power and self-aggrandizement, even moreso than grift, but that surely helps. In the process has become a tool for kooks that sell him on twisted versions of America that play to his weaknesses.
  2. Seems too that constant rotation of the players, sometimes seen as beneficial, might be exacerbating the problem. Scip, Gerry, and Bobby all mentioned that.
  3. I don't really agree on the Big XII refs. The only Big XII ref out there seems to be Aileen Cannon. Everyone else is playing it according to Hoyle, or with an additional dose of Trump skepticism, at least as pertains to Trump. But yeah, a lot of these problems are traced to Congress, not to the legal system: it's underfunded, Congress won't pass a criminal law that can really be used against government officials (or can't be given a clever name to deal with the moral panic du jour, SeX TraFFIcKing, or whatever), they killed off the special counsel statute that got special prosecutors truly independent from OAG, and so on and so forth. Captainant's biggest problem is that he thinks an article in Vanity Fair, or something he "saw with his own EYES" translates into proof sufficient to sustain a conviction at the trial level and on appeal. What he verily believes just doesn't get you there. And that is also a common problem of the board. I DREAMT IT IN MY HEAD, why not done. And when the difficulties of indicting and convicting on a criminal case where the laws don't quite exactly fit the crimes, or disbarring Sidney Powell for unprecedented actions, he just bears down on the stubborn I SEEN IT IN MY HEAD and then goes off on tangents about other problems with the justice system. And then he accuses those who understand and explain why it is the way it is, for better or worse, of not seeing the forest for the trees. The forest is the trees. Without the trees, there's no forest. You can't change the laws on the fly to secure a desirable result. That's just not the way it works. You can sit there and wish it were different, but that's just pissing in the wind.
  4. One thing i have become aware of recently is that the discipline process seems more tilted now to district court proceedings, or at least they are easier to invoke than before. And the 'probable cause" review of grievances seems unduly convoluted. At least compared to the last system. I do tend to think that something other than the usual district court proceedings are more appropriate. NY got to Giuliani pretty quick, but they seem to be taking their time making anything final. California seems to be about on the same schedule with Eastman.
  5. Hmmm, that seems to be a fairly credible account, but I am unaware of any ground on which a pardon, delivered and accepted, can be revoked or overturned.
  6. Already raised that hypothetical. It does bring to mind that sometimes the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors can be pretty arbitrary. In the way only legislatures can be arbitrary. In many or most circumstances, it seems like you really ought to consider the nature of the crime.
  7. Well, I can make an educated guess as to this: For many years into the future, Alex Jones' life is going to be a series of interrogatories to answer under oath, requests for production, motions to compel responses to same with attorneys fees and sanctions for failure to respond or respond truthfully, and depositions about what he's done with his money. Add in lawsuits against his friends, family and any business associates he gave any substantial sum of money. And lots and lots of attorneys fees. That won't be pleasant at all, even for a psychopath like him.
  8. Maybe worth mentioning here, but any time you file a bankruptcy, your assets become part of the bankruptcy estate, which is managed at least theoretically by the bankruptcy Trustee for the benefit of creditors. That means, typically, that you can't buy, sell, or obtain credit without the consent of the Trustee or his/her designee. And any sneaky-snake transactions subject you to the usual state-law remedies (fraudulent transfer) some extra bankruptcy remedies, and criminal prosecution for bankruptcy fraud, which is srs business. In Chapter 11 proceedings, though, the debtor remains in possession of these assets (really probably all Chapters, at least until they are sold), and can continue to operate the business of the debtor under light court supervision (creditors and other interested parties are able to object to management and spending decisions, but it tends to be kind of a "business judgment rule" thing where the debtor entity continues to spend at its usual high, if not profligate, rates, ostensibly to run the business for the benefit of the creditors). This of course makes a certain amount of sense when the debtor in possession is J&J and a whole lot less sense when the debtors are Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems. More often than not, creditors are going to be better off with J&J as an ongoing business dedicating some of its revenue to satisfying credtors than in a fire-sale liquidation. Not necessarily true of Jonesco. So that kind of explains why Jones has been permitted to run his businesses like a drunken sailor. Because that's the way they always have been run and have made a fairly astonishing amount of money. I do believe there have been some efforts to rein in his personal and business spending that have been successful. Also, I believe these rulings are related only to his personal bankruptcy, so these judgment creditors will be able to pursue Jones to the grave. However, they probably do not apply to his business(es) that are in bankruptcy. So, FSS, which I am virtually certain is in Chapter 11, may make a provision in its plan to pay, say 50% of the judgments over the next 10-20 years, but any unpaid balance they can still chase Jones himself for. That might be the best of both worlds for the plaintiffs: be relatively assured of some money at least, while they harasseth and eat out the substance of Alex Jones.
  9. Yes. When there's any judgment of any size, if the appellant (party appealing) wants to "stay" or temporarily halt efforts to collect a judgment, they must file a bond in at least the amount of the judgment (usually judgment plus post-judgement interest, and maybe attorneys fees). Trump filed one in the Carroll case. The fun part is that no one grants these like bail bonds, on a percentage, You almost always have to put up the cash, either directly deposited with the court or with a financial institution who issues a bond or similar instrument to the court. I don't remember hearing about it, but I guess Jones appealed the TX and CT verdicts? Unfortunately, here, the bankruptcy prevents collection actions during the pendency of the bankruptcy, so he probably didn't attempt to post any bonds in those appeals, not that he could have. The bankruptcy does, however, impose some limitations on his ability to transfer assets without committing bankruptcy fraud. Unfortunately, it doesn't impose too many restraints on what he/his companies can do with current income. An underlying assumption of knowledge here: Once you have a judgment from a civil court, unless it's a small amount or a Fortune 500 defendant, you are probably going to have to continue judicial proceedings to collect that judgment, including discovery (depositions, production of documents, etc.) of the identity, location, and recent "disposition" of any assets. It's quite a pain in the ass, unfortunately. And if you have a multi-million or billion dollar judgment against anyone, it's going to be a pain in the ass getting all of it. See Texaco filing bankruptcy in light of the Pennzoil case; see also Smith International filing bankruptcy in light of the Hughes Tool Co. patent judgment and many other examples.
  10. Yes. But there are easier ways to punch through the privilege like the presence of non lawyer non clients like Flynn and Byrnes at their meetings. Also the fat piece of shit may actually be right. Trump wasn't a party to her shitty lawsuits so not a client that way. If he had appointed her special counsel that would not have made him her client.
  11. I think to one degree or another, the sustained lack of success for a decade or more is acutely known to these players. Unlike say OU, where there are team members that were on a 10-win team, there aint any at Texas and haven't been for a long time. Hell, most of the recruits probably took their offers on the notion that they would help Texas "get back." So, the vets have no winning tradition and have been learning a new system, the new guys are just new and young, and learning a new system. So, I think there's a lot of room for self-doubt and a lot of pressure to execute. And when that doesn't happen for sometimes seemingly inexplicable reasons (the whole Worthy Ewers failure last year), it gets to be kind of insidious. For better or worse, Sark's and PKs schemes don't allow for unbridled aggression. They have to keep their heads to succeed. So, Sark is in a bit of a spot psychologically. He could try to ramp them up into pscychopaths, but they probably wouldn't execute very well. And I think some of them may be overwound as it is trying to execute. So, yeah, maybe do "have fun." That's what I mean by frail.
  12. Except this isn't factually correct. The order was entered in response to the post he failed to take down in one place. Any court is going to have to work its way up by progressive sanctions.
  13. Well, as we've established, some of this stuff just doesn't fit squarely into crimes. So, it is a form of punishment. I certainly get that.
  14. What about drug crimes that probably shouldn't be felonies, or maybe crimes at all? What about the ones where the prosecution/court sees fit to grant deferred adjudication, where if "probation" is completed successfully it's not a conviction at all, much less a felony? Is there any nuance in your world?
  15. Nah, 2005 wiped that slate clean, pretty much. It was his bitchassedness after 2009 that causes all the hate. I'm a little bit surprised that he went back to coaching and had any success. I think that shows that the atmosphere here, particularly the administration and powers-that-be (swidt?) that contributed to Mack's demise somewhat moreso than the man himself.
  16. This is a really popular theme out there, maybe "as any other" makes it accurate. I'm sure anyone has proffered even an anecdote that this is true. I've seen lawyers severely disciplined (disbarred and suspended) in cases where I thought it was unwarranted. I've seen others receive less severe sanctions that I thought were waayyy to lenient, but, hearteningly followed shortly thereafer by disbarment because the dufuses in question just couldn't help themselves. The Sidney Powell case does not support this notion. She's going through the same process that any other lawyer subject to discipline undergoes, with generally the same diligence. It does seem the Bar fucked up the case against her, somewhat inexplicably. But it's not some vast conspiracy to protect Trumpist lawyers. It's mostly because it's a unique case and not the kind of thing the Bar is used to proving up. Some lawyers, being lawyers, are going to push the Bar to its limits in defending/opposing discipline, probably moreso than any other profession except maybe doctors. The bulk of them take their lumps in silence, due to shame or a simple inability to fight.
  17. Doesn't sound like a collarbone, don't think you can really play through that. Not sure a separation is much better in terms of recovery time. Stinger? Bruised pec or something?
  18. But, but, let Twice give you all the reasons why it's proper. Oh fuck off. It's not proper in every case just like automatic anything is rarely propert in every case. About 99% of the time, at least in Texas, it's automatic. Most felons have no desire or ability to challenge it, or the grounds to do so.
  19. Yes that's possible. But a verbal agreement, even with the feds, isn't worth the paper it's written on. And the more concrete the understanding, the more likely it would have been mentioned in her plea colloquy. The state has a vital interest in getting those agreements before the court, because a plea is ultimately a contract: she breaches any of those agreements, the plea is set aside and the full charges reinstated. She may just have been gambling to avoid a felony conviction now and take her chances with the feds later on. This is all pretty rank speculation.
  20. Coupe other potential upsets brewing right now, too, and also earlier today. They may not or did not happen just like UH didn't happen to us today, but there it is.
  21. I guess that's it, so too Wyoming, Rice, Baylor, and KU, because the D was looking like it had really turned the corner after getting the right personnel in the right places. Still, I haven't had a lot of confidence in our secondary at all, and that's been shown to be correct. Although we've been operating with some pretty significant injuries. I didn't realize Barron was out today until the second half. I knew Watts was dubious and he's just one guy, but one decent CB can help a lot. I knew Catalon was banged up, but didn't know he was out, too, although he's not much of a weapon against the pass.
  22. Sorry, but, this strikes at the heart of something I am most passionate about, and that's giving addicts a break and a second chance. Some other folks that have made galactic mistakes, also. This is my greatest piece of 12th step work to date and I am proud of it. Not a single solitary minute of this was billed to her, by me or the colleagues that helped me with it. It was a labor of love (not for her). I get kind of lathered up about it. Thank God the republican Supreme Court was a lot saner then and thank God for Deborah Hankinson who assembled a majority that didn't include cunts Priscilla Owen, Greg Abbott, or Nathan Hecht. Did include Cornyn, though, so he has a small lifetime break from me.
×
×
  • Create New...