Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34621
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Oh, that much is very true, but it doesn't need to be high-grade trauma by any stretch of the imagination. There often is, and I don't mean to trivialize that at all. What I meant by crutch is that some people with some trauma believe that if they address that with therapy or whatever, they can avoid doing addiction recovery. And the always-difficult confrontation of the fact that you are an alcoholic or addict. People just resist that with every fiber of their being.
  2. There are plenty of biases in the justice system, but they tend to be more subtle and subjective than post-plea treatment. As a general proposition, a plea leads to a sentence, which may just be straight up imprisonment, or some form of probation, or a mixture. If there's a violation of any probationary part, that leads to the consequences of violating probation, usually imprisonment, but has no effect on the plea. ETA: obviously not trying to tell Foosters anything, but elaborating on the point.
  3. Well, there is a legit possibility of recanting a plea, yes. But, I think you'd have to offer some real evidence of either impairment at the time of the plea. or what lawdogs call a "mistake of fact," which is an underlying fact about something material that the defendant is mistaken about and the prosecution knows they are mistaken about. Would be a tall order, usually. So, given that context, Powell's bleating probably does not provide grounds for revoking the plea.
  4. Haven't been able to find anything stating the terms of her probation/deferred arrangement. It is possible this kind of crap violates it, but unsure. Other than that, the only real possibility here is that the judge or Willis hauls her back in to question the voluntariness of her plea. Legally speaking, she's probably stuck with what she said in open court under oath: that is that she's guilty of the offense pled to and the fact are as she stated under oath. But it is conceivable that if she's noisy enough the plea is revoked as coerced or involuntary. It's certainly not uncommon for pleading defendants to continue to protest their innocence, but most of the time they lack the platform to do it so publicly and nothing comes of it: guilty as charged. Obviously, she's still running the grift and maybe setting herself up to try to avoid disbarment or suspension on the ground that her plea wasn't voluntary, which probably won't work. As outlined above, the only thing the bar has to prove is her conviction, and her only wiggle room is that this isn't the kind of offense for which automatic or "compulsory" disbarment is the remedy. And that ain't gonna work.
  5. Yeah and we need to remember that there are two: one in NY Superior Court by Engoron forbidding statements about court staff, but not about Engoron or others. Trump has now been tagged on that one twice. It has not been stayed and any appeal status is unclear. It's probably so narrow as to be pretty unassailable. The other is Chutkan's in DC, which is broader. Under the Federal Rules, you have to first ask the trial court to stay an order in the nature of an injunction (which is what a gag order is), before you can ask the court of appeals to stay it. It's a bit bizarre, because why would a trial court stay an order it just saw fit to grant, but there it is. Nevertheless, Chutkan did stay her gag order while they briefed the issue of the stay and, as soon as briefing was complete, or maybe before Trumpco replied (usual order of briefing is motion, followed by response, followed by reply, but replies are usually optional and may not be considered), Chutkan lifted the stay and denied the motion for a more formal stay. Now it's teed up for the DC Circuit for a stay pending appeal.
  6. So, one interesting thing about the gag order. Chutkan lifted her stay of it right about the time Trump made the Barr tweet, which could be construed as violating it. If the stay hadn't been lifted, then the order couldn't have been violated. Also, now the fight over staying the gag order moves to the DC Circuit, where there will be basically two issues under consideration: a) how likely is the gag order to be affirmed or upheld, and b) is the harm resulting from it so grave as to merit being stayed pending the appeal. So, the DC Circuit ruling on the stay may be a good preview of the outcome.
  7. I mean, at some point don't you just say "Godalmighty this guy is a whiny bitch." I have heard the notion that he is incredibly "put upon" by his enemies and the deep state, etc. And if I squint, I can see that.
  8. I have had this sense that Sarkisian still cannot believe his eyes with the execution errors. He calls stuff that, if executed, would work, but often isn't executed. He must get these guys doing this stuff pretty routinely in practice only to have it blow up in his face come game time. And it may explain why he a) thinks this will work in game time and b) thinks it's important to attempt and execute, during game time, as opposed to practice. It was worse when the talent was less than it is now, but it still seems like a thing. The simple way to say it is we don't have Alabama talent yet, or early 2000s USC. I think Sark intellectually understands that, but cannot believe the way these guys fuck up his playcalling from time to time.
  9. Saved him from what though?
  10. I was going to disagree with you a bit. I do agree that most are just folks, trying to get by. Some are really tremendous people with incredible work ethics, both for their jobs and community-service type endeavors. A fair number of them are pretty dang sharp, but not all. Where my argument fell apart though, was when I discovered that there are now nearly 110k lawyers in Texas. Holy chit. AFAIK, that's roughly double what it was when we were licensed. I knew it had grown but not that much. Just going by the dozen or so disciplined in the Bar Journal every month, that yields fewer than 0.2% of lawyers disciplined, and a fair number of those just did something dumb (like a lot of criminal types), or were suffering mental health issues (both deserving of discipline, but also second chances, imo), rather than severely bad acts. Even the bad actors I have known or know of that have mostly escaped the lash of the bar or the criminal justice system probably don't raise that number to 1%, even though we know many escape discipline or other sanction.
  11. But Trump's a "successful bidness man," that comes with the territory, like cheating on your taxes.
  12. How the law works has absolutely zero to do with whether lawyers do crimes. No one has ever contended that lawyers don't do crimes. That's just a total straw man. Lawyers do fucking crimes all the time; most of the time, it's straight up crimey crime, not some kind of political crime. No one has ever contended it's golden, untouchable, infallible. But I'll tell you one fucking thing. The law has held up better against Trump that any other US governmental institution. And the places it's falling down are mostly due to Congress' failure to act. Right this minute, you have a Trump-addled House of Representatives in a total shambles. A Senate with a bare majority and a Republican minority that recently failed to convict Trump twice, and according to Romney, has no institutional backbone to stand up to Trump, even though most of them think they should. The Supreme Court has always been Calvinball, but because political systems failed, you now have a super-majority of demagogues that are willing to play Calvinball more openly than any court since the 30s. The Supreme Court isn't law the way it operates in 99% of the rest of the legal world, it's a bizarre intersection of law and politics, where the politics have been historically gently restrained by . . . something . . . that no longer exists. The reality of it is: trial and lower level appeals courts are the only places in America right now where provable facts matter in a way that can affect an outcome.
  13. I'm going to guess it's similar to the problems we had with those teams last year that sold out to stop the run. When we present a credible option through the air everything gets easier. Short fields take that away instead of defensive formations.
  14. Fuck. Cunt. At this point, I think Sarkisian is just forcing it so these fucking nitwits can learn to score.
  15. Amazing. Really couldn't be any other way.
  16. Well, Wenaas seems to be turning it on a little earlier and a little earlier.
  17. That's just the stupidest argument in the history of evar. You're either a witness with relevant testimony, or you're not. Whether you are defendant has little bearing on that question (although most defendants do have relevant testimony).
  18. It's it common to the point or routine that a law firm would deposit these funds on behalf of their client, for a number of reasons. Of course, typically that firm would have received the money from its client before paying. Yeah yeah Trump always stiffs his lawyers. But this is another way in which the game has changed for Donald compared to his old ways of doing civil suits. For one thing, he's paying lawyers with OPM. But for a second, I think his past habits of stiffing law firms have caught up with him. You know damn well sugarbaby Habba is getting paid.
  19. People lie on the witness stand every day. That's not something that leads directly to perjury. It would be impossible to prove what he really meant and therefore that he was lying and committed perjury. That's just one for the fact finder.
×
×
  • Create New...