Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34492
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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. 

  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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. 

  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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. 

  21. 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
×
×
  • Create New...