Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34493
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 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
  2. 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). 

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 59 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    But if she grants it, they come to the bench, offer to admit it at that point, and she grants the admission, the jury has already been empaneled and jeopardy has attached. 

    Fuuuuck.  

    Edit to add that that is somewhat common with evidentiary MIL, maybe not so much with the question of law type. But it would be a helluva yoink. 

    • Prepare your anus 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Foosters said:

    I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

    Interesting question. I think you can mandamus the failure to rule, but that is a less severe error than making the wrong ruling and less likely to be overturned. However given the stakes and the potential for her refusing to rule on jury instructions and MIL before jeopardy attaches, there might be some traction there. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. On 4/1/2024 at 11:44 AM, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    I'm a little suspect of a place offering a hard to get, extremely popular now medication at a walk in clinic for way less than other places. Something doesn't add up there.

    Very likely also patent infringement and pharma doesn't tend to fuck around with that.  The FDA might have some questions, as well. 

  14. Just now, Foosters said:

    I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

    The latter is the rub. There needs to be some sort of ruling to appeal. Currently, there isn't one.

    A motion in limine is usually filed on the eve of trial but there is nothing that says it has to be. They are also usually evidentiary in nature, while this one would be more to resolve something as a matter of law (PRA does not apply here). 

    But I think her denial of one would give Smith the ruling he needs. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 1 hour ago, safe sex said:

    Seems like a judge that doesn't have a good support staff around her and has made several really questionable decisions would be a great candidate for reassignment

    Maybe. But when I said reason, I meant also that the judge is recused on motion by a party or requests that the case be reassigned. It's highly unusual for a chief judge to just reassign based on her own evaluation. Sometimes it happens based on redistributing case load. 

    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals could conceivably remand after appeal to another judge. They are not really constrained by much. 

  16. 43 minutes ago, C-Man said:

    And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

    We don't know what he was thinking. However, I believe venue would have been proper anywhere within the Southern District of Florida, although Trump could have asked to move it closest to his residence and where the acts occurred, which is her court. So educated speculation is that Smith filed it in the most "proper" venue to avoid all that.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

     

    Cannon was given this case for a reason -- loyalty, inexperience or stupidity all aid Trump's efforts to delay this past the 11/5 election. His only way to "win" is to win back POTUS and he can snap his fingers and make the legal shit go away. Delaying past 11/5 is winning in a sense because there's no way he beats the rap in all these trials if they're legitimately tried.

    She was "given" this case mostly because she's the sole judge in the Fort Pierce Division. There's another judge from another division that takes some cases there, but apparently not many because he has to travel to that courthouse. 

    The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  18. 1 minute ago, dcbc said:

    Right.  Isn't that the subject of the dumb jury instruction submitted by Donald?

    Well she actually ordered both sides to prepare jury instructions modifying 18 USC 793 with the PRA, which Smith contends is a grievous error of law. And Trumpco loves. 

    It's fucking nuts. 

    • Rage+1 1
  19. 3 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    Under ordinary circumstances, I tend to agree with the idea that you don't lock down jury instructions at this stage of the proceedings.  But trial judges also tend not to ask the parties to submit jury instructions (or briefing thereon) at this stage of the proceedings.  So to the extent that she is entertaining an instruction that does not comport with the law (despite her statement that she is not) and to the extent that such an error (if she gave that instruction) could not be appealed be the government since jeopardy already attached, her refusal to rule might be properly subject to mandamus review.

     

    She brought the question about the jury charge.  Her saying now that it shouldn't be interpreted as anything but her trying to learn about this novel case is like her holding a lighted match near a pile of gasoline soaked rags and saying, "Don't worry.  I just wanted to see if these matches were any good."

    Yep. Ironic that she chides Smith for asking for an early resolution on the jury instructions THAT SHE FUCKING ORDERED THEM TO SUBMIT. 

    Also the denial of the motion to dismiss is somewhat inconsistent with the jury instructions ruling. 

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  20. 12 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

    But, she’s got help…she’s not doing this by herself….imho.

    I dunno man.  You'd really think her clerks would at least question what she's doing. But a dumbshit may hire dumbshit clerks.

    And to be somewhat fair, neither the PRA itself or the court decisions nibbling around the edges of it are particularly clear about how the overall process works.  Another unfortunate thing is that there is a pretty long history of questioning the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Espionage Act, particularly as applied to the press, so looking askance at it is not wholly unwarranted.  My/our hero Steve Vladeck ironically gave testimony to Congress about the Espionage Act being a bit of a shit show about 10 years ago.  https://irp.fas.org/congress/2010_hr/051210vladeck.pdf

    Still, as is well known, I try to follow this shit in fair detail.  I'm probably not the greatest legal mind and I do have a pretty hardcore anti-Trump bias, but this shit just doesn't seem that difficult.

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