Jump to content

Gatorubet

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    10544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Gatorubet

  1. On 2/5/2024 at 8:26 PM, RDCanecutter said:

    The bartender there would pour it into a wine glass, like a quadruple shot at least. 5 bucks. D'you member? I member.

    IMG_2625.png.40e91e437f272ea18bf04b7b952bdacb.png

    This ain't one body's story. It's the story of us all. We got it mouth-to-mouth. So you got to listen it and 'member. 'Cause what you hears today you got to tell the birthed tomorrow.

    • Drool 1
  2. 8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    I agree with Helobious on this, many Gen Z folks are on social media but mostly listening. They’ll have an Insta page with maybe three photos and a few stories that they use to follow everyone, then have a small private page with a nickname where they post uncurated stuff for close friends

    I have to tell you that this very thing has revolutionized E discovery in litigation.  Details about your case that used to be impossible to discover are now sometimes easily found in detail in electronic media that the parties thought were safe and private.

    Gender and race discrimination at work are notoriously difficult to prove, as any marginal reason that the incidents were somehow work related will get a defendant off.  also, the other employees do not want to lose their job by testifying in their former co-employees favor.  

    I had a good judge allow me access to a defendants personal home computer after a showing of probable cause that he may have discussed his work activities privately. Holy shit, not only did he mention it - he gleefully discussed and gloated about it to his idiot racist friends.

    The case settled, bigly, but 25 years ago it would’ve been dismissed for lack of evidence.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Haha 1
  3. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Really too early to say.  

    Remember, this is the prosecution's case-in-chief.  This is the good guys' story.  And it doesn't really sound like Trumpco is making a lot of dents in it on cross.  But we haven't got to Cohen, yet.  Sounds like Bove, at least, is a pretty skilled examiner.  They may really butcher Cohen.

    In a normal trial, at least, things don't look so rosy during the defense's case-in-chief.  However, Trump world people are just full of shit and don't seem to make a good case, so maybe not.

    We'll see.

    All very true.  But I have to think the cross examinations where they misled the jury about some of the documents is going to leave a mark.   When the jury figures out you are flat trying to mislead them on easily disapproval lies, they tend to remember that.   

    The biggest problem they have is that Cohen is really a moron, and his anger at Trump will likely lead him to exaggerate and deny things that he shouldn’t.    If I did his direct, I would simply have him identify the documents and corroborate exactly the testimony of pecker.    

    Every time they cross him on false statements he previously made he needs to reply with two canned statements after agreeing: 1) “Don’t believe me now? Then look at the documents and see the fact that once Trump got elected nobody cared anymore”, and 2) “ lying at Trump’s direction made me a convicted felon - so I can’t say I did not lie…. But do you really think a lawyer taking out a HELOC loan for his client to pay a porn star is a normal business transaction not related to his election chances?”

    But I doubt he will be able to do that. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  4. 8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    I’m even more mystified about the goat story. You decided your farm needed an intact billy and then you got angry when it became a massive stinky asshole that attacked anything that got near it? Why did you get and keep the goat? What kind of farmer are you to be surprised at this? 

    We should spread stories that she had sex with the goat until it became impotent.  Like LBJ said when told that spreading a story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals was not true, LBJ said “let’s get the son of a bitch to deny it.”

    • Haha 5
  5. 10 hours ago, Helobious said:

    This thread has shown me how wildly different hookup culture is now. I can’t relate to any of this. A lot of what I’m reading sounds like a way to fast track yourself to prison. 

    We have to define drunk.  I see ads on TV that say buzzed driving is drunk driving (which is true). But buzzed driving is dangerous because there is a lack of awareness and a slowing of reaction time.  it has nothing to do with being so out of it you cannot consent.   Two people having sex after three glasses of wine is different than someone who raped a passed out woman.  Comparing the two would be ridiculous.      In the first example they are slightly buzzed consenting adults, and in the second example the piece of shit needs to go to jail for a long, long time and be registered as a sex offender. 

    if under today’s standards, you can’t have sex if you’re slightly inebriated, that would remove a ton of sexual experiences for older guys.  

    that said, you don’t hit on women you know are minors, you don’t hit on women who are so stoned or intoxicated they cannot consent, and it does not matter if a woman changes her mind after taking off all of her clothes. No means no.

    I also learned from F250’s story that Spain will turn you gay. NTTAWWT

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

    No no no, you're actually right. It's normal for adults to NOT bang underage kids.

    The law does not care if you are wrong about her age, and she lies about it or you’re mistaken, but if I was on a jury and some guy was on trial for statutory rape and the state law was 18 - but the chick was 17 and looked 25 and was hot as hell and in some bar pretending to be older than she was with a fake ID, I would not give two shits about finding him not guilty.

    if some asshole online was Catfishing underage girls to have sex with them, I would throw them in jail forever.  There is an entirely different moral issue at play.

    An adult intentionally having sex with someone they know is underage is a different deal.  When I was 21 my parents were friends with a couple who had a 16-year-old daughter. Everyone was drinking at Christmas and she apparently snuck some drinks as well.  She came up to me and told me that the high school boys she saw came too soon, but she heard that older guy could last longer so we should have sex.   It was not a difficult decision not to hit that. Unlike the other girl, I knew that she was under age.  In the year of our Lord 2024, there are underage girls who look five years older than chicks that same age when I was in high school.   If they have fake ID and go to a bar to pass as college students, I am not going to convict somebody they hook up with because of a date on a birth certificate.   Opinions vary. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 26 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    A 26 year old sleeping with a 16 year old is pretty weird. Also probably a 2nd degree felony if it was in Louisiana, where the age of consent is 17. 

    IMG_2623.gif.05062a3edce1cd2b096798d639571c98.gif

    interesting knowledge set.  

    All I know is she looked old enough to be in college, and old enough to be on a riverboat ordering drinks when she said she went to Xavier. ( I was guessing 16 later because she said originally she was a junior. The next blurry-eyed morning I discovered there was more than one Xavier, so our first date was our last date)

    Thank God, there were no cell phones back then.  I was working 7/12s and never ran into her again.  You will be relieved to know the statute of limitations has long passed. 

    My small point was supposed to be you could have success with younger women or older women as long as you were swinging the bat. 

  8. 26 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Yours is the only profession that can drag something like the contempt thing out for days.  Any other profession, you’re getting run off for milking it this much.

    it is not milking it. They continue to collect gag order violations and submit them.   The judge does not want the jurors or his staff attacked by Trump cretins.  The judge wants to have enough hard, empirical evidence that he won’t be reversed and give Trump a win.  and the judge is probably overthinking it, but since Trump wants to be held in contempt, the judge is trying to figure out the best way to handle it so it’s not in Trump’s benefit.    As has been said numerous times, contempt sanctions are usually incremental.  so let the judge do what is best for the safety of the jurors and the staff, and for the legitimacy of the verdict when it comes, and for the judges reputation by having whatever hammer may come be a sanction that sticks. All of those things may not lead to immediate justice. But immediate justice needs finessing when the person you want to sanction wants you to sanction him.  

    I have been impressed with this judge and the way he has handled his courtroom do far, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

     

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Like 2
  9. that is really a perplexing situation. Nobody has ever mistaken me for Brad Pitt.    I’ve only met Surly peeps Immamac and Bolverk IRL.  They will sign affidavits that I’m not a head turner.    I did not date a lot in high school but U of Florida being such a large school there was plenty of opportunity to be shut down that was more acceptable in such a large pond.   And there were enough women there a few of them with bad judgment were totally OK dating me.

    After I graduated and started earning some coin, the 80s were fantastic.   I remember one week I slept with a 16-year-old and a 39-year-old (I knew of Xavier college - but there was also a Xavier prep school.  I met the 16 yo her on the riverboat President where X had a concert. The young lady was apparently a Billy zoom fan.)

    The 39-year-old was a recently divorced insurance adjuster, and she picked my 26-year-old self up at a bar during Mardi Gras.   That was my first experience with semi-encapsulated breast implants, but I powered through it

    The simple point is, if you keep swinging your bat, you will eventually get a hit. All of these guys quit stepping up to the plate.  Thinking back, I blame me marrying the ex-wife on the fact that she spent the night - and when I woke up the next morning - I found her earring under my pillow and handed it back to her.  Oops. Turns out it was not her earring.   I then told her “I tried to get a Mormon girl up to my bed  and she was shaking her head vigorously so it must’ve fallen off. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. “   I believe it was that moment that my ex-wife decided she would go after me full-time because then it became her versus the competition. 

    tldr:  even an ugly Mook like me can get laid if you just put some minor effort into it, shower and cut your toenails occasionally, try not to look like a Pacific Northwest grunge band member from the 90s when you dress, and have something to talk about with your date.  And by that I mean, let your date do most of the talking, and you nod and pretend to look fascinated (until you become fascinated).  That’s about all you need.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Drool 1
  10. 42 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    So no ruling, waste of time.

    Got it.

    it is sort of astonishing. All of us in the legal community know we work at your pleasure and on your timeline.

    I will tell those who need to know to make sure the judge only gets a half scoop of gruel tonight.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 4
  11. 3 hours ago, yoladu said:

    it's incredulous to me that a white man who sits on the US Supreme Court would feel that he has somehow been wronged in any possible way. He has the fucking brass ring.

    Justice Thomas is weird that way. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  12. 16 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Did the judge ever make a ruling on the contempt thing or did they basically waste a day for nothing?

    it was taken under advisement… specifically to piss you off

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    I've come back several times to have the bailiff whisper in my ear that my client was doing some weird shit by himself while the jurors just watched in silence.

    Ex post fap-to?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 5
  14. 2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    Bove, the defense lawyer, just spent a fair amount of time reviewing articles that he said had recycled content in them. But he didn’t fully explain how this was standard practice for The Enquirer, and he has now moved on to another topic. It’s a challenge for lawyers to use all the examples they want to while keeping their arguments tightly framed for jurors. There, it was somewhat difficult to follow what exactly it was that Bove was trying to imply.

    It is somewhat rare, but I was involved in one trial when the defendant knew that the jury was going to find against them, so they spent their entire case making points for an appellate court challenge on the legal elements down the road - and NOT for jury consideration.   They did not care if the jury got what they were saying. 

    That may be the case here.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...