Jump to content

Carl Spackler

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    3394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carl Spackler

  1. Wish you the best, RoJo, except when the Bears play the Vikings. You'll always be one of my fave Longhorns.
  2. To an extent. Just seems like Jerrah & Co. take it to a different level.
  3. Congrats to Overshown! And he gets to "stay home." That's great for him and his family. My unpopular opinion thread candidates: 1. Drew Pearson is a clown 2. The Dallas war room acting like they won a fucking Super Bowl after every pick is just silly. Neg away . . .
  4. Pats take a guy who a lot of people who watch tape really liked -- Mapu.
  5. You knew we were going to see that play from '21 in the highlights about Mims. Fuck him and fuck Denver for selecting him.
  6. I am annoyed that Detroit selected Branch. He's good.
  7. I guess we would need to know what Gorsuch and the other former owners of the property originally paid for it in order to have a clearer idea of whether the $365K is Gorsuch's share of the profits or the overall profits that were realized from the sale. But, like I said, the reports indicate that Gorsuch reported realizing a profit between $250K and $500K. But putting that aside, the big difference between your situation and Gorsuch's is that he's a federal jurist with income and gift reporting obligations, and you aren't. So when you say that owning 20% of a sale property worth $1.8M isn't a big deal, that may be true in your context, but I can assure you that isn't the case in Gorsuch's situation. As an example, he was reporting the receipt and the identity of the donor of mundane items such as a fly-casting rod. He wasn't reporting the receipt of those items because he wanted to -- he did it because he's legally required to do so. But for whatever reason, he didn't report the identity of the person from whom he realized a profit from the sale of that CO property. Strange . . .
  8. I suppose it depends on exactly what categories of information were reported previously. If she reported her income and the fact that her commissions were derived in substantial part from placements with law firms that regularly appear before SCOTUS, then I guess it would be old news. But I suspect that the info about the sources of her commissions may have been unknown until this whistleblower came forward, and that's the part that makes it really interesting from a judicial ethics standpoint.
  9. I never said Mrs. Roberts did anything illegal or that her husband did anything illegal or unethical. (I also noted that I wasn't sure if the allegation was true -- it's just an assertion at this point.) I simply said it would be "troubling" if she did, in fact, make seven figures in commissions from placements made with law firms that regularly appear before the Supreme Court because at least a portion of that money would presumably inure to the benefit of her husband pursuant to applicable marital property laws. It could be that, as you postulated, she was simply doing her job in ordinary fashion. OTOH, I note that the affidavit of the whistleblower says that one of her placements with Wilmer, Hale (a firm that appears a lot before the SCOTUS) resulted not only in extraordinary compensation for the attorney who was placed (which, in turn, would mean more commissions for Mrs. Roberts), but also resulted in the opening of a new Wilmer Hale office in Denver, CO. That last part sounds somewhat farfetched to me (and is based on hearsay, i.e., based on the statement of some unnamed third person), and it's one of the reasons that I'm reserving judgment -- these allegations just haven't been sufficiently vetted yet. But if only a fraction of that affidavit is true, it still raises some troubling questions. I understand your point about the media. I'm sure the recent revelations about Thomas and Gorsuch have sparked a spate of digging around by reporters concerning other justices on the court, and have created an environment that is ripe for this latest allegation about Roberts.
  10. I'm simply going by a news report I read which stated that "Gorsuch reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale." I'm not sure what the source is for your statement that "[c]ash sale proceeds were $365K," but from the reports I've read I suspect that the $365K figure is actually Gorsuch's cut of the profits from the sale. At least that's what he supposedly reported on federal disclosure forms. And I think you're wrong about whether the opposing parties or opposing counsel would care about this fact. I know I would. And I'm pretty sure my clients would as well.
  11. Working as a legal recruiter itself isn't the issue. The troubling part would be the fact (if that allegation is to be believed) that she was paid substantial fees by law firms representing litigants in cases being decided by a court of which her husband is the CJ. I have no idea if that allegation is true, though.
  12. From what I've read, Gorsuch realized a profit of between $250K and $500K from the sale. The sale was to the prior chair of the litigation section of Greenberg Traurig, which regularly represents litigants in matters on the SCOTUS docket. If you were representing the party on the other side of the table from the Greenberg-represented party, don't you think you would be raising your eyebrows over that information? The shadiness is exacerbated by the fact that Gorsuch apparently has disclosed the names of persons who have given him relatively piddly gifts such as a pair of cowboy boots and a fishing rod, but for some reason did not report the name of the person who made this particular property purchase from him. Guess he just forgot to fill in that particular blank. If the sale was below listing price, I suppose it makes Gorsuch look a tad better, but not much. The proverbial bottom line is that he made a sizable six-figure profit from the sale, and the purchaser was a big swinging dick in a law firm that regularly appears before him. If anything, one could make the argument that this is even worse than what Thomas has done because in Thomas' case the person showering him with gifts was merely a wealthy Republican who was not a party to any of the cases on the SCOTUS docket, whereas in Gorsuch's case the person who paid a price that allowed Gorsuch to realize a six-figure profit is a member of a law firm that regularly appears before Gorsuch. Frankly, both Thomas and Gorsuch stink to high heaven.
  13. Not when Bijan is excellent catching out of the backfield and Gibbs is more of a receiver than between the tackles tailback...but yeah, that is a bit surprising. I completely agree that those two particular players have the skills to succeed in a pass-happy NFL. But, generally speaking, it's remarkable that two RBs got taken before any WRs (as well as TEs) in light of the emphasis teams place on the passing game these days. We haven't seen that happen in years, and it probably won't happen again for quite a while.
  14. All of you who had Will McDonald IV going in the top half of the draft, raise your hand.
  15. Pretty interesting in this day and age in the NFL that two RBs were selected before any WRs.
  16. Good luck to Bijan in ATL. I wonder if Philly traded up in an effort to get him.
  17. 6 total tackles and a half sack. Played well but didn't dominate.
  18. Furk. Detroit is going to get either Jalen Carter or Wilson. That annoys me.
  19. I think Ojomo will get drafted before Coburn, and I think he'll go before the 5th round.
×
×
  • Create New...