Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Candace is going to be selling slop buckets to preppers in a couple of years to pay off the judgement.

cf01b6a68abd076333af13fc2f4d15ab.jpg
Posted

Why do I think I am going to smash Candace one day?

It's not even that I want to, but it just seems inevitable for some reason. 

  • Haha 5
  • Drool 2
Posted

Maybe we could work out some sort of trade. We give you Candace for oh say Eva Green. I'm sure the Surly lawdogs could hand the specifics

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Maybe we could work out some sort of trade. We give you Candace for oh say Eva Green. I'm sure the Surly lawdogs could hand the specifics
 

Variation: the US has to imprison CO and Slacks gets “visitation” rights. On the other hand, Eva Green has to imprison me in a French chateau.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted
1 hour ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

I assume it’s more like photos of her as a girl/woman throughout her life.

"When asked if the Macrons would be supplying pictures of Brigitte pregnant and raising her children, Mr Clare said they existed and would be presented in court where there are rules and standards."

I don't blame her for not doing this outside of court, that just invites a whole raft of further conspiracy theories, as would any DNA-type test.  But I am assuming that the Macrons will provide such test results under attorneys-eyes-only protective order to conclusively prove the falsity of the allegation.

Owens has real lawyers, at least local counsel, in the form of Richards, Layton & Finger, a pretty old-line Delaware firm.  Really a bit surprised they'd associate with her.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Owens has real lawyers, at least local counsel, in the form of Richards, Layton & Finger, a pretty old-line Delaware firm.  Really a bit surprised they'd associate with her.

Michael Jordan Lol GIF
 

still clinging to the idea that there’s no ethical crisis?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Michael Jordan Lol GIF
 

still clinging to the idea that there’s no ethical crisis?

Are you suggesting, then, that Richards Layton should face discipline for representing Candace Owen?  

Or are you referring to some sort of personal ethics of the type generally answerable only to a higher power?

I wasn't questioning "their" ethics really so much as their judgment.

Given that your usual lawyer ethics complaint is tied to discipline and disbarment rates and dressing poorly and not answering phone calls, I'm going to assume that you think they should be disciplined or disbarred for representing Owen.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Are you suggesting, then, that Richards Layton should face discipline for representing Candace Owen?  

Of course not. everyone has a right to counsel.

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Or are you referring to some sort of personal ethics of the type generally answerable only to a higher power?

I wasn't questioning "their" ethics really so much as their judgment.

You said you were surprised they would associate with her, presumably because of the reputational risk. In other words, you think she’s a risky client because of how her actions reflect on the firm. 
 

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Given that your usual lawyer ethics complaint is tied to discipline and disbarment rates and dressing poorly and not answering phone calls, I'm going to assume that you think they should be disciplined or disbarred for representing Owen.

No, I’m actually talking about the legal profession- the risk of being disciplined for blatantly unethical conduct is minuscule, but the reputational risk of association with a problematic client is high, despite the fact that EVERYONE has a right to counsel. 

That doesn’t seem like an ethical crisis to you? 
You can get away with defrauding the court in service to a client, but god forbid you take on a trashy client.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course not. everyone has a right to counsel.

You said you were surprised they would associate with her, presumably because of the reputational risk. In other words, you think she’s a risky client because of how her actions reflect on the firm. 
 

No, I’m actually talking about the legal profession- the risk of being disciplined for blatantly unethical conduct is minuscule, but the reputational risk of association with a problematic client is high, despite the fact that EVERYONE has a right to counsel. 

That doesn’t seem like an ethical crisis to you? 
You can get away with defrauding the court in service to a client, but god forbid you take on a trashy client.

Well reputational risk is not really an ethical question is it? 

And no you don't have a right to counsel in a civil case, a legal obligation doesn't exist at all and any sense of obligation to provide a defense isn't really there other than pro bono work for the indigent.

It becomes mostly a matter of money versus reputational risk versus any publicity is good publicity. That starts to look like a bit more like an ethical question, but again a personal rather than professional one. 

You cited this apparently in support of the ethical crisis yet acknowledge that it isn't an ethical question. You're kind of all over the place here. 

The only unpunished court fraudster I am aware of here really is Sidney Powell and she was subjected to discipline although failed discipline for reasons mostly unrelated to the gravity of her offense. It would have been really nice and changed the outcome had the trial court found it had been defrauded or otherwise subjected to her unethical conduct. And that usually requires the opponent to move for sanctions, which Elias types seem mostly reluctant to seek. 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course not. everyone has a right to counsel.

You said you were surprised they would associate with her, presumably because of the reputational risk. In other words, you think she’s a risky client because of how her actions reflect on the firm. 
 

No, I’m actually talking about the legal profession- the risk of being disciplined for blatantly unethical conduct is minuscule, but the reputational risk of association with a problematic client is high, despite the fact that EVERYONE has a right to counsel. 

That doesn’t seem like an ethical crisis to you? 
You can get away with defrauding the court in service to a client, but god forbid you take on a trashy client.

I’m pretty sure the very first lesson you get in law school is the difference between morals and ethics

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well reputational risk is not really an ethical question is it? 

And no you don't have a right to counsel in a civil case, a legal obligation doesn't exist at all and any sense of obligation to provide a defense isn't really there other than pro bono work for the indigent.

It becomes mostly a matter of money versus reputational risk versus any publicity is good publicity. That starts to look like a bit more like an ethical question, but again a personal rather than professional one. 

You cited this apparently in support of the ethical crisis yet acknowledge that it isn't an ethical question. You're kind of all over the place here. 

The only unpunished court fraudster I am aware of here really is Sidney Powell and she was subjected to discipline although failed discipline for reasons mostly unrelated to the gravity of her offense. It would have been really nice and changed the outcome had the trial court found it had been defrauded or otherwise subjected to her unethical conduct. And that usually requires the opponent to move for sanctions, which Elias types seem mostly reluctant to seek. 

 

I agree with some of what you say here but it's wild to me that you are still clinging to your belief (hope?) that our legal, justice, and governmental systems can help us fix this as all of them are utterly failing all around you every day. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

You mean fake, rigged DNA tests?

Those goddamn liberals are faking the DNA test now? How low will they go?  

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You cited this apparently in support of the ethical crisis yet acknowledge that it isn't an ethical question. You're kind of all over the place here. 

You still don’t understand. Whether to represent Candace Owens isn’t an ethical question. But representing her poses greater reputational risk to the firm than unethical behavior, because the profession is in an ethical crisis. 

7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m pretty sure the very first lesson you get in law school is the difference between morals and ethics

Is that your opinion as a doctor?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
On 9/20/2025 at 3:23 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Wouldn't a DNA test showing XX pretty much sew up that argument, absent very rare exceptions?

The political right is all in on there being no exceptions. Fact being the province of the left, and all.



×
×
  • Create New...