Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Cap33 said:

Justices Devine and Blacklock are both up for reelection this year.

When is the last time a R didn't win the general, and when was the last incumbent who didn't win their primary? They're only taking political donations just so they can get some free vacations out of a few campaign events around the state. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

When is the last time a R didn't win the general, and when was the last incumbent who didn't win their primary? They're only taking political donations just so they can get some free vacations out of a few campaign events around the state. 

Devine is a true believer and Blacklock may be, too. Just when you thought that court could not get any more conservative.

Posted

Y’all are slipping, he just put out a word he won’t contest the whistleblowers lawsuit attempting to unilaterally quash it as the defendant. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, bluto said:

Y’all are slipping, he just put out a word he won’t contest the whistleblowers lawsuit attempting to unilaterally quash it as the defendant. 

How much money have taxpayers paid so that Paxton had a free home remodel and fighting the corruption charges in the Legislature and courts?

Posted
On 1/12/2024 at 5:03 PM, wreckatx said:

Statement from Tom Nesbitt, whistleblower Blake Brickman’s attorney, on this development:

“Ken Paxton hid out from his impeachment trial and was excused from testifying because he invoked his right not to incriminate himself.  And he has played so long for delay in this case because he is terrified to answer questions about his corrupt conduct. He should be.”

And then he finally gives his deposition and nothing happens.  The end.

Posted
38 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can Paxton just declare that he’s not fighting the case and accept the judgement? I don’t understand who is paying since the Legislature refused to do so. Is it just out of the AG’s budget?

As I understand (and I confess that I haven't dug into the exact procedural nature of the claims and how immunity plays into them), any money to pay a judgment would have to be appropriated by the legislature.  That is, the plaintiffs can't just get a judgment for $5 million and start collecting by sweeping the state's bank accounts or some shit.

So, Paxton may have just played them.  He had been fighting against ever admitting wrongdoing.  Now, he's functionally admitting wrongdoing....but there will be no consequences.  He won't pay any money.  Nobody will.  And he won't be impeached -- that ship has sailed.

It's up to the criminal process now.  The Nate Paul deal will either drag him down with an anchor tied to him by the DOJ, or he gets away scot-free.  I'm betting on him getting away with it, because....you've been paying attention to this timeline, right?  The laws don't apply to Republicans.  They just flat-out don't.  I don't understand how or why, but there it is.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Of course that only works because GOP voters in Texas give zero fucks that he retaliated against good conservative boiz that bucked his corrupt abuse of the office and he won't have to explain himself. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Fuckin hell running as a gop candidate must be the easiest shit ever. Like a modern praise song just repeat the same 5 words 6 times over. Soros, caravan, inflation, fentanyl, guns

  • Like 2
Posted

I did not have Texas State Court of Appeals are a George Soros political puppet on my 2024 Paxton bingo card.  Hmmm, couldn't possibly be coinciding with Nate Paul's amicable testimony earlier this month.  

Nah, nothing to see here folks...move along.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

As I understand (and I confess that I haven't dug into the exact procedural nature of the claims and how immunity plays into them), any money to pay a judgment would have to be appropriated by the legislature.  That is, the plaintiffs can't just get a judgment for $5 million and start collecting by sweeping the state's bank accounts or some shit.

So, Paxton may have just played them.  He had been fighting against ever admitting wrongdoing.  Now, he's functionally admitting wrongdoing....but there will be no consequences.  He won't pay any money.  Nobody will.  And he won't be impeached -- that ship has sailed.

It's up to the criminal process now.  The Nate Paul deal will either drag him down with an anchor tied to him by the DOJ, or he gets away scot-free.  I'm betting on him getting away with it, because....you've been paying attention to this timeline, right?  The laws don't apply to Republicans.  They just flat-out don't.  I don't understand how or why, but there it is.

Well, let's face it, he never would have paid any money personally unless that was part of a settlement.  And it doesn't look like the lege would authorize any payment, no matter how the judgment was obtained.

Posted

George Soros (at 93 years) needs to have John Wick on retainer to pick up his mantle because he's attained some Baba Yaga level mythology amongst the GOP.

Also: Paxton will never pay a dime. He's a crook but he's a damn wily crook and knows he will never pay a dime.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

George Soros (at 93 years) needs to have John Wick on retainer to pick up his mantle because he's attained some Baba Yaga level mythology amongst the GOP.

Also: Paxton will never pay a dime. He's a crook but he's a damn wily crook and knows he will never pay a dime.


doesn’t the state have to cover this ?

Posted
2 hours ago, bluto said:

Fuckin hell running as a gop candidate must be the easiest shit ever. Like a modern praise song just repeat the same 5 words 6 times over. Soros, caravan, inflation, fentanyl, guns

The beautiful thing is that you can use those accusations against both Democrats and Republicans that you are running against.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Has Paxton found the secret formula to break the law as AG at least in terms of civil cases?  Do whatever you want, let the others file civil suits against you, cave just before any deposition, and the suit winners can never collect the judgement dollar amounts?

  • Like 1
Posted
On 1/12/2024 at 6:03 PM, wreckatx said:

Statement from Tom Nesbitt, whistleblower Blake Brickman’s attorney, on this development:

“Ken Paxton hid out from his impeachment trial and was excused from testifying because he invoked his right not to incriminate himself.  And he has played so long for delay in this case because he is terrified to answer questions about his corrupt conduct. He should be.”

Tom is a bad ass. Highly recommend him for high profile employment cases. He’s also just a genuine good guy, always does the right thing, the real right thing not the Jesus fake right thing. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, troph said:

Tom is a bad ass. Highly recommend him for high profile employment cases. He’s also just a genuine good guy, always does the right thing, the real right thing not the Jesus fake right thing. 

There are some really good lawyers on that team. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, wreckatx said:

There are some really good lawyers on that team. 

I’ve work with him all the time, have with TJ as well. Don’t recall the others. I was fishing with Tom when the TXSC ruling came down. We cracked open a beer and kept floating down the Colorado hunting Guadalupe bass on a fly rod. 
 

made me wish I was a litigator not a corporate lawyer for a hot minute. Just a minute. 

Edited by troph
Posted
12 hours ago, bluto said:

Fuckin hell running as a gop candidate must be the easiest shit ever. Like a modern praise song just repeat the same 5 words 6 times over. Soros, caravan, inflation, fentanyl, guns


I prefer the much clearer demonstration of this: 

Person, woman, man, camera, TV.




 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

And some really shitty clients.

The whistleblowers? I was talking about their lawyers- Tom Nesbitt, TJ Turner, and Joe Knight

Posted
6 minutes ago, wreckatx said:

The whistleblowers? I was talking about their lawyers- Tom Nesbitt, TJ Turner, and Joe Knight

The legal team is solid. Tom is good people, and a damned good lawyer (I've known him for years, have worked with him on a matter or two, and send referrals to him from time to time).

But don't forget, the whistleblowers are super-duper Trumpy true-believer types as well.  "Not as shitty as Ken Paxton" is not exactly a glowing character endorsement.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Has Paxton found the secret formula to break the law

(R)=impunity

its not a secret though, it’s in the public domain 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
This should be fun.
 

When will yall figure out how shit works in “rules are for other people, not us members of The Ruling Party” land? It doesn’t matter whether a court intimately orders emails to be produced. They will just delete all copies of them from every server, and ask the court “so wadda ya gonna do about it?”
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
16 hours ago, bluto said:

Fuckin hell running as a gop candidate must be the easiest shit ever. Like a modern praise song just repeat the same 5 words 6 times over. Soros, caravan, inflation, fentanyl, guns

person, woman, man, camera, TV

Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The legal team is solid. Tom is good people, and a damned good lawyer (I've known him for years, have worked with him on a matter or two, and send referrals to him from time to time).

But don't forget, the whistleblowers are super-duper Trumpy true-believer types as well.  "Not as shitty as Ken Paxton" is not exactly a glowing character endorsement.

Confirmed.  I know one of the whistleblowers personally and he's about as die hard Republican as they come.

Posted
1 hour ago, Keef said:

Confirmed.  I know one of the whistleblowers personally and he's about as die hard Republican as they come.

Outside of some of the obvious examples, Paxton hasn't personally screwed over many Democrats. He focuses all of his criminal behavior on fellow Republicans. Which probably makes sense because I doubt he comes into direct contact with many Democrats.

His criminal trial for fraud is when he lied (allegedly) to Republicans about investments and his benefit from their participation. I assume there are rooms of Republicans that hate Paxton more than even Democrats hate him.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Outside of some of the obvious examples, Paxton hasn't personally screwed over many Democrats. He focuses all of his criminal behavior on fellow Republicans. Which probably makes sense because I doubt he comes into direct contact with many Democrats.

His criminal trial for fraud is when he lied (allegedly) to Republicans about investments and his benefit from their participation. I assume there are rooms of Republicans that hate Paxton more than even Democrats hate him.

Democrats are smart enough not to get purposefully entwined with that bag of fuck. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They will just delete all copies of them from every server, and ask the court “so wadda ya gonna do about it?”

Those emails are long gone. Litigation hold? Why would we have done that?

  • Like 2
Posted

His criminal trial for fraud is when he lied (allegedly) to Republicans about investments and his benefit from their participation. I assume there are rooms of Republicans that hate Paxton more than even Democrats hate him.


That seems like a long time ago. Was that part of the Teapot Dome scandal?
  • Haha 2
Posted

So can paxton appeal the judge still requiring that he sit or is that already settled? What happens if he doesn’t appear? He gets a fine? Can the judge throw him in jail?

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, That Guy said:

So can paxton appeal the judge still requiring that he sit or is that already settled? What happens if he doesn’t appear? He gets a fine? Can the judge throw him in jail?

Jail is at the far end of contempt powers and is rarely used. State court judges are usually pussies when it comes to contempt, but I have had one state court judge in Travis County many years ago have a defendant put in the slammer for discovery abuse. 

On the other hand, I learned early on in my career that you don’t fuck with a federal judge. In a big securities case I had as a young lawyer in Dallas, Judge A. Joe Fish threw a defendant in jail for refusing a discovery order for his deposition, and we got to depose him in federal prison with a white jump suit on and everything. It was awesome.

Edited by South Austin
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 4
Posted

Perhaps it’s difficult to collect legal judgements against the AG, but this is in retaliation of the whistleblower act. I don’t see how the state and AG can just not pay a judgement that they’re not even fighting. Can the state judicial branch order the exec branch to pay up? Which budget pays for it, is the exec branch’s problem.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Perhaps it’s difficult to collect legal judgements against the AG, but this is in retaliation of the whistleblower act. I don’t see how the state and AG can just not pay a judgement that they’re not even fighting. Can the state judicial branch order the exec branch to pay up? Which budget pays for it, is the exec branch’s problem.

It's because of sovereign immunity.  In a normal application of sovereign immunity, the lawsuit doesn't even go forward.

But because this cause of action (whistleblower act) specifically "targets" government employees and agents and agencies in their official capacity, there is an implied waiver that lets the suit go forward.  I think it also permits recovery of those damages specified by the Act without legislative approval.** Those remedies being primarily reinstatement and back pay.

But, the plaintiffs here are alleging other things, where the Act might not support those damages.  So, to be extra clear about it, they sought legislative approval/appropriation for the settlement, whether strictly necessary or not.

**ETA:  the Act, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.554.htm, places damage limitations of 250k per claim for other than past lost wages and damages.  That is, anything much beyond back pay.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's because of sovereign immunity.  In a normal application of sovereign immunity, the lawsuit doesn't even go forward.

But because this cause of action (whistleblower act) specifically "targets" government employees and agents and agencies in their official capacity, there is an implied waiver that lets the suit go forward.  I think it also permits recovery of those damages specified by the Act without legislative approval.**

But, the plaintiffs here are alleging other things, where the Act might not support those damages.  So, to be extra clear about it, they sought legislative approval/appropriation for the settlement, whether strictly necessary or not.

**ETA:  the Act, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.554.htm, places damage limitations of 250k per claim for other than past lost wages and damages.

This is incorrect. The whistleblower act provides an explicit, limited waiver of sovereign immunity to allow govt employees that are fired because they report crimes by other govt employees to sue their employing agency for lost wages, reinstatement or front pay, and attorney’s fees. However, the government code requires legislative approval approval of any settlement with or judgment against a state agency that is in excess of $250k.

A judge cannot order the executive branch to pay, or the legislature to approve payment of, a judgment against the state because of separation of powers. The decision whether to approve payment is vested strictly in the legislature.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Probably worth pointing out that while Paxton's answer to the petition purports not to contest the allegations thereof, that is only really relevant perhaps at summary judgment or trial.  Until then, it's business as usual.  If a party wants to conduct discovery before moving for summary judgment or taking the victory at trial they presumably can do so.

There is a separate rule/procedure for "confessing judgment" in Rule 314.

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...