Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, pantone159 said:

Fortunately, no.

Let's just say that they shouldn't be using a flash, because most of them clearly don't know how to use it.

Of course, them fucking up the usage of a powerful flash also gives us crazy-eyed mugshots that show us every little flaw in their faces.

But yeah, try giving a police photographer a few recommendations on how to use a flash and watch them ask if the boys need to come in and restrain you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Genco said:

I've got her #2.

The cat lady thousand yard stare implies a level of crazy that can be a real asset in the sack.

If I'm not mistaken, she is also from Coffee County, and there isn't much to do there beyond meth, election interference, and sex.  Not sure if I have that in the correct order or not, but meth is probably #1.  And this isn't Walter White type stuff, it's trailer park bath tub meth, made with swamp well water.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Explains the 12(b)(6) footnote.  Doesn't make the FN right, but . . . .

 

I'm not going to pretend this was something I remotely am familiar with.  My experience with all things criminal is appellate, and in over twenty years of doing it, I've never seen any sort of grand-jury-related issue show up.  And sometimes, burdens of proof are weird, especially when they go hand-in-hand with presumptions.  So while the Government is in the best position to answer the court's question, and a Federal judge is going to ask away without regard to that kind of thing, it made me feel better about the Gov't's position to see those two things working in its favor.

Yeah, me either, it's weird stuff and I guess a lot more geographic "spread" to districts, crimes, venues, and grand juries.  Judging from the briefing, though, there's a pretty fair amount of case law on it.

Yeah, and what we really want to avoid here is anything that leads to a credible argument that the indictment should be dismissed.  Now that the gubmint has explained, seems all good.  Cannon may kiss the donkey on it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, and what we really want to avoid here is anything that leads to a credible argument that the indictment should be dismissed.

It's a bit like like improper prosecutorial jury argument in counties with a high conviction rate (a/k/a most of Texas counties).  Prosecutors get emboldened because they win a lot.  So they push boundaries.  But even then, if there's a Rule 1 about winning on appeal, it's win at trial.  So even when such arguments push boundaries, the rules governing appellate review, burden of proof, and harm analyisis lend themselves to those cases' being affirmed more often than not.  That's not bias in the judicial system either.  That's a result of the appellate court following the law as it currently exists.  I don't know but presume that the federal system similarly is set up to bounce cases, whether the issue is related to such argument or to indictments/grand jury proceedings, in instances where the error isn't particularly grievous and the harm stemming from it isn't particularly clear.  

 

Of course in this case, it's all under the magnifying glass, and Smith, to the extent he might be the type to push the envelope, is unlikely to do it here so as to cut off any potential successful avenue of appeal.  I'm betting he runs a very tight ship in most cases.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

This guy is kind of famous around here, handles a lot of rap stars cases (I don't think he's in on the other rico case though).  Took a $3 million non refundable retainer from Trump knowing that Trump wouldn't listen and would violate the terms of their agreement and subsequently default.  It would appear that he made a smart move.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This guy is kind of famous around here, handles a lot of rap stars cases (I don't think he's in on the other rico case though).  Took a $3 million non refundable retainer from Trump knowing that Trump wouldn't listen and would violate the terms of their agreement and subsequently default.  It would appear that he made a smart move.  

Not a smart move at all.

I wouldn't touch any representation of Trump for less than a $10 million retainer, and that shit would need to be paid in cash fucking money, and I still wouldn't consider it fully paid until I'd moved it to an offshore account where Trump fuckery couldn't reach it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Not a smart move at all.

I wouldn't touch any representation of Trump for less than a $10 million retainer, and that shit would need to be paid in cash fucking money, and I still wouldn't consider it fully paid until I'd moved it to an offshore account where Trump fuckery couldn't reach it.

He got his up front was the word, and as I said non refundable.  Drew Finding is his name, I remembered Vice did a thing on him and found it.  If he did get the money it makes it all the funnier, he's not a Republican.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This guy is kind of famous around here, handles a lot of rap stars cases (I don't think he's in on the other rico case though).  Took a $3 million non refundable retainer from Trump knowing that Trump wouldn't listen and would violate the terms of their agreement and subsequently default.  It would appear that he made a smart move.  

Speaking of ethics, i have never really understood how a non-refundable retainer is going to work.

At least in theory, all fees have to be earned, which means on termination of representation, unearned fees are returned to the client.  Kind of the antithesis of nonrefundable.

There's also things like opportunity cost, conflicting out of other representation (mostly only applies to civil and family in particular) that could justify a big nonrefundable retainer.

A more modest nonrefundable retainer could be earned very quickly and justified by the other factors.  Three mil, I dunno man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Value of damage to my professional reputation for representing such a loathsome clown, meaning I may not ever get another client: $9,999,000.

I'd sell all my reputations for 10% of that.

ETA: After taxes.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Speaking of ethics, i have never really understood how a non-refundable retainer is going to work.

At least in theory, all fees have to be earned, which means on termination of representation, unearned fees are returned to the client.  Kind of the antithesis of nonrefundable.

There's also things like opportunity cost, conflicting out of other representation (mostly only applies to civil and family in particular) that could justify a big nonrefundable retainer.

A more modest nonrefundable retainer could be earned very quickly and justified by the other factors.  Three mil, I dunno man.

 

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's how I earn that fee:

First hour of work at $1,000 per hour: $1,000

Value of damage to my professional reputation for representing such a loathsome clown, meaning I may not ever get another client: $9,999,000.

Exactly -- do you have to call it a "retainer"? Just tell Donald, "Yeah, fuckhead, I'll represent you. For $3M cash. Due immediately. When we surpass that, I'll ask for another lump sum."

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Exactly -- do you have to call it a "retainer"? Just tell Donald, "Yeah, fuckhead, I'll represent you. For $3M cash. Due immediately. When we surpass that, I'll ask for another lump sum."

I guessing he put it in a contract, and retainer might be the incorrect terminology.  He also was pretty clear in his interview that he had clauses and terms in it, so if violated the contract is revoked (at least that would be the way I understood it).  Of course that's just talk, but I'd also think that even the perception that he "ripped" off Trump would likely only help his street cred.  Also, I would presume he was paid by one of the PAC's.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My rate is $3M per hour.  After the first hour, I will do 2,999 hours pro bono.  The next hour will cost $3M.  Lather, rinse, repeat."

It's kinda like back in the day when scalping tickets was illegal pretty much everywhere.  "For sale:  one baseball.  $1,000.  I'll throw in two playoff tickets."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I guessing he put it in a contract, and retainer might be the incorrect terminology.  He also was pretty clear in his interview that he had clauses and terms in it, so if violated the contract is revoked (at least that would be the way I understood it).  Of course that's just talk, but I'd also think that even the perception that he "ripped" off Trump would likely only help his street cred.  Also, I would presume he was paid by one of the PAC's.  

all legal fees are being paid by the Save America PAC.

it's not Trump's money so getting paid isn't an issue...until the PAC runs out of money.

(Narrator: the PAC is running out of money)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Dog said:

all legal fees are being paid by the Save America PAC.

it's not Trump's money so getting paid isn't an issue...until the PAC runs out of money.

(Narrator: the PAC is running out of money)

This reminds me, I had a new grift idea.

The "Save Trump Legal Advice" PAC.  See, we will have a team of super smart lawyers who will prepare and send legal memoranda of top-notch advice for Trump's legal team.  Contribute now to hire these lawyers, and help our favorite president, Donald J. Trump!*

 

*  The lawyers will be a couple of Surly posters.  And our advice will be a single memo: "To whom it may concern: plead guilty to all charges."

 

I guarantee you we can pocket better than $5 million, all of which will go to "legal analysis fees" and "management fees."

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's how I earn that fee:

First hour of work at $1,000 per hour: $1,000

Value of damage to my professional reputation for representing such a loathsome clown, meaning I may not ever get another client: $9,999,000.

I'm thinking that there should be a value factor for the future mental anguish and loss of consortium to be suffered by the Dotard's lawyers from the cultists' threats and harassment after his conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This reminds me, I had a new grift idea.

The "Save Trump Legal Advice" PAC.  See, we will have a team of super smart lawyers who will prepare and send legal memoranda of top-notch advice for Trump's legal team.  Contribute now to hire these lawyers, and help our favorite president, Donald J. Trump!*

 

*  The lawyers will be a couple of Surly posters.  And our advice will be a single memo: "To whom it may concern: plead guilty to all charges."

 

I guarantee you we can pocket better than $5 million, all of which will go to "legal analysis fees" and "management fees."

You guys are gonna need someone to ensure the toilet isn't in the middle of the room at the office.  I'm happy to help for 6% plus general conditions.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This reminds me, I had a new grift idea.

The "Save Trump Legal Advice" PAC.  See, we will have a team of super smart lawyers who will prepare and send legal memoranda of top-notch advice for Trump's legal team.  Contribute now to hire these lawyers, and help our favorite president, Donald J. Trump!*

 

*  The lawyers will be a couple of Surly posters.  And our advice will be a single memo: "To whom it may concern: plead guilty to all charges."

 

I guarantee you we can pocket better than $5 million, all of which will go to "legal analysis fees" and "management fees."

We just need one Surlyite to open a Truth Account and then Truth out the advice there and respond to any/all of Trump's Truths.   That way, actual advice was delivered to keep it all above board.

I'm in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Horn Dogg said:

So what’s the over/under on Trump’s actual height and weight when he gets booked?  I’m betting on 6’ 0” and 315 lbs.

There is a thread dedicated to it

Edit: or there was?

Edited by safe sex
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...