Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Only if you didn’t advise your client about the potential, but remote, risk, and let them make a business decision.
Good contract review isn’t hard: 1) these terms are really important, let’s get them right, or be willing to walk away; 2) these terms are somewhat important, let’s negotiate on them and maybe use them for some horse-trading (maybe you give on a couple of them, in exchange for a price break); and 3) these terms carry some remote risk (yes, this term provides that if every EU country is conquered by Tanzania in a war, the contract is terminated…I think there’s a pretty low risk of that happening, so you need to make the business decision of whether you can live with that risk), so decide if you can live with that risk. Note that the overall value of the contract has some bearing on the amount of risk to be tolerated.
Generally, if you spend a shitload of time haggling over category 3, you’re either a dumb client or a bad lawyer (spoiler: there are plenty of both out there).
Oh, and writing in plain English isn’t hard. But a lot of lawyers who are addicted to using forms that have been used and re-used for 20 years have a hard time with it. I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear. That’s what it’s there for.
Back to the topic: the SCOTUS will fuck this up 5-4 or 6-3, it’s just a question of how they’ll fuck it up.

YMMV by which industry you are working in. For my industry, there is usually an imbalance of power in negotiations between my side and the opposing side for prime assets. "Just walk away from the table" isn't an option because I'm trying to secure rights that several other parties are competing over. It becomes a Game Theory exercise of who will pay the price to entry and who will eat the bad contract. Sometimes the price is so high and the terms so bad that nobody will accept (and that bar keeps getting lower and lower, setting precedents that make my job even harder). Sometimes the only way forward is to endure 6 months of haggling over the minutia, including a specific word being used here or there. Therefore, it becomes my job to find a way to make the language as acceptable as possible without running them off and I find myself going back and forth with opposing counsel over what should be obvious language. If I don't, there are two primary negative outcomes: 1. I hold firm and a competitor eats the bad contract. Bad for me from an optics standpoint, even if the competitor falls flat on their face. 2. I eat the bad contract and the liability bomb goes off in the future. Bad for me, bad for the company.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YMMV by which industry you are working in. For my industry, there is usually an imbalance of power in negotiations between my side and the opposing side for prime assets. "Just walk away from the table" isn't an option because I'm trying to secure rights that several other parties are competing over. It becomes a Game Theory exercise of who will pay the price to entry and who will eat the bad contract. Sometimes the price is so high and the terms so bad that nobody will accept (and that bar keeps getting lower and lower, setting precedents that make my job even harder). Sometimes the only way forward is to endure 6 months of haggling over the minutia, including a specific word being used here or there. Therefore, it becomes my job to find a way to make the language as acceptable as possible without running them off and I find myself going back and forth with opposing counsel over what should be obvious language. If I don't, there are two primary negative outcomes: 1. I hold firm and a competitor eats the bad contract. Bad for me from an optics standpoint, even if the competitor falls flat on their face. 2. I eat the bad contract and the liability bomb goes off in the future. Bad for me, bad for the company.
 

You bet. It all comes down to a well-informed business decision. Sometimes, the best business decision is to eat the shit sandwich. The lawyered job is to make sure the client knows exactly what’s in the shit sandwich, and to help them negotiate the best bread and condiments possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Only if you didn’t advise your client about the potential, but remote, risk, and let them make a business decision.
Good contract review isn’t hard: 1) these terms are really important, let’s get them right, or be willing to walk away; 2) these terms are somewhat important, let’s negotiate on them and maybe use them for some horse-trading (maybe you give on a couple of them, in exchange for a price break); and 3) these terms carry some remote risk (yes, this term provides that if every EU country is conquered by Tanzania in a war, the contract is terminated…I think there’s a pretty low risk of that happening, so you need to make the business decision of whether you can live with that risk), so decide if you can live with that risk. Note that the overall value of the contract has some bearing on the amount of risk to be tolerated.
Generally, if you spend a shitload of time haggling over category 3, you’re either a dumb client or a bad lawyer (spoiler: there are plenty of both out there).
Oh, and writing in plain English isn’t hard. But a lot of lawyers who are addicted to using forms that have been used and re-used for 20 years have a hard time with it. I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear. That’s what it’s there for.
Back to the topic: the SCOTUS will fuck this up 5-4 or 6-3, it’s just a question of how they’ll fuck it up.

 

My first boss in private practice was a good-for-very-little solo, but he did have a few nuggets of wisdom.

 

1.  Whenever possible, you draft the contract.

 

2.  There are some cases you should lose but will win.  There are some cases you should win but will lose.  Preferably, there will be more of the former.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

The evidence suggests that what is laughably called “originalism” is the jurisprudential equivalent of how extreme fundamentalist evangelicals use proof-texting to demonstrate that God commands us to stone gays here in 2024. 
 

Like finding the world “indictment” or “conviction” in the below text: 

 

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

We are going to see how “engaged in” actually means “convicted” per super smart judges. 

We are going to see super smart lawyers argue the President didn’t hold any office or was not an officer of the United States, after they argued the opposite to try and move the Georgia case to Federal court. 

It’s really fun when “or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” probably covers the people convicted of seditious conspiracy and Trump saying he will pardon the insurrectionists doesn’t cover giving aid? Or do we have to wait till he pardons them? And then remove him from the ballot?
 

 

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

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

We are going to see how “engaged in” actually means “convicted” per super smart judges. 

As I write this, Heritage Foundation is drafting an amicus brief about how in 1675 a Special Court of Oyer and Terminer in Virginia found that a certain Goody Badwyfe and her woman Tituba “engaged in” consort with Beleth and thus caused William the Blacksmith’s nethers to swell with pus.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I write this, Heritage Foundation is drafting an amicus brief about how in 1675 a Special Court of Oyer and Terminer in Virginia found that a certain Goody Badwyfe and her woman Tituba “engaged in” consort with Beleth and thus caused William the Blacksmith’s nethers to swell with pus.

To “allegedly” swell with pus. Get it right.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Prepare your anus 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll find a way to keep him on the ballot, whether legitimately or not, but I don't know what it'll be based on other than "let the people decide"
That Postal Service Act language from 1792, specifically mentioning the President was an officer *should* be enough to say the 14th applied to him. Colorado's Supreme Court did a thorough analysis and determined he was engaged in insurrection.
SCOTUS justices swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution too, and the 14th is part of that.
Shit, he admitted the insurrection a day or two ago.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2024 at 9:12 AM, Red Five said:

I would say that sitting on his ass and refusing to do anything at all, for hours, as President of the United States, while the Capitol was under attack.... should count. 

In fact, he popped off to people who called him begging for help. "Well I guess they care more about the stolen election than you do, Kevin". And to this day he's talking about pardoning them all. So, yeah, it sort of looks like the 14th was written for him.

You would think that the obvious would count for something.

It can't even get an insurrectionist thrown in jail to await a verdict. It's the same for guys who steal state secrets.

The obvious must pass through the intestines of both-side TV news organizations (FOX isn't among that group), legal debate, and dishonest public discourse before it becomes actionable fact. I should say may become actionable fact; we all know what emerges from intestines isn't what entered them.

This seems to apply on a broader scale than just this unfolding governmental disaster.

Look at the fact of Climate Change. By the time it has emerged as some sort of muddied fact somehow still debated, the great snake like intestine has only just swallowed the current obvious fact of impending Climate Disaster. None of the intestines listed above can handle that obvious fact as though it were a fact. Too soon. 

It is very strange to watch emergent history as an American. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2024 at 10:23 AM, Brisketexan said:


I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear.

You’re talking about dove hunting leases aren’t you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more absurd the argument the more desperate you know he is.

 Although this is approaching the “corporations are individuals” level of desperation that Robert’s might just sign off on.

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

I wonder what some of the Biden campaign ads will look like. "Hey, remember that time the president sent a mob to the capitol in an attempted coup? And refused to provide assistance for everyone there, including his Vice President? So, funny thing here, he didn't go to jail. And he's running for president again..."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder what some of the Biden campaign ads will look like. "Hey, remember that time the president sent a mob to the capitol in an attempted coup? And refused to provide assistance for everyone there, including his Vice President? So, funny thing here, he didn't go to jail. And he's running for president again..."


All future ads should also include this ….

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:


All future ads should also include this ….

 

https://themessenger.com/news/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sex-tape-jeffrey-epstein-sarah-ransome-list-document-dump

Quote

Former president Donald Trump regularly had sex with a woman at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan mansion, and Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Richard Branson were caught on a sex tape by the financier, according to a victim who later recanted the claims.

The allegations were made by Sarah Ransome to a journalist, and unsealed in newly public court documents Monday.

The documents were part of a filing in which lawyers for law professor Alan Dershowitz sought to portray Ransome as a liar who contradicted herself and made outlandish claims.

Ransome later gave a victim impact statement in federal court at Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing, in which she she described being trafficked by the pair.

In one undated email released Monday, Ransome said a friend described Trump’s sexual proclivities and alleged the woman regularly had sex with the former president at Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse, according to court documents.

“She confided in me about her casual 'friendship' with Donald. Mr. Trump definitely seemed to have a thing for her and she told me how he kept going on about how he liked her 'pert nipples’,” the email read. 

“I also know she had sexual relations with Trump at Jeffrey's NY mansion on regular occasions as I once met Jen for coffee, just before she was going to meet Trump and Epstein together at his mansion,” it added. 

Ransome later recanted the allegation in an email to journalist Maureen Callahan, according to the records. 

“I have spoken to my family at some length this morning and I would like to retract everything I have said to you and walk away from this,” the October 2016 email states. 

Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton are pictured in an undated photograph.Netflix

“I shouldn't have contacted you and I'm sorry I wasted your time. It's not worth coming forward and I will never be heard anyhow and only bad things will happen as a consequence of me going public and I know this to be true,” it adds. 

A Trump spokesperson slammed the claims.

“These baseless accusations have been fully retracted because they are simply false and have no merit," said Steven Cheung.

In another undated email, Ransome claimed her friend had sex with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and billionaire Richard Branson — and video recordings of the trysts were made by Epstein at mansion.

“I personally can confirm that I have, with my own two eyes, seen the evidence of these sexual acts, which clearly identifies Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Richard Branson having sexual intercourse with my friend. I will be more then [sic] willing to swear under oath and testify in court over these sex tapes,” the email states. 

In 2019, Ransome told the New Yorker that the tapes were made-up. The fabrication was intended to raise intrigue into Epstein's affairs and to convince the financier himself that she had “evidence that would come out if he harmed me," she said.

Ransome's emails were included in a 2017 motion filed by Dershowitz to keep the allegations under seal. He contended the allegations were “deliberate lies.”

A spokesperson said previously said Clinton had no knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking, and did not comment on the new claims.

Branson's Virgin Group also denied the claims. "We can confirm that Sarah Ransome's claims are baseless and unfounded. Ransome admitted that she had 'invented' the tapes," in a 2019 article in the New Yorker."

Prince Andrew has denied wrongdoing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

At some point, one of the MAGA crazies is going to forego "swatting" and just straight-up attempt to assassinate Laetitia James, Chutkan, Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

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

14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

At some point, one of the MAGA crazies is going to forego "swatting" and just straight-up attempt to assassinate Laetitia James, Chutkan, Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

I hope they don't. 

 

But I honestly don't think any of them is smart enough not to talk shit about it online ad nauseum first, before ordering supplies online and, otherwise, creating a rich, internet-history-roadmap ahead of time, so as to ensure being caught en route to the target.  

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

“ I could shoot a disabled Vet while banging an underaged girl and selling Top Secret info to Russia on 5th Ave. and they’d still vote for me…” 

 

* it should be noted that shooting a disabled Vet is most likely the one thing he hasn’t done listed above. 

Edited by Underdog
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

Legal loophole known as:

dumb and dumber thread GIF

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

34 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

It's a desperate long shot, yes, but not an unheard-of motion to dismiss an indictment.

On a rare occasion, a criminal statute will be "stretched" far enough to encompass conduct no one really thought it would reach.  At that point, it can be said to be violative of due process because it didn't provide fair notice of what it rendered criminal.

This is, fairly obviously, not one of those rare occasions.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even non lawyers know the old “ignorance of the law is no defense against breaking the law.”  What Trump is attempting then is that he was ignorant of his ignorance of the law so therefore, cannot be guilty?  
 

JFC, this is like playing chess against an easily agitated bonobo, with an assault rifle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...