Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted

My strategy next time I’m in court is to just get up and walk out while the judge is talking.

I’m sure there won’t be a SWAT team at my house shortly afterwards.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Do you have a gin preference?

I’m not a gin drinker but I suppose Tanqueray is the standard. I tried Esme gin and noticed a not insignificant flavor difference. Also, Tanqueray has 7% more ABV than Esme.

For a Negroni I wouldn't use Tanqueray. I'm sure DDD will chime in with his picks, but ive always found Gunpowder Gin and Anitca the best combination. Something like Junipero or Aviation could be good as well. The London dry gins are a little too bland for a Negroni in my experience

Edited by G650
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Look, you just have to understand that everyone knows who is guilty and who is not and the lawyers just screw it all up with the Constitution and ethics and stuff.  The non-lawyers should just be able to post about how clear everything is on a centralized message board so the criminal can go straight from booking to prison or lethal injection or set free after fingerprinting. The non-lawyers are really the only ones who see through the bullshit and get it right. You see people released from prison decades after the lawyers and judges wrongfully convict. If we're not going to do the centralized message board thing, we should at least let some reasonable number of non-lawyers listen to the actual evidence and decide guilty or not guilty. That way the correct decision will always be made and innocent people won't spend decades behind bars.    

image.thumb.png.5499716b1ae6062148c1cb04e48b3b35.png

  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that's a great example of what I'm talking about. The actions of Enron execs put them in prison and destroyed their company along with billions of dollars in shareholder value. The financial crisis caused huge, wholesale changes in the regulatory environment and severely punished whole economies, While at the individual level many of those who benefit from special treatment thanks to the duty owed to them by their counsel and social ties to power got away with their actions (see below), we mostly correctly attribute guilt to the guilty and largely shame those who deserve it. 

Couldn't we argue that January 6th and its attendant violence was a result of and enabled by legal chicanery? But more to the point, can't we see how that chicanery undermines the law?  Part of why I keep saying the legal profession is in ethical crisis is because it can't seem to reckon with the duty of care it owes to itself. In other words, it struggles to fully accept the role legal professional standards play in the crucial function of the courts and the administrative function of the law, which after all is what civilized societies rely on in place of violence. Undermine it, and we are left with what? Force majeure?

Let me give you a counter example of what I mean and respond to @TwiceHorn about the "higher standard" you both likely take issue to. I mentioned I worked for an industrial giant, and we did business in every country in the world where we were not prohibited from doing it by legal sanction, which takes you to some pretty uncivilized places, many dealing with the transition to a market economy. We built factories, we sold product, and the normal course of business in some of those places involves the enrichment of officials high and low, not to mention unofficials. Doing business in the local manner was undoubtedly in the best interest of our shareholders. Nevertheless, we not only required all employees, in the United States and elsewhere, to adhere to the laws of the United States and our own standards of business conduct even when it increased costs, slowed down projects, or prevented deals altogether. Not only that, but we put independent whistleblower mechanisms in place and used them, and punished bad actors swiftly, including very senior, high performing executives.  Call it risk management, call it reputation management and question the motives all you want.  I'm not saying that corporations don't do things that are bad for society. But mostly they avoid doing things that are bad for business. At the professional level, most big companies and every outfit I've ever been a part of has a set of clear ethical standards and hiding behind the best interests of shareholders has never been even an acceptable excuse, let alone good reason to violate them or do business the wrong way. 
 

I don't necessarily take issue with much of that outside of it as a generalization of all lawyers.  See my edit above with the Venn diagram involving greedy fucks and the shady lawyers who enable them.  But I recognize that there can be representation of defendants who are accused of many wrongs by lawyers who act within the confines of the law so that due process is served.  I think most of what you're saying could be directed at the punishment mechanism within the state bar (and other state's bars).  But at the same time, I get the tight position criminal lawyers face when representing criminal defendants.  Not suborning perjury, for instance, doesn't mean running to the prosecution if you come across evidence implicating your client.  But you are prevented from putting your client on the stand and eliciting from him/her testimony when you know that testimony will be false.  I get that it seems like the lawyer is in cahoots with the defendant at this point, but it's a balancing act to serve the right of the accused to counsel under the Constitution.   The prosecution is responsible for proving its case, not the defendant or his lawyer.  But as TwiceHorn put it, what if it were you who were accused and needed a lawyer?  We law-abiding citizens have to stomach what we know in our hearts doesn't pass the smell test for this reason.  So I'm with him on that part and with representation where the lawyers can do so without running afoul of the law.  

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, dcbc said:

But as TwiceHorn put it, what if it were you who were accused and needed a lawyer?

Exactly! Who amongst us have not (checks notes) … enlisted our lawyers as accomplices to an effort to deprive a witness against us of their parental rights in an unrelated divorce case?

 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


After 25 years of doing business all over the world in multiple industries I appreciate a lawyer educating me about business norms, so thank you, but, and I hate to break this to you,  it is the norm. You just work at the wrong end of things. Generally, businesses and business people are protective of the business environment. In other words, you’re working with the unicorns. That’s why this seems weird. 

Or....and follow me here....companies that toe the line and do stuff the right way very rarely need attorneys to handle sticky situations for them (or at least, corporate-scale sticky situations).  And the other side of that coin is that attorneys who deal with corporations that get in trouble....are dealing with the kind of corporations that do shit that gets them in trouble.  So, of the relevant sample -- corporations that end up in court rooms defending their conduct -- the percentage of bad actors is WAY higher than the percentage of bad actors in the pool of all corporations.

Kind of like how family lawyers spend very, very, very little time working with successful, functional families, and firemen have very, very few calls to rush to houses that are not on fire.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Is Dotard there?

Apparently he skinned out about 20 minutes ago, according to the live blog anyway.  

So over/under $100 Million?

Edited by BamaATL
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Underdog said:

Letitia James?  Come on down for your $300+ million settlement. 

It would be pretty spectacular if Engoron releases his finding in the next hour or so.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Generally, yes. 

Here, though, they didn't have to decide any sticky issues of liability, where it might just be easier to punt and come back quickly with a take-nothing verdict.

Here, they just had to do some math, or, more accurately decide to pick a number that had already been calculated by experts.

(I know you know this, just elaborating for the peanut gallery).

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Exactly! Who amongst us have not (checks notes) … enlisted our lawyers as accomplices to an effort to deprive a witness against us of their parental rights in an unrelated divorce case?
 
Who haven't?
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

$83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll.

Trump will raise that full amount from donations directly from MAGites' disability checks before midnight tonight.

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

From NBC:

Here's a breakdown of the jury's $83.3 million verdict:

$7.3 million in compensatory damages outside of the reputation repair program

$11 million in compensatory damages for a reputation repair program only

$65 million in punitive damages

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

l

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three 

 

 

Your point is bullshit. The court did not delay because of Habba Dabba Doo’s illness.  You are getting all worked up about something when your predicate  factual basis and understanding is just wrong.

As to your goofy point that defense attorneys should turn in their clients to the prosecution, it might be worth a moment’s consideration that if every court system in every state with their own ability to change their procedure does not adopt your method, that maybe there is some validity to the process that escapes you. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

And she'll probably get the opportunity to sue him again after what he'll say on Truth Social tonight.

I mean.....there's also this.

Seriously, I don't even know how the law handles serial, continuing defamation once there's already been a trial and verdict.

If you call me a pedophile who rapes my own kids, and I sue and get punitives of $10 million....and the minute after the verdict, you go outside and say Brisket is still a pedophile who rapes his own kids.....then that's a new tort.  The falsity of which has already been established in the first case.  So....I file suit again, and get a whole new bite at the punitive damages apple.  All.  Day.  Long.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....there's also this.

Seriously, I don't even know how the law handles serial, continuing defamation once there's already been a trial and verdict.

If you call me a pedophile who rapes my own kids, and I sue and get punitives of $10 million....and the minute after the verdict, you go outside and say Brisket is still a pedophile who rapes his own kids.....then that's a new tort.  The falsity of which has already been established in the first case.  So....I file suit again, and get a whole new bite at the punitive damages apple.  All.  Day.  Long.


And you keep doing it over and over and never pay and the law never puts you in jail because you've been elected president and therefore have immunity.

Our only hope now is that somebody pays Ivanka a billion dollars to come out about two weeks before the election and describe in graphic terms how her father raped her. That might not even move MAGA's needle. 

Posted (edited)

https://www.threads.net/@meidas_societyschild/post/C2lE9iorihz/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Quote

The campaign does not currently have the $$$ in their coffers to cover the judgement.  In order for him to appeal he must put the amount of the judgement + 11% in escrow with either a bond or certified check before he can appeal this ruling. This is going to get good!

IMG_20240126_141024_731.thumb.jpg.c390a8a8474d9936ad8d4340f986f3f6.jpg

tldr: he's gotta put over $90M in escrow to appeal

he's fucked

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Trump will raise that full amount from donations directly from MAGites' disability checks before midnight tonight.

Yep, 20 million idiots give 5 bucks each and he's got a few mil in profit already.  Grifting shitbag.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

That might not even move MAGA's needle. 

It will not.  You could have video evidence of the most despicable sex crimes and it would be minimized as his “locker room phase” by the MAGA faithful.  

 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

So he already put up $5M to appeal the first judgement and if he wants to appeal this one he has to put up more?

If he loses the appeal the bond/deposit/whatever you call it is turned over to the plaintiff, right? So Appealing is a way to accelerate the payments to Ms Carroll.



×
×
  • Create New...