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
3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Every month I drive this thing I save $800

He is missing side mirrors….

Plus, you may not need a nice car to get a date.  This kid needs a Lamborghini. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

JFC

Hey can I get another surly lawyer coming off the top rope to tell me that trump isn't gonna escape facing consequences yet again?

charlie brown thanksgiving GIF by Peanuts

Posted
8 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

JFC

I haz confused. How does the SCOTUS ruling apply? He wasn't president when he committed the crime, and it has nothing to do with official presidential acts. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I haz confused. How does the SCOTUS ruling apply? He wasn't president when he committed the crime, and it has nothing to do with official presidential acts. 

It doesn't apply, but parties get to argue for and against, hence delay, which is part and parcel of what the SCOTUS politicos wanted.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, miguelito said:

True, but it takes several months to determine that. Oh, plus more for appeals.

How does it take several months to determine when it happened? Gawd, I'm so ready to be done with this simulation. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hey can I get another surly lawyer coming off the top rope to tell me that trump isn't gonna escape facing consequences yet again?

charlie brown thanksgiving GIF by Peanuts

I’m not a lawyer but that seems really stupid. The New York case has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision.

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It doesn't apply, but parties get to argue for and against, hence delay, which is part and parcel of what the SCOTUS politicos wanted.

Argue what? 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How does it take several months to determine when it happened? Gawd, I'm so ready to be done with this simulation. 

I have honestly wondered if at some point something malfunctioned in the simulation (this may or may not have been after a gummy) because everything is broken. Like, dropping smart phones into the simulation broke it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How does it take several months to determine when it happened? Gawd, I'm so ready to be done with this simulation. 

I filed my hurricane Ida lawsuit against my homeowners insurance last August.   The federal court just informed us that mandatory mediation will take place in September. That is a year by any count boys and girls.  

Everyone needs to realize that courts have very pressing, crowded dockets, and that after your case has settled or a judgment has been rendered, the judges don’t sit around and do nothing but wait for all of the appellate issues in that case to be resolved.   Of necessity they go on to the next case. If they are trying other cases, they are not working on remand issues on your earlier case. They are working on your case again when they have time to do it. 

In the Parish I practice in most often the average length from filing to resolution of a civil case is three years.  I know that this is upsetting to everybody, but none of the time frames involved are particularly egregious when you consider all the factors.    

We all have a vested interest in seeing Trump convicted and sentenced as soon as possible because that is what we want to help in the election.  The court system is not supposed to be designed for a court to weigh-in quicker on issues that one side likes versus the other side.   SCOTUS is fucking us with no reach around.   Try gummies.  All i got. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hey can I get another surly lawyer coming off the top rope to tell me that trump isn't gonna escape facing consequences yet again?

charlie brown thanksgiving GIF by Peanuts

There is no reason to comment to you because you have it all figured out an advance. 

To the rest of you, the little “ if required” language is nothing more than the judge making a display that he is fair and will consider the immunity argument thoroughly.    As SCOTUS requires. Think of it as a lizard with a throat pouch inflated with a tattoo saying “MAGA- I will be fair”…… even as he writes a Magnum opus factual finding document that leaves very little doubt that Trump should have no immunity.

But before the judge goes on that quest he has to appear that he is taking immunity seriously.  All of your arguments about why immunity should not apply are valid and will be considered by the judge who will issue a ruling essentially agreeing with you. 

And then that will be appealed.  

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Obviously I'm not a lawyer. Our son is, so he gets it. To me the judge has the parties come on sentencing day and asks, was he president when this crime occurred? No? Then the SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply, here's your sentence. Yea I know our doesn't work that way. 

Posted
39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

But before the judge goes on that quest he has to appear that he is taking immunity seriously.  All of your arguments about why immunity should not apply are valid and will be considered by the judge who will issue a ruling essentially agreeing with you. 

And then that will be appealed

You keep touting this as if it's a feature and not a bug. Trumpco is effectively DDOSing the justice system with his specious filings, and then worst of all he gets validation from the Imperial Court for his gaslit arguments on how his attempt to subvert the election is an official act. 

Or at least, we have to hear his horseshit argument and make a ruling on that before doing ANYTHING else, and he has a free hand to continue grabbing lady liberty by the pussy. 

He is an agent of malice that seeks to weaponize every mechanism extended to him, and you're too busy telling me about the features to realize that trump has everything he needs to delay any more trials indefinitely 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You keep touting this as if it's a feature and not a bug. Trumpco is effectively DDOSing the justice system with his specious filings, and then worst of all he gets validation from the Imperial Court for his gaslit arguments on how his attempt to subvert the election is an official act. 

Or at least, we have to hear his horseshit argument and make a ruling on that before doing ANYTHING else, and he has a free hand to continue grabbing lady liberty by the pussy. 

He is an agent of malice that seeks to weaponize every mechanism extended to him, and you're too busy telling me about the features to realize that trump has everything he needs to delay any more trials indefinitely 

You keep talking to the lawyers like we don't understand what is happening and that you alone are the master of this information. We've told you the system isn't designed to handle someone like Trump. It isn't designed to solve political problems. Sorry. Despite your best wishes, it isn't our fault the system isn't perfect. It isn't our fault that Trump is dick. It isn't our fault that the political process allowed the appointment of shit judges to SCOTUS. If you have a solution, go implement it. If you can't, well, fuck, neither can I. Neither can @TwiceHorn. Neither can @Gatorubet. So you're just as much to blame as the rest of us. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Argue what? 

i’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they will argue the immunity issue that the Supreme Court told them to argue. 

I am sitting here working on an opposition to a motion to strike jury and one of my cases.  The reason that defendant wants to do that is because this particular venue is a very, very well-known plaintiff friendly place.   The kind of place you want your tractor trailer accident to be when a jury hears it.   

I think the D’s argument will lose for several reasons, the least of which being in a joint pretrial conference the defendant agreed that we should have a jury trial.  But like making sausage, the legislature has crafted a really crappy worded civil procedure article on how to demand and keep a jury that has some wiggle room to support the motion they filed. 

If Captainant was reading about this case in the news he would be appalled that a defendant could file a motion that wasn’t 100% clear you would win, and would be incensed that a defense attorney is trying to do something to help her client that is not a 100% slam dunk.  And he would be wrong, as there is a chance the defendant will win the motion, slim tho that may be.  

And, as it makes sense not to have a jury trial when it is improper, and it also makes sense not to have a judge trial when the plaintiff should have a right to a jury, one side will probably take a writ after the trial court decides which one of us the court thinks is correct.   I have researched the heck out of this and there is no on-point case in this factual scenario. This will also make Captainant’s head explode, as he does not want defendants to file things he does not like that seemed like a waste of time to him, and he does not like the court system to take time on writs and appeals when he wants an immediate answer - one that goes the way he wants it to go

I very much enjoy Captainant as a poster generally, but when it comes to all things legal, he becomes the world’s greatest Legal Karen - demanding to see the Manager of Court delays and Appeals.  

I do not think the bullshit immunity defense will work here. I do not think the bullshit motion to strike my jury will work here.  But parties have an absolute right to file the pleadings they want to gain any advantage they want so long as it is not sanctionable. If that means you have an unfriendly judge who is nearing retirement - and by filing some speculative/creative but non-frivolous motions you can succeed in delaying proceedings until a better judge for your client takes the bench, it is literally malpractice not to do that.     

Trump’s lawyers do not owe duty to captainant to roll over and say, “please convict Trump”.  That is another way of saying that Trump’s lawyers can do the same thing that the lawyers in my case are doing, so long as the motion is not totally specious and frivolous.  The mere fact that this legal issue in trumps case has never before been litigated makes it very difficult to prevent them from making the argument, thereby requiring courts to take time to consider it. 

I have no answer for your unhappiness with this reality. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Gatorubet said:

i’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they will argue the immunity issue that the Supreme Court told them to argue. 

I am sitting here working on an opposition to a motion to strike jury and one of my cases.  The reason that defendant wants to do that is because this particular venue is a very, very well-known plaintiff friendly place.   The kind of place you want your tractor trailer accident to be when a jury hears it.   

I think the D’s argument will lose for several reasons, the least of which being in a joint pretrial conference the defendant agreed that we should have a jury trial.  But like making sausage, the legislature has crafted a really crappy worded civil procedure article on how to demand and keep a jury that has some wiggle room to support the motion they filed. 

If Captainant was reading about this case in the news he would be appalled that a defendant could file a motion that wasn’t 100% clear you would win, and would be incensed that a defense attorney is trying to do something to help her client that is not a 100% slam dunk.  And he would be wrong, as there is a chance the defendant will win the motion, slim tho that may be.  

And, as it makes sense not to have a jury trial when it is improper, and it also makes sense not to have a judge trial when the plaintiff should have a right to a jury, one side will probably take a writ after the trial court decides which one of us the court thinks is correct.   I have researched the heck out of this and there is no on-point case in this factual scenario. This will also make Captainant’s head explode, as he does not want defendants to file things he does not like that seemed like a waste of time to him, and he does not like the court system to take time on writs and appeals when he wants an immediate answer - one that goes the way he wants it to go

I very much enjoy Captainant as a poster generally, but when it comes to all things legal, he becomes the world’s greatest Legal Karen - demanding to see the Manager of Court delays and Appeals.  

I do not think the bullshit immunity defense will work here. I do not think the bullshit motion to strike my jury will work here.  But parties have an absolute right to file the pleadings they want to gain any advantage they want so long as it is not sanctionable. If that means you have an unfriendly judge who is nearing retirement - and by filing some speculative/creative but non-frivolous motions you can succeed in delaying proceedings until a better judge for your client takes the bench, it is literally malpractice not to do that.     

Trump’s lawyers do not owe duty to captainant to roll over and say, “please convict Trump”.  That is another way of saying that Trump’s lawyers can do the same thing that the lawyers in my case are doing, so long as the motion is not totally specious and frivolous.  The mere fact that this legal issue in trumps case has never before been litigated makes it very difficult to prevent them from making the argument, thereby requiring courts to take time to consider it. 

I have no answer for your unhappiness with this reality. 

What immunity? Thats my point. This crime occurred before he was president. I’m not being argumentative just not really sure what the argument would even be.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

What immunity? Thats my point. This crime occurred before he was president. I’m not being argumentative just not really sure what the argument would even be.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't at least part of the crimes take place after he was President.  At least some of the actual payoffs and ledger entries occurred post election and post inauguration.  Mind you, I don't agree with any of it being tossed out, but if you boil it down to the simplicity of was he President vs was he not President at the time of the actual crimes, at least some of it occurred while he was in office.  My understanding of yesterdays ruling should mean all of these were non official acts, so in theory it shouldn't matter.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't at least part of the crimes take place after he was President.  At least some of the actual payoffs and ledger entries occurred post election and post inauguration.  Mind you, I don't agree with any of it being tossed out, but if you boil it down to the simplicity of was he President vs was he not President at the time of the actual crimes, at least some of it occurred while he was in office.  My understanding of yesterday’s ruling should mean all of these were non official acts, so in theory it shouldn't matter.  
 

I’m not actually sure tbh. Thats what I’m asking. I thought I saw that the Trumps were arguing that because the prosecution used official statements in their case that was a problem? 
Im not a lawyer so I’m just trying to understand 

Posted
8 hours ago, Red Five said:

I don't think it matters where he was sitting, if he was signing personal checks to pay off an an affair he had with a porn star. 

Well, it shouldn't matter anyway. But who knows.

“You have the morals of an alley cat, you had sex with a porn star while your wife was pregnant”

”I didnt have sex with a porn star”

Peyton Manning What GIF by Gatorade

Posted
22 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m not actually sure tbh. Thats what I’m asking. I thought I saw that the Trumps were arguing that because the prosecution used official statements in their case that was a problem? 
Im not a lawyer so I’m just trying to understand 

Official statements can't be made while you're campaigning. The Hatch Act exists, even if it was shredded during the trump admin. 

I'm just so fucking exhausted of trump's lawyers proposing something that's completely absurd and farcical on its face, and then all the kings horses and all the kings men twisting themselves into knots just to argue every little specious fecal filing down to get the right ruling. It's a scenario where trumpco only needs to succeed once or twice, and apparently attempting to overrule a democratically appointed slate of electors is actually a presidential duty.

Or at least it's so fucking unclear that we need to pause everything to argue about it for a few more months. What a goddamn clown fiesta. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Or at least it's so fucking unclear that we need to pause everything to argue about it for a few more months. What a goddamn clown fiesta. 

I am honestly not trying to be snarky here, but absent some form of Minority Report pre-cog mutants telling us in advance what the proper ruling is, who in your system of litigation determines what is clear or unclear?

The way we do that in our system is to have a hearing and the judge rules. My very serious question is how does your system deal with the procedural aspect of one side wanting to bring up an issue that the other side thinks is stupid?  Who/how is it determined in advance what issues a party can bring up in your legal system?    Because that seems to be your main complaint, and the one thing you blame all the lawyers about the most.

I will hang up and listen to your solution.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

The way we do that in our system is to have a hearing and the judge rules

I think you’ve put the finger on the problem 

Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't at least part of the crimes take place after he was President.  At least some of the actual payoffs and ledger entries occurred post election and post inauguration.  Mind you, I don't agree with any of it being tossed out, but if you boil it down to the simplicity of was he President vs was he not President at the time of the actual crimes, at least some of it occurred while he was in office.  My understanding of yesterdays ruling should mean all of these were non official acts, so in theory it shouldn't matter.  

 

57 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m not actually sure tbh. Thats what I’m asking. I thought I saw that the Trumps were arguing that because the prosecution used official statements in their case that was a problem? 
Im not a lawyer so I’m just trying to understand 

Yes, some of the checks were signed from the Oval Office and the associated false documentation created after he took office.  None of which can be credibly characterized as official acts, even under Roberts' rubric.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
9 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sentencing in the hush money felony conviction is postponed until 9/18? Cool, cool.

That's actually a good timeline if you want to see homeboy on paper during the election. 60 days would do it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Pods said:

From the moment we are born, everything just delays the inevitable, but we don't have to inject bleach into our veins just yet. 

Yet we've gone out, found a needle in an alley, brought it home, gone to the laundry room,  grabbed the Clorox bottle, and poured it right into the ol needle...

And we're thinking about the jab.

But we didn't have to.

Edited by Slacks
Posted
2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

What immunity? Thats my point. This crime occurred before he was president. I’m not being argumentative just not really sure what the argument would even be.

I think it has to do with the fact that he cut one of the checks to reimburse Cohen after he was President.  It's a stupid argument, if that's the argument.  The SCOTUS said "official acts" can't go to prove unofficial acts or some such.  So they'll roll with it to run the clock.

 

I could be wrong.  I've been busy and haven't kept much of an eye on it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I am honestly not trying to be snarky here, but absent some form of Minority Report pre-cog mutants telling us in advance what the proper ruling is, who in your system of litigation determines what is clear or unclear?

The way we do that in our system is to have a hearing and the judge rules. My very serious question is how does your system deal with the procedural aspect of one side wanting to bring up an issue that the other side thinks is stupid?  Who/how is it determined in advance what issues a party can bring up in your legal system?    Because that seems to be your main complaint, and the one thing you blame all the lawyers about the most.

I will hang up and listen to your solution.

You don't see this too much, but I'd pay a shiny nickle to watch proceedings on a motion to have him declared a vexatious litigant.  Yeah, it might not do anything in criminal proceedings.  But surely there are some civil trilas in his future. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Motion to change thread title to "nothing matters and we are all fucked"

 

12 minutes ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

Second the motion 

There already are three of those threads.

Posted
2 hours ago, dcbc said:

I think it has to do with the fact that he cut one of the checks to reimburse Cohen after he was President.  It's a stupid argument, if that's the argument.  The SCOTUS said "official acts" can't go to prove unofficial acts or some such.  So they'll roll with it to run the clock.

 

I could be wrong.  I've been busy and haven't kept much of an eye on it.

What about every phone call he made to Cohen (or Weissman or anyone else) while he was president? Couldn’t he claim those were official business so they can’t be used as evidence and the motive for the calls can’t be considered?

Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What about every phone call he made to Cohen (or Weissman or anyone else) while he was president? Couldn’t he claim those were official business so they can’t be used as evidence and the motive for the calls can’t be considered?

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

This is the weirdest situation I could have never imagined. I hate this mother fucker and what he’s doing to the country I thought I lived in with ever fiber of my being. But I’m white and already own a house and drive a truck, so I guess I probably stand to benefit from his shit (other than that whole death of democracy thing).

Maybe ole Clayton Williams was right. If rape is inevitable might as well lay back and enjoy it. What a wonderful world. Yay.

Posted
10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What about every phone call he made to Cohen (or Weissman or anyone else) while he was president? Couldn’t he claim those were official business so they can’t be used as evidence and the motive for the calls can’t be considered?

Maybe he should have given Cohen a role on his White House staff after all. :)

Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

But they’ll hear it, right? And that will delay things further. They’ll claim everything they can and it will all get heard. And then if he wins the election he’ll sic the DoJ on everyone prosecuting him along with their spouses and children until he’s let off scot free. Right?

Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

How does that process play out? Like would it be dependent on the specific content? Would things be subject to privilege?

Posted
4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

How does that process play out? Like would it be dependent on the specific content? Would things be subject to privilege?

Idk let's have another hearing, ruling, and appeal cycle to get to the bottom of that before we go any further

 

 

...

 

 

What trial?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

This is the weirdest situation I could have never imagined. I hate this mother fucker and what he’s doing to the country I thought I lived in with ever fiber of my being. But I’m white and already own a house and drive a truck, so I guess I probably stand to benefit from his shit (other than that whole death of democracy thing).

Maybe ole Clayton Williams was right. If rape is inevitable might as well lay back and enjoy it. What a wonderful world. Yay.

That's like saying the Aryans benefited from Hitler. Nobody will benefit. We will just be eating a little less shit.

  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I think you’ve put the finger on the problem 

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

No

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

That'll be the new system -- after Trump wins in November.

"Now, what will it be? Death or banishment?"

0fc651670cb9a46fe7efbfdd45d0d5bc.gif

Edited by C-Man
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

How does that process play out? Like would it be dependent on the specific content? Would things be subject to privilege?

Trump will make a written motion pointing out evidence of allegedly immune acts that was presented to the jury.  The state will respond by arguing that the acts are not, in fact, official acts or presumptively immune.  The judge will decide if any of the acts were immune and thus improperly presented to the jury.  He would presumably order a new trial if any such acts are found or proven.  Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal.  Not sure on that.

And no, none of it is subject to privilege.  It will all be based on testimony and other evidence presented to the jury.

In a lot of ways, this is a narrower, more confined inquiry because the evidence has already been presented, whereas the argument before Chutkan was a tad speculative, based on the words of the indictment alone.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

Having spent most of my litigating life in federal trial courts, where hearings on written motions are the exception rather than the rule, as opposed to Texas state courts and others where the written briefing is ignored until a hearing takes place, I much prefer the former. 

Hearings are largely a waste of time.

Appellate courts, where brief hearings are usually in order on written briefs will tell you that oral argument rarely affects the outcome.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Having spent most of my litigating life in federal trial courts, where hearings on written motions are the exception rather than the rule, as opposed to Texas state courts and others where the written briefing is ignored until a hearing takes place, I much prefer the former. 

Hearings are largely a waste of time.

Appellate courts, where brief hearings are usually in order on written briefs will tell you that oral argument rarely affects the outcome.

I was referring to “hearing” in the sense that both parties put forth a position to a court on an issue.  Whether oral argument took place or not was superfluous. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will make a written motion pointing out evidence of allegedly immune acts that was presented to the jury.  The state will respond by arguing that the acts are not, in fact, official acts or presumptively immune.  The judge will decide if any of the acts were immune and thus improperly presented to the jury.  He would presumably order a new trial if any such acts are found or proven.  Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal.  Not sure on that.

And no, none of it is subject to privilege.  It will all be based on testimony and other evidence presented to the jury.

In a lot of ways, this is a narrower, more confined inquiry because the evidence has already been presented, whereas the argument before Chutkan was a tad speculative, based on the words of the indictment alone.

 

This is true except certain evidence of acts taken in an official capacity will be ruled inadmissible to prove the checks written while president were unofficial. 
 

it’s the new evidentiary rules that are the insidious problem not the framework of what is official and what is not. 
 

the intersection of Roberts opinion and Barrett’s concurring opinion highlight the issue.  
 

this should be a slam dunk, of course it’s unofficial conduct but the question is what evidence is admissible to prove it. Some evidence is going to get kicked out potentially making the case hard to prove.  I think after appeals we may end up with a SCOTUS requirement for a new trial if not sooner, though I’d love to see the TC and COA force SCOTUS to twist more logic to get there. 



×
×
  • Create New...