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, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

IMG_1498.gif

 

"If I were to represent to you that there is a communications team at the White House, they have a thing called a television, and on that thing they show shows, would you have any reason to dispute that"?

 

That's how it usually goes down.  Still a bit of a dicey proposition, but Habba Dabba Don't can't even wing it.  What a maroon.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

It’s federal court! This is basic shit she should absolutely be dragged for. 

 

50 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

I can’t. This is a performance for Trump. She fucking knows better 

Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

This can't be real. Mock trial students who suck at literally everything know this procedure. They pride themselves because it's so basic and so easy to script and they think they're smart. This bitch doesn't even know that basic script? I have a book sitting 5 feet away that includes the words to use, I got it the first day of my evidence course 18 year ago.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This can't be real. Mock trial students who suck at literally everything know this procedure. They pride themselves because it's so basic and so easy to script and they think they're smart. This bitch doesn't even know that basic script? I have a book sitting 5 feet away that includes the words to use, I got it the first day of my evidence course 18 year ago.

The little NITA evidence handbook I got when I took a course 25 years ago is still on my shelf.  I could hand it to most high school students, and in 15 minutes, they'd be able to do the basics of getting an exhibit admitted.  It ain't rocket surgery.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This can't be real. Mock trial students who suck at literally everything know this procedure. They pride themselves because it's so basic and so easy to script and they think they're smart. This bitch doesn't even know that basic script? I have a book sitting 5 feet away that includes the words to use, I got it the first day of my evidence course 18 year ago.

Yeah but this is a performance for those that think lawyerin is like in Suits where you look at a case for 2 seconds then go up to the judge and tell them what's what.

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I assume, then, that Kaplan permitted Mr. Bob Dobalina to withdraw from the case? 

After seeing this guys name I couldn't help but think of Bob Loblaw. 

Posted
Quote

Habba: I move for a mistrial, evidence has been deleted
Judge Kaplan: Denied and the jury will disregard everything Ms. Habba just said

will ferrell omg GIF

  • Haha 2
Posted

been doing this job 25+ years, tried over 200 cases, and i don't think i ever fucked up the document dance like this.  i've had my moments and certainly seen some outrageous shit from opposing counsel, but lordy mercy not anything close to this.  most of the time the fuck ups illicited laughs and, if they were good folks who were simply lost and wanted to save them from their E&O or a bar complaint, we'd help 'em out...ask for a recess, get with them to help them with their predicates, not object, etc....so long as it didn't jeopardize my client's case.

this shit?...i'd lean back, smile, log my objection and watch her burn.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

been doing this job 25+ years, tried over 200 cases, and i don't think i ever fucked up the document dance like this.  i've had my moments and certainly seen some outrageous shit from opposing counsel, but lordy mercy not anything close to this.  most of the time the fuck ups illicited laughs and, if they were good folks who were simply lost and wanted to save them from their E&O or a bar complaint, we'd help 'em out...ask for a recess, get with them to help them with their predicates, not object, etc....so long as it didn't jeopardize my client's case.

this shit?...i'd lean back, smile, log my objection and watch her burn.

This has been discussed ad nauseum but having an opportunity to represent the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES should be the dream scenario for every single student going through law school.

The fact that this lady is the best he can do says so much.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

been doing this job 25+ years, tried over 200 cases, and i don't think i ever fucked up the document dance like this.  i've had my moments and certainly seen some outrageous shit from opposing counsel, but lordy mercy not anything close to this.  most of the time the fuck ups illicited laughs and, if they were good folks who were simply lost and wanted to save them from their E&O or a bar complaint, we'd help 'em out...ask for a recess, get with them to help them with their predicates, not object, etc....so long as it didn't jeopardize my client's case.

this shit?...i'd lean back, smile, log my objection and watch her burn.

I seem to recall that in state court in Texas, generalized "improper predicate" objections don't cut it.  You're supposed to object and argue as to what is lacking in the foundation line of questioning.

 

Either way, I'm glad she's not in Texas.  Let her burn.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This has been discussed ad nauseum but having an opportunity to represent the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES should be the dream scenario for every single student going through law school.

The fact that this lady is the best he can do says so much.

So much this.  This opportunity - in the abstract - is the career opportunity of a lifetime (usually an opportunity that comes to someone already moving at the higher levels of the practice of law).  It is indeed a dream scenario.  And it doesn't necessarily have to be along party lines -- depending on the case, I would have been honored, and would have busted my ass, to represent Obama, W, GHWB, even Clinton.  

The fact that this piece of fucking excrement has to get the shittiest attorneys on earth -- people who wouldn't even get hired by a sleazy dude running a chain of donut shops that's a front for a half-assed fencing operation -- is incredible.  The former POTUS should be represented by one of the best law firms in the country.  Instead, he's represented by a barely sentient pair of tits, who was hired solely for the "tits" part, not the "sentient" part.

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

The alleged wrong here is not that "evidence was deleted."  The term is spoliation.  If a party destroys/discards material that the party knows will be evidence in a particular dispute, that's called "spoliation."

And generally speaking, the remedy isn't "A MISTRIAL!"  It is an instruction to the jury that the jury is to infer that the destroyed evidence would have benefited the other party, called a "spoliation instruction."

Fucking clown show.

Do you look like Habba, and are you willing to gargle Trump's balls?  Those seem to be the relevant professional criteria here.

Court TV now shows the judge after asking if Habba Dabba Doo ever sent preservation letters

IMG_0589.gif.6aeb762bd9836b7cca50ee97a7bfcc4c.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm a bit pissed as I didn't know that I was qualified to be a lawyer all this time.

You think this is bad, some of them can't even keep their pipes from freezing.

  • Haha 1
Posted

 

 

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

The fact that this piece of fucking excrement has to get the shittiest attorneys on earth -- people who wouldn't even get hired by a sleazy dude running a chain of donut shops that's a front for a half-assed fencing operation -- is incredible.  The former POTUS should be represented by one of the best law firms in the country.  Instead, he's represented by a barely sentient pair of tits, who was hired solely for the "tits" part, not the "sentient" part.

Recall that his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is a graduate of The Worst Law School In America (tm)

https://lawschooli.com/should-i-attend-cooley-law-school/

Posted
1 minute ago, Underdog said:

Sally Struthers Law School should give her a refund. 

Sadly, given their dirt cheap family law program…it’s the children that truly suffer

  • Haha 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Remember Bush v. Gore?  Say what you want about the parties, their positions, etc., but neither side was represented by an attorney who would be overwhelmed by a goddamned traffic ticket docket.  They had real lawyers, with real chops.  This....is just fucking pathetic.  Just like Trump.

It’s pretty staggering to look back at the legal teams that Bush and Gore had, meanwhile Trump is treating it like he’s hiring the cheapest contractor that he can find and will eventually stiff them on the bill.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

meanwhile Trump is treating it like he’s hiring the cheapest contractor that he can find

He did.

 

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

and will eventually stiff them on the bill.

And he will.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

all those dudes in bush v gore are either on the supreme court or named james baker.

Great.  So, in 2026 r so, after Trump's insane victory in 2024 (because this fucking timeline), Alina Habba is going to end up on the SCOTUS.

That totally, 100% checks out.

  • Haha 1
Posted

This will do as good as anywhere to drop this.

But perhaps such views are merely overheated samplings from super-red MAGA pockets, and the heartland voters are more sensible. No such luck. In Iowa, 19 percent of 502 likely GOP caucus attendees said Trump’s statement that he might have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents made them more inclined to vote for him. One out of five might not seem like a lot, but another 43 percent said they didn’t care one way or another. Trump’s ranting about “terminating” parts of the Constitution made only 14 percent more likely to vote for him, but again, 36 percent didn’t care. What a triumph: Only one in eight Iowa GOP caucus voters supports trashing the Constitution.

----

Strings of losses, including the 2018 Democratic-wave election, Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, and the “red wave” that never happened in 2022, forced MAGA voters to construct an alternate reality in which the patriotic, hardworking majority has been repeatedly thwarted by schemes so complicated that SPECTRE would have struggled to execute them. Worse, a culture (especially in the media) that for a time was desperate to understand their views now either ignores them or treats them as dangerous curiosities.

 

 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This has been discussed ad nauseum but having an opportunity to represent the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES should be the dream scenario for every single student going through law school.

The fact that this lady is the best he can do says so much.

 

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So much this.  This opportunity - in the abstract - is the career opportunity of a lifetime (usually an opportunity that comes to someone already moving at the higher levels of the practice of law).  It is indeed a dream scenario.  And it doesn't necessarily have to be along party lines -- depending on the case, I would have been honored, and would have busted my ass, to represent Obama, W, GHWB, even Clinton.  

The fact that this piece of fucking excrement has to get the shittiest attorneys on earth -- people who wouldn't even get hired by a sleazy dude running a chain of donut shops that's a front for a half-assed fencing operation -- is incredible.  The former POTUS should be represented by one of the best law firms in the country.  Instead, he's represented by a barely sentient pair of tits, who was hired solely for the "tits" part, not the "sentient" part.

Blah blah blah.

Already covered this. The bloom fell off that particular rose last year.

If we gain nothing else from Trump, can we at least realize that the notion that presidents are somehow Great or Worthy by virtue is the Office is, and always has been, stupid? I'm pretty sure no one has deserved that praise during my lifetime, which began sometime around when "Watergate" became a household name. And you can work backwards from there.

Fuck em all, even the ones I like.

57 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's her CV:

hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwE7CK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAy

I believe that the left one is "C," and the right one is "V."  But I may have that reversed.

 

57 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Well that does appear to be quite the nice rack

It really is.

It's too bad that there are THREE boobs in that photo.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Blah blah blah.

Already covered this. The bloom fell off that particular rose last year.

If we gain nothing else from Trump, can we at least realize that the notion that presidents are somehow Great or Worthy by virtue is the Office is, and always has been, stupid? I'm pretty sure no one has deserved that praise during my lifetime, which began sometime around when "Watergate" became a household name. And you can work backwards from there.

Fuck em all, even the ones I like.

 

It really is.

It's too bad that there are THREE boobs in that photo.

Way to ruin Total Recall for me, man.

  • Haha 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

This will do as good as anywhere to drop this.

But perhaps such views are merely overheated samplings from super-red MAGA pockets, and the heartland voters are more sensible. No such luck. In Iowa, 19 percent of 502 likely GOP caucus attendees said Trump’s statement that he might have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents made them more inclined to vote for him. One out of five might not seem like a lot, but another 43 percent said they didn’t care one way or another. Trump’s ranting about “terminating” parts of the Constitution made only 14 percent more likely to vote for him, but again, 36 percent didn’t care. What a triumph: Only one in eight Iowa GOP caucus voters supports trashing the Constitution.

----

Strings of losses, including the 2018 Democratic-wave election, Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, and the “red wave” that never happened in 2022, forced MAGA voters to construct an alternate reality in which the patriotic, hardworking majority has been repeatedly thwarted by schemes so complicated that SPECTRE would have struggled to execute them. Worse, a culture (especially in the media) that for a time was desperate to understand their views now either ignores them or treats them as dangerous curiosities.

 

 

Well, other Americans are to blame. They voted for other people.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I can’t. This is a performance for Trump. She fucking knows better 

 

What if, and I know this is a stretch, but perhaps....she doesn't know better.

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

image.png.f3471c19638a96a1c5340d1774ac7865.png

 

Decided to see if i could find the pic.  UT Great James Baker, I meant.

Ha, I used to know Shelly Anisman.  Never really would have figured he and Baker were same age.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

No, he went into politics instead of pastries.

Well, he was unequivocally better at dodging things than other Reagan cabinet members.  

  • Haha 5


×
×
  • Create New...