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
14 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Doubtful.  But he's not going to trial with those jury instructions without rulings from higher courts.

he's asking her to fix this or he'll have the 11th circuit do it for her - and it will be the third time they've had to correct her on something like this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

he's asking her to fix this or he'll have the 11th circuit do it for her - and it will be the third time they've had to correct her on something like this. 

Correct.  She asked them to submit competing questions.  She's sitting on the issue, wasting time.  He needs to move her off of high-center.  So he's now asking her to make a ruling so that he can have a (presumably) adverse order on which to base his petition for writ of mandamus.  

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Foosters said:

I suggest everyone read the last couple of pages of that. They formulate a set of jury instructions under Cannon's proposal to show how fucking stupid she is. 

That's good shit.

And, I was unsure of the remedies available to the government upon threatened adoption or bad jury instructions.  But that motion-thing cites authority for mandamus being an appropriate and grantable remedy.

And, although I don't think it's very likely in a general case, this is the kind of thing that might actually get her kicked off the case by the 11th Circuit.  Mandamus is premised on the notion that the trial judge has screwed the pooch, nay, fucked the dog and is going to fuck someone hard in the process.  It invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of the appeals court to correct grievous errors in real time, rather than after trial and judgment.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
4 hours ago, dcbc said:

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

And you can’t reason a person out of a position they weren’t reasoned into. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
Somebodies bond got rejected...   oppsie!    I guess he has to upload his financials too
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-forced-reveal-his-finances-save-his-properties-1886609
Documents for Donald Trump's $175 million bond in his New York civil fraud case were rejected by a court because a current financial statement was not included.
On Wednesday, a message on the New York State Supreme Court's electronic filing system showed Trump's "Bond/Undertaking" had been "returned for correction."
New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ruled in February against Trump; his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump; and others associated with the Trump Organization. They were accused in a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James of inflating the former president's net worth and the value of his properties to obtain better loan and insurance terms. Trump has denied all accusations.
On Monday, Trump posted a $175 million bond in the case, ensuring that James does not seize any of his assets or bank accounts during his appeal.
Newsweek reached out to Trump representative Steven Cheung by email for comment about the documents rejection.
He had originally been ordered to pay $454 million in damages after Engoron found him and others liable for misleading lenders. An appeals court granted Trump's request last week to lower his bond amount to $175 million after his lawyers argued that it was a "practical impossibility" to fulfill the original penalty.
Criminal defense attorney Jeffrey K. Levine, who represented former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, posted an explanation on X (formerly Twitter) about the court's rejection message. He included New York County Supreme Court document number 1707, which could explain why Trump's bond filing was returned to his lawyers.
According to Levine's post, Trump will need to share recent financial records in order for his bond to be accepted.
BREAKING NEWS:
Court rejected #TrumpBond filing in #TrumpFraudVerdict for several reasons, 1 of which was #Trump failed to upload his "current financial statement" to the Court [looking forward to read].
175 million reasons why 1 mistake should not have been made, much less 3 ! pic.twitter.com/qk7nLskx5F

— Jeffrey K. Levine (@NYadvocateJKL) April 3, 2024
The New York County Supreme Court document he shared read:
"The court has returned the documents listed below for the following reasons: Please include a current financial statement and Power of Attorney. Additionally, please list the name of the Attorney-in-Fact under the signature line on the Undertaking. Please use the 'Refile Document' link for Doc. No. 1707 to resubmit the corrected filing. Thank you and have a great day."
 

So the guy who got convicted of fraudulently overstating his finances is supposed to now all of a sudden post a legit financial statement huh?
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 minute ago, tbone_ said:


So the guy who got convicted of fraudulently overstating his finances is supposed to now all of a sudden post a legit financial statement huh?

No worries, I'm sure they have GAP ace Don Jr. working on it right now.  Should be a real gem.  

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, locodos said:

Somebodies bond got rejected...   oppsie!    I guess he has to upload his financials too

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-forced-reveal-his-finances-save-his-properties-1886609

Documents for Donald Trump's $175 million bond in his New York civil fraud case were rejected by a court because a current financial statement was not included.

On Wednesday, a message on the New York State Supreme Court's electronic filing system showed Trump's "Bond/Undertaking" had been "returned for correction."

New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ruled in February against Trump; his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump; and others associated with the Trump Organization. They were accused in a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James of inflating the former president's net worth and the value of his properties to obtain better loan and insurance terms. Trump has denied all accusations.

On Monday, Trump posted a $175 million bond in the case, ensuring that James does not seize any of his assets or bank accounts during his appeal.

Newsweek reached out to Trump representative Steven Cheung by email for comment about the documents rejection.

He had originally been ordered to pay $454 million in damages after Engoron found him and others liable for misleading lenders. An appeals court granted Trump's request last week to lower his bond amount to $175 million after his lawyers argued that it was a "practical impossibility" to fulfill the original penalty.

Criminal defense attorney Jeffrey K. Levine, who represented former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, posted an explanation on X (formerly Twitter) about the court's rejection message. He included New York County Supreme Court document number 1707, which could explain why Trump's bond filing was returned to his lawyers.

According to Levine's post, Trump will need to share recent financial records in order for his bond to be accepted.

BREAKING NEWS:
Court rejected #TrumpBond filing in #TrumpFraudVerdict for several reasons, 1 of which was #Trump failed to upload his "current financial statement" to the Court [looking forward to read].
175 million reasons why 1 mistake should not have been made, much less 3 ! pic.twitter.com/qk7nLskx5F

— Jeffrey K. Levine 🇺🇸 (@NYadvocateJKL) April 3, 2024
The New York County Supreme Court document he shared read:

"The court has returned the documents listed below for the following reasons: Please include a current financial statement and Power of Attorney. Additionally, please list the name of the Attorney-in-Fact under the signature line on the Undertaking. Please use the 'Refile Document' link for Doc. No. 1707 to resubmit the corrected filing. Thank you and have a great day."

 

He’s going to commit fraud on that financial statement isn’t he?

 

can the bond issuer get in trouble for having issued the bond if the financial statement shows that Trump doesn’t have enough equity in the pledged properties to cover the 175 million, or is it simply more financial risk for them?

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


So the guy who got convicted of fraudulently overstating his finances is supposed to now all of a sudden post a legit financial statement huh?

IMG_0589.gif.cacd99ddfb30b5e308908ba720bdd02f.gif

“Current financial statement???…which one do you want showing I have how much again..?”

Posted

I don't ever want to compare the late, great John Candy (whom I love) to Donald Trump...but this is pretty close to how I'm sure Trump handled his bond checking account situation: 

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
55 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

He’s going to commit fraud on that financial statement isn’t he?

 

can the bond issuer get in trouble for having issued the bond if the financial statement shows that Trump doesn’t have enough equity in the pledged properties to cover the 175 million, or is it simply more financial risk for them?

The bond issuer, unlikely.  Their concern is putting up 145M shekels in Trump's name and getting paid when the bond gets disbursed to the plaintiff.  Now, if for some reason or other the bond didn't turn into 145M on disbursement, they might have a problem.

Trump's financial statement is going to need to indicate that he doesn't have 454M in cash or cash-equivalents lying around and support his arguments for reducing the bond, e.g. that liquidating real estate on short notice is hard and a money-loser.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, The Dog said:

He probably lied about the collateral to get the bond. 

At what point is he lying, and at what point does he really just not know?

Posted
11 hours ago, Captainant said:

What really boils my oats about all this is the constant insistence by the legal community writ large that we MUST let the fascists have their way with the justice system, "otherwise we are just as bad as they are" or some other backhanded defense of the Byzantine and multi-tiered legal system. 

IMG_2480.gif.175fc9d0aacc524a0128d7565af46296.gif

I believe that this is the oats boiled gif

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can you just summarize it for us? 🤣

After conventional instructions regarding 793, the government proposed the following addition:

I instruct you, however, that, as to a former President, even if he lacks a security clearance, lacks a need to know classified information, and stores information outside of a secure facility, he is authorized to do so if the classified information is contained within a “personal record,” within the meaning of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a statute that establishes the public ownership of presidential records and ensures the preservation of presidential records for public access after the termination of a President’s term in office.

And this after instructing, in accordance with the PRA, that a "personal record" is:

 all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President, and includes (A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business; (B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and (C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Trump's lawyers have to be fairly astonished that she actually bit on any of this shit.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, C-Man said:

So is Jack Smith getting really close to asking that Cannon get the boot in favor of a new judge in this case?

A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.
 

Just DO IT!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, The Dog said:

he's asking her to fix this or he'll have the 11th circuit do it for her - and it will be the third time they've had to correct her on something like this. 

You’re fired!

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Who is mentoring or coaxing this Judge Cannon?  She’s not smart enough to be delaying and coming up with these slow-downs on her own.

Who put you up to this?  Was it her?

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Who is mentoring or coaxing this Judge Cannon?  She’s not smart enough to be delaying and coming up with these slow-downs on her own.

I think she's really fucking stupid.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Mandamus is premised on the notion that the trial judge has screwed the pooch

Put another way, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

But, she’s got help…she’s not doing this by herself….imho.

maybe Habba Dabba Doo is helping her make these decisions by a time-honored method.

IMG_2515.gif.a9f1b6c5e802b87756ca3a97680d2908.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Smith should be sanctioned for "attacking" a judge? Is this a self-aware bit now?

200.gif

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

Tell me.

When.

He.

Is fucking.

DEAD.

The entire world literally celebrated when he lost in 2020

You will hear the bells ringing again

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

But, she’s got help…she’s not doing this by herself….imho.

I dunno man.  You'd really think her clerks would at least question what she's doing. But a dumbshit may hire dumbshit clerks.

And to be somewhat fair, neither the PRA itself or the court decisions nibbling around the edges of it are particularly clear about how the overall process works.  Another unfortunate thing is that there is a pretty long history of questioning the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Espionage Act, particularly as applied to the press, so looking askance at it is not wholly unwarranted.  My/our hero Steve Vladeck ironically gave testimony to Congress about the Espionage Act being a bit of a shit show about 10 years ago.  https://irp.fas.org/congress/2010_hr/051210vladeck.pdf

Still, as is well known, I try to follow this shit in fair detail.  I'm probably not the greatest legal mind and I do have a pretty hardcore anti-Trump bias, but this shit just doesn't seem that difficult.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

But, she’s got help…she’s not doing this by herself….imho.

https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/judge-cannons-clerkship-problem/

I think the problem is that she has no help.  I often want to punch these two hosts, but this is a pretty good podcast that stressed me the fuck out at not only how over her head she is, but how she's going to self-destruct.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/judge-cannons-clerkship-problem/

I think the problem is that she has no help.  I often want to punch these two hosts, but this is a pretty good podcast that stressed me the fuck out at not only how over her head she is, but how she's going to self-destruct.

there is a small possibility that her refusal to issue any rulings is also related to her whimpering in the corner in a fetal position, knowing she’s gonna fuck up whatever decision she makes and be a laughing stock, so she does nothing. The fact that it helps Trump may be a secondary reason. 

The issue is whether it is malice or stupidity. Feel free to put a why not both gif after this.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I dunno man.  You'd really think her clerks would at least question what she's doing. But a dumbshit may hire dumbshit clerks.

And to be somewhat fair, neither the PRA itself or the court decisions nibbling around the edges of it are particularly clear about how the overall process works.  Another unfortunate thing is that there is a pretty long history of questioning the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Espionage Act, particularly as applied to the press, so looking askance at it is not wholly unwarranted.  My/our hero Steve Vladeck ironically gave testimony to Congress about the Espionage Act being a bit of a shit show about 10 years ago.  https://irp.fas.org/congress/2010_hr/051210vladeck.pdf

Still, as is well known, I try to follow this shit in fair detail.  I'm probably not the greatest legal mind and I do have a pretty hardcore anti-Trump bias, but this shit just doesn't seem that difficult.

Man, her clerks are almost certainly some far-right redpilled freaks who love that she's helping Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, her clerks are almost certainly some far-right redpilled freaks who love that she's helping Trump.

“ …and if Trump had the records in his bathroom for that many years, doesn’t acquisitive prescription* apply - and they are Trump’s?”

(Adverse possession for non-voodoo state law-dawgs)

Posted

As tragic as this will probably be to our Republic.  Why am I laughing at "Highly Sanctioned" as I read it Marty Short's voice from "The Three Amigos" about 'In-famous'?  You see there's sanctioned.  But this El Trumpo is 'Highly Sanctioned''!!!

  • Haha 2
Posted

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerking-for-judge-aileen-cannon-why-clerks-quit

Long post about Cannon's clerkship issues but also covers her perceived bias. 

Long story short - she got too creative when she issued her special master rulings, and the subsequent smackdown from the 11th circuit made clerking for her unappealing to top candidates.

This made filling the positions difficult and caused additional delays. She's also inexperienced as a trial judge and so it's amateur night with every ruling.

IMHO she likely is making the same mistake with this jury instructions nonsense. In her mind, she's trying a novel approach to be fair to both parties. In reality, she's fucking the goat and getting the law wrong (again).

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...