Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Whenever I’m about to be sanctioned, I like to accuse the court of running a kangaroo court that does not allow due process or the rule of law.

I also like to point out that the court’s stated purpose of the hearing is false - and a cover for political theater.

giphy.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Posted

She got blocked on twitter by Ronna McDaniel so this drama is playing out like a high school hallway scene by the lockers outside Pre-AP English. I mean, when you get blocked on the twitter you don't HAVE to announce it but she did because...Trump.

Gorka supports her, which is bad cause he's very pro-authoritarian.

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

lol these bunch of fuckstick lawyers. Bunch of fucking putzes trying to pull "my memory is a little foggy about that affidavit..."

 

Posted
10 hours ago, Captainant said:

That hearing was something else. It was jaw-dropping to see the kraken attorneys straight up argue with the judge, cut her off, and act so rude to the other counsel on the call.

What's jaw-dropping is how easy law school apparently is, based on this bunch.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
47 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

When are some pee pees going to get whacked?

I'm honestly shocked that some of the attorneys yesterday didn't get benchslapped with a contempt charge. They were straight up interrupting the judge to incorrectly cite her own case law to her

Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm honestly shocked that some of the attorneys yesterday didn't get benchslapped with a contempt charge. They were straight up interrupting the judge to incorrectly cite her own case law to her

She didn't seem to have complete control of her "courtroom."  But, like most things on the internet, that's probably harder to do than in real life, much as it is easier to be an asshole online.

Posted
49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She didn't seem to have complete control of her "courtroom."  But, like most things on the internet, that's probably harder to do than in real life, much as it is easier to be an asshole online.

That was my impression. Everyone was 'safe' in their little chair and like the road rager driver in an automobile, things change when everyone is standing in the roadway face to face.

Posted

Oh, the horror!  Now I realize all the attorneys I have seen on "Law And Order" being charged with contempt and/or jailed for it were never actually held responsible.

Posted
8 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

Oh, the horror!  Now I realize all the attorneys I have seen on "Law And Order" being charged with contempt and/or jailed for it were never actually held responsible.

Apart from the video hearing, which makes contempt perhaps a little more problematic, I think the judge purposefully restrained herself from any "individualized" action so as to avoid any inference of prejudice or bias when she shithammers the whole group.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
Apart from the video hearing, which makes contempt perhaps a little more problematic, I think the judge purposefully restrained herself from any "individualized" action so as to avoid any inference of prejudice or bias when she shithammers the whole group.

See, supra, Gritty v Trump
Posted

Can state bars punish attorneys for their ridiculous out-of-court behavior? Hasn't Powell used some defense that no one in their right mind would take her media comments as truth? I understand that lawyers have to rigorously defend their clients, but there would seem to be a point of unethical behavior that crosses a line. Or are left to only Powell and Wood's behavior in the courtroom.

Posted
51 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I read about them in Newsweek.

Fake news!  All Asian Dawn news comes from Time Magazine, or it can't be trusted.  A lot of people are saying the Asian Dawn were just tourists who got lost on their way to the Maldives.  

Posted

No, you're thinking of the sexual position, "Asian Dawn"...it's where you nail the chick from behind while her husband watches, then right before you shoot your load at her, you slip off her watch and head to the beach.  It's complicated, but very fulfilling.  

Posted

No, you're thinking of Asian Flawn.  The group of Chinese students at UT that meet at FAC library every Saturday to study while you're drinking at Bob Popular's.  

Posted
33 minutes ago, Lobo said:

No, you're thinking of Asian Flawn.  The group of Chinese students at UT that meet at FAC library every Saturday to study while you're drinking at Bob Popular's.  

I was thinking of the seafood truck Asian Prawns

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Is that near the joint that cooks the General Tso Style Venison, 'Asian Fawns'   ?  

Posted

No, Asian Dawn is a reference from Die Hard. Stop bastardizing my 30-year old references about people reading something from a magazine! No porn jokes or ethnic humor!

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!?

Posted

I don't know all of the ins and outs and what have you's of this case, but just based on the 20 mins. of what I watched during this hearing here's what I saw:

  • The Trump lawyers are shitty people, which is why they would take the job of representing Trump in a bogus voter fraud case in the first place. 
  • They also are not good lawyers. This was a sanctions hearing over really just one question:  What did the lawyers do to vet the information they received before filing it with the court?  The answer should have been, "We interviewed a bunch of witnesses who became our affiants.  They appeared to be sincere and reliable. We believed them and took them at their word, which was not unreasonable.  We also hired expert witnesses to inform additional aspects of the claims.  So, we did conduct at least the minimal degree of inquiry to avoid sanctions.  They should have also said, "Today is not a trial on the merits and most of the questions asked during the hearing go to the weight of the evidence, not the level of inquiry performed by counsel."  They didn't do that though.
  • The judge seemed predisposed to rule against the Trump lawyers.  I wasn't impressed with the judge.  The formulation of the questions, the interplay with counsel - none of it was good.  She didn't really have control over the hearing and didn't seem to have command of the issues.  Very unlike the federal judges in SDTX.  And I know this, NO ONE would get away with talking to the judge like the bow tie guy did in SDTX.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 5
Posted

Oh, and it's actually Asian Pawn.  It's an obscure move in chess.  It's where you castle your king and feint with your rook to knight 6.  I saw it in the Queen's Gambit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

No, Asian Dawn is a reference from Die Hard. Stop bastardizing my 30-year old references about people reading something from a magazine! No porn jokes or ethnic humor!

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!?

Sorry man, Macanudo fucked it up outta the gate when he said "Newsweek" instead of TIME magazine.  We all just followed suit. 

Speaking of suits, they're no John Phillips London, but check out the bespoken coats at Asian Brawn for the more athletic fellow.  

Posted
16 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Oh, and it's actually Asian Pawn.  It's an obscure move in chess.  It's where you castle your king and feint with your rook to knight 6.  I saw it in the Queen's Gambit.

23e1bb92e99b5e34fa3e6adb3c1c704461bf6ac9

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't know all of the ins and outs and what have you's of this case, but just based on the 20 mins. of what I watched during this hearing here's what I saw:

  • The Trump lawyers are shitty people, which is why they would take the job of representing Trump in a bogus voter fraud case in the first place. 
  • They also are not good lawyers. This was a sanctions hearing over really just one question:  What did the lawyers do to vet the information they received before filing it with the court?  The answer should have been, "We interviewed a bunch of witnesses who became our affiants.  They appeared to be sincere and reliable. We believed them and took them at their word, which was not unreasonable.  We also hired expert witnesses to inform additional aspects of the claims.  So, we did conduct at least the minimal degree of inquiry to avoid sanctions.  They should have also said, "Today is not a trial on the merits and most of the questions asked during the hearing go to the weight of the evidence, not the level of inquiry performed by counsel."  They didn't do that though.
  • The judge seemed predisposed to rule against the Trump lawyers.  I wasn't impressed with the judge.  The formulation of the questions, the interplay with counsel - none of it was good.  She didn't really have control over the hearing and didn't seem to have command of the issues.  Very unlike the federal judges in SDTX.  And I know this, NO ONE would get away with talking to the judge like the bow tie guy did in SDTX.

I didn't listen to the whole thing.  Sounds like a fair analysis.

There are a couple of those affidavits, namely Spyder or Spider, and that crazed Terpsichore lunatic that just do not pass facial muster.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Sorry man, Macanudo fucked it up outta the gate when he said "Newsweek" instead of TIME magazine.  We all just followed suit. 

Speaking of suits, they're no John Phillips London, but check out the bespoken coats at Asian Brawn for the more athletic fellow.  

220, 221.   Whatever it takes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't know all of the ins and outs and what have you's of this case, but just based on the 20 mins. of what I watched during this hearing here's what I saw:

  • The Trump lawyers are shitty people, which is why they would take the job of representing Trump in a bogus voter fraud case in the first place. 
  • They also are not good lawyers. This was a sanctions hearing over really just one question:  What did the lawyers do to vet the information they received before filing it with the court?  The answer should have been, "We interviewed a bunch of witnesses who became our affiants.  They appeared to be sincere and reliable. We believed them and took them at their word, which was not unreasonable.  We also hired expert witnesses to inform additional aspects of the claims.  So, we did conduct at least the minimal degree of inquiry to avoid sanctions.  They should have also said, "Today is not a trial on the merits and most of the questions asked during the hearing go to the weight of the evidence, not the level of inquiry performed by counsel."  They didn't do that though.
  • The judge seemed predisposed to rule against the Trump lawyers.  I wasn't impressed with the judge.  The formulation of the questions, the interplay with counsel - none of it was good.  She didn't really have control over the hearing and didn't seem to have command of the issues.  Very unlike the federal judges in SDTX.  And I know this, NO ONE would get away with talking to the judge like the bow tie guy did in SDTX.

One major problem is it was over zoom so not only were those two lunatic attorneys not under nearly as much control but you just know someone was illegally recording it and the lunatics were playing to the base audience of fellow lunatics who they hope to give them money. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Posted
18 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Whenever I’m about to be sanctioned, I like to accuse the court of running a kangaroo court that does not allow due process or the rule of law.

I also like to point out that the court’s stated purpose of the hearing is false - and a cover for political theater.

giphy.gif

Do you put the system on trial?

Posted

The kraken attorneys are just taking the push the chips all in strategy which only works when you got a guy like trump as the president to pardon and excuse everything you did. Not gonna work now. Too bad. Disbar those fucks. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The kraken attorneys are just taking the push the chips all in strategy which only works when you got a guy like trump as the president to pardon and excuse everything you did. Not gonna work now. Too bad. Disbar those fucks. 

and throw their asses in jail, forever. fuck em. you don't get freedom when you try to take it away from others

Posted
42 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

One major problem is it was over zoom so not only were those two lunatic attorneys not under nearly as much control but you just know someone was illegally recording it and the lunatics were playing to the base audience of fellow lunatics who they hope to give them money. 

The court itself streamed it live on YouTube. Of course they had their stream set to not archive, but it's already been re-uploaded by folks who live outside of the US



×
×
  • Create New...