A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

8 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Executory Obligation?  Like Future Interest?  You're about 2 posts away from the Rule Against Perpetuities, aren't you mother fucker?  Commie bastard! 

[Horn Dog 9,904]

If this has already been covered then my apologies but can one of you law dogs explain the concept of sueing the judge overseeing your case?  Is that really a thing available to defendants or only something Trump can do for whatever perfectly sound legal reason?

[Rimbo 26,051]

5 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

But think about it.  Is it really a good thing to allow the gubmint to be a party to virtually every private business transaction?

Yes.

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

9 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

If this has already been covered then my apologies but can one of you law dogs explain the concept of sueing the judge overseeing your case?  Is that really a thing available to defendants or only something Trump can do for whatever perfectly sound legal reason?

Explained in the other thread.

 

[Gatorubet 30,286]

10 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

If this has already been covered then my apologies but can one of you law dogs explain the concept of suing the judge overseeing your case?  

[Rimbo 26,051]

3 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

I'm not ashamed that I used to watch it for Megan McCains fat milkers.

 

3 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Maybe, maybe you should be.

No, no. Ain't nothin wrong with that.

If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

 

[wildcat09 29,376]

One thing to note about everything that came out yesterday:

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,269]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

Executory Obligation?  Like Future Interest?  You're about 2 posts away from the Rule Against Perpetuities, aren't you mother fucker?  Commie bastard! 

I'm her for the fertile octogenarian....

[Chewbacca 7,782]

4 hours ago, BamaATL said:

They only briefly touched on this to the post I listened to, but they did mention 2 things.  I'm not gonna get this entirely right because this isn't my field and it's from memory.  Basically, it can get an immediate appeal with one judge or be advanced to a 5 person panel of judges.  I got the impression that they felt it was better if it went ahead to the five person because it sort of skips a step, and in theory it would leave no where else to go.  New York law has a different set of steps and appeals processes, one that I am not familiar with.  In any event, they were both pretty convinced that any appeal will fail and quickly because there isn't really anything of legal merit to dispute.  

Essentially, Trump's "legal" argument is that his "brand" value overrides actual appraisals, in some cases up to 700%.  The other base argument his attorneys are trying to make is that the state has no right to clawback the money, despite the fraud, because the banks were eventually made whole (probably not true with Trump, but whatever when it comes to legal filings).  The problem with this is of course if you don't punish for kicking the can down the road sort of fraud you are essentially allowing ponzi schemes to operate.  So if I understand this right (admittedly a big if), on one hand his lawyers are arguing no fraud because of Trumps imaginary "brand" value, and then on the other had they are saying, well even if it is fraud you can't take the money.  Lastly, he has some sort of disclosure statement he puts out that basically says in the fine print that all his numbers are bullshit, and let the investor/banker/whoever be ware.  The judge tore that shit completely apart, you can't disclose that you are or potentially are engaged in fraud in the fine print and somehow have that protect you.  

IRONCLAD!

[Sawbonz 27,583]

I know nothing about any of this, but if what those of you who do know these things are saying is true, it looks like Trump is fine as long as all of the creditors hold their water and wait for the defunct company to wind down and the new company to wind up (assuming the creditors have acceleration clauses in these loans). If any one of them gets an itchy trigger finger, seems like there will be a run on Trump’s assets. 

[yoladu 4,094]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

"Look, it's worth somewhere between $26 million and $1.8 billion. Depending on how we feel in that moment. What's the problem?? Stop being dicks ok." 

Trumper :

uhhh.... 26 is bigger than 1.8. 

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I know nothing about any of this, but if what those of you who do know these things are saying is true, it looks like Trump is fine as long as all of the creditors hold their water and wait for the defunct company to wind down and the new company to wind up (assuming the creditors have acceleration clauses in these loans). If any one of them gets an itchy trigger finger, seems like there will be a run on Trump’s assets. 

That is true. But as noted above the banks are probably better off taking their payments and/or restructuring than foreclosing. 

[Brisketexan 105,269]

2 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

I mean, on the one hand....he's absolutely being hoist on his own petard.

But on the other hand, he's not wrong.  But the reason he's not wrong is....ummmm.....bad.  He probably COULD get an outlandish price for MAL.  Why?  Because what he said was true: Saudi Arabia stands ready to bribe him by paying 100X the actual market value of any property in order to own his ass.  So, his defense of "I can get a bribe laundered as a purchase price for whatever I want," while true....is not exactly exculpatory.

[SilasCoade 2,622]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Explained in the other thread.

 

Any reason not to merge the two threads given the constant and inevitable cross talk?

[SydneyCarton 48,150]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

One thing to note about everything that came out yesterday:

 

 

His voters don't care. 

[Bullneck 19,200]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Okay, I'm dumb

Every single person fights the tax appraiser to pay less taxes. 

Every single person sells their home for loads more money than what the tax assessor says their property is worth. 

That being said, saying your condo is 30,000 square feet while it's 10,996 is plain fraud. 

I've heard the typical tax assessment is set at 85% of what is considered "fair market value."  

[Rimbo 26,051]

[Brisketexan 105,269]

17 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Hell yeah.  Would Martha still get it?  Yes.  Yes she would.  And would we then indulge in substances and chuckles after?  I sure hope so.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,471]

Isn't it interesting that, of all of the charges against Donald Trump, it’s the fraud case which upsets him the most?  Why?  Because it undermines his central myth: that he is not extremely wealthy. More than anything else, he doesn't want to be seen as somebody who is not rich.

 

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hell yeah.  Would Martha still get it?  Yes.  Yes she would.  And would we then indulge in substances and chuckles after?  I sure hope so.

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

[Brisketexan 105,269]

8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

See, the funny thing is, you think my age has to do with my expansive standards when it comes to delightful female companionship.  Those standards were set down LONG ago.

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

One thing to note about everything that came out yesterday:

 

 

It’s no coincidence that Trump’s first overseas trip as president was to Saudi Arabia. And they knew exactly how to play him.

[Gatorubet 30,286]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hell yeah.  Would Martha still get it?  Yes.  Yes she would.  And would we then indulge in substances and chuckles after?  I sure hope so.

And you can bet that the pearls Martha pulls out of Brisket’s ass will be perfectly formed Akoya Tiffany strands. 

[TeeDubya 3,362]

16 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

[Rimbo 26,051]

20 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

"At night, all cats are gray."

          --French Proverb

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See, the funny thing is, you think my age has to do with my expansive standards when it comes to delightful female companionship.  Those standards were set down LONG ago.

I won't tell your wife you said that.

[DDD Dad 14,346]

33 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

And you can bet that the pearls Martha pulls out of Brisket’s ass will be perfectly formed Akoya Tiffany strands. 

Oddly specific.

[safe sex 11,746]

50 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

You'll be the only person in the nursing home who isn't having fun then.

[G650 14,273]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is true. But as noted above the banks are probably better off taking their payments and/or restructuring than foreclosing. 

I'm not so sure about that

[atomheartbevo 89,777]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

I've seen her in a swimsuit recently. Well, her Photoshopped swimsuit shoot, but if she can use her imagination and bang me, I can do the same for her.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Hell yeah.  Would Martha still get it?  Yes.  Yes she would.  And would we then indulge in substances and chuckles after?  I sure hope so.

 

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

And you can bet that the pearls Martha pulls out of Brisket’s ass will be perfectly formed Akoya Tiffany strands. 

Her post sex sandwiches would be amazing, but you would have to deal with about 20 pillows on the bed.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

5 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

Love her

[Bookman 4,639]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

JFC, you are a stupid mother fucker. Summary judgment requires admissible evidence and is a high standard for judgment to be entered without trial. The fact that summary judgment was entered means that not only was there admissible evidence in the record, it was so strong and irrefutable that a trial was deemed unnecessary. It's the complete opposite of what you're implying. Not only was there extensive evidence, trump and his rag tag team of shitty lawyers had no plausible defense. I also read that it was entered prior to a bench trial, meaning that the case would have been tried to the judge anyway without a jury. It means he waived the right to a jury trial. But keep "just asking questions," lol. 

My understanding is that Trump's lawyers failed to timely request a jury.

[Bookman 4,639]

10 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

But no cross examination or rebuttal -- so no evidence is before the court.

A summary judgment hearing is a trial, and it can certainly be appealed if the summary judgment evidence didn't establish it as a matter of law. If the judge had been worried about getting reversed on appeal, he would have just made the same ruling after the bench trial.

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

8 hours ago, sidis said:

twicehorn, i have some recollection of you saying daltx did something similar to me for a career?

if so, this page is alarmingly stupid.

I believe that's correct.  It's not mandatory for folks in your area to understand the nuances of summary judgment, but many have picked it up.

Summary judgment evidence must be admissible at trial, if it is not, it can be objected to and not considered.  The one exception is the use of affidavits, which are rarely admissible at trial in lieu of live testimony.  But the contents of the affidavit must be testimony that would be admissible at trial, and, if not, the affidavit may be excluded in whole or in part, from consideration in summary judgment.

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

25 minutes ago, Bookman said:

My understanding is that Trump's lawyers failed to timely request a jury.

I have a burning curiosity about this issue because failure to demand a jury is such a nightmare scenario.  There's a video upthread (or on the other) where a NY lawyer opines that such a demand was due from defendants early in the case when Habba was mostly in charge.  He accurately states the rule, but I'm not sure he states its application correctly.

For the peanut gallery, in federal court, you must demand a jury within 14 days of the defendant's answer (if not demanded in the complaint or answer).  In Texas court, it's any time until 30 days before trial (but you gotta pay that fee!).

In NY, this is the statute: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2012/cvp/article-41/4102/

So a jury demand may be contained in a "Note of Issue" that is filed with the Court.  If a "Note of Issue" is filed with the court without a jury demand, the opposing party has 15 days to demand a jury trial.  

I had never heard of a Note of Issue or anything similar, but here's the form https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/COURTS/10JD/nassau/pdf/CourtHelpForms/26-NoteofIssue/H-26pf.pdf

It seems to be like an "announcement of ready," where the plaintiff files the above document certifying that discovery is complete and the case is ready for trial.  And may elect a jury or non-jury trial.

The only Note of Issue I can find on the AG docket was filed by James on July 31, indicating a non-jury trial.  Trumpco then had 15 days to demand a trial by jury and failed to do so, whether negligently or intentionally.

So, Alina Habba was no longer actively working the case at that point, and things had settled down considerably from the beginning.  So, it really looks like Trumpco deliberately elected not to file a jury demand.  He's sure as fuck scared of NY County jurors.

The important take away here is that, notwithstanding Trump's bleating, his lawyers did not obtain a jury trial for him, neither Engoron nor James deprived him of one.

Edited September 28, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[sidis 9,832]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I believe that's correct.  It's not mandatory for folks in your area to understand the nuances of summary judgment, but many have picked it up.

Summary judgment evidence must be admissible at trial, if it is not, it can be objected to and not considered.  The one exception is the use of affidavits, which are rarely admissible at trial in lieu of live testimony.  But the contents of the affidavit must be testimony that would be admissible at trial, and, if not, the affidavit may be excluded in whole or in part, from consideration in summary judgment.

I am heavily involved in dispositive motion practice (not just affidavits but often) and the outcomes are often extremely relevant to what we will do in trial. Familiarity with summary judgment process is pretty basic shit. 

[brakeman 28,417]

Trumpco.inc has the bestest lawyers. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by brakeman
he's fucked

[Beau Vine 54,379]

4 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm not looking forward to getting old. The things some of y'all would bang...

For the record, I would not bang Angela Lansbury or Hillary Clinton.  

But everyone else is at least a "maybe."

[Francisco 2.0 32,416]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beau Vine 54,379]

3 hours ago, safe sex said:

You'll be the only person in the nursing home who isn't having fun then.

 

[Degenerate Gardner 4,085]

In a way it’s true. He’s been next to a lot of blue collared workers while they were working. So they’d be fired for just making eye contact, BFD

[Francisco 2.0 32,416]

 

 

 

 

[YGIFS 19,452]

4 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

Please tell me somebody already has the Lake Travis pro-trump water parade meme cooked up.  There are already batteries on most boats, Captain Dipshit.  They may not yet power the engine, but most other functions are controlled via battery.  Kinda like your car's interior .  It is literally impossible he's this fucking stupid.  

[Dnaguy 12,044]

6 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

No, no. Ain't nothin wrong with that.

If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

 

[Pancho 44,962]

 

 

[Stilicho 1,402]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

 

 

Sorta like these folks way back when...

[DixonHur 11,359]

Clooney going in dry with the truth bomb

[Js1 85,522]

6 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

 

Republicans astroturfing?! No way!

[Beau Vine 54,379]

[mchookem 16,366]