Jump to content

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

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tx 3 putt

    1687

  • TwiceHorn

    1467

  • WhatTheBuck

    1322

  • atomheartbevo

    1315

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

To be fair, President Trump’s four years in office weren’t so bad, except when when he incited an insurrection against the government, mismanaged a pandemic that killed nearly half a million Americans

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Y’all about to get a great visual representation of Cullman, Alabama. Only good things to come out of Cullman are the Britt brothers (Roll Tide!) and orange rolls from All Steak restaurant. That pla

ChiTownDoc
ChiTownDoc

You seem really pissed off for a nontrumper.  Just laugh at the trumpers, bro.  They’re really gullible dumbfucks who worship this orange blob…you know, people completely unlike yourself.  

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
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.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25752

Posted
Posted
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.

MeghanMcCain.jpg

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

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7727

Posted
Posted
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!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27376

Posted
Posted

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
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. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted
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."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30064

Posted
Posted
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25752

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4610

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4610

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
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 by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9713

Posted
Posted
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted
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.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...