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

[Brisketexan 105,274]

YMMV by which industry you are working in. For my industry, there is usually an imbalance of power in negotiations between my side and the opposing side for prime assets. "Just walk away from the table" isn't an option because I'm trying to secure rights that several other parties are competing over. It becomes a Game Theory exercise of who will pay the price to entry and who will eat the bad contract. Sometimes the price is so high and the terms so bad that nobody will accept (and that bar keeps getting lower and lower, setting precedents that make my job even harder). Sometimes the only way forward is to endure 6 months of haggling over the minutia, including a specific word being used here or there. Therefore, it becomes my job to find a way to make the language as acceptable as possible without running them off and I find myself going back and forth with opposing counsel over what should be obvious language. If I don't, there are two primary negative outcomes: 1. I hold firm and a competitor eats the bad contract. Bad for me from an optics standpoint, even if the competitor falls flat on their face. 2. I eat the bad contract and the liability bomb goes off in the future. Bad for me, bad for the company.
 

You bet. It all comes down to a well-informed business decision. Sometimes, the best business decision is to eat the shit sandwich. The lawyered job is to make sure the client knows exactly what’s in the shit sandwich, and to help them negotiate the best bread and condiments possible.

[dcbc 14,507]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Only if you didn’t advise your client about the potential, but remote, risk, and let them make a business decision.
Good contract review isn’t hard: 1) these terms are really important, let’s get them right, or be willing to walk away; 2) these terms are somewhat important, let’s negotiate on them and maybe use them for some horse-trading (maybe you give on a couple of them, in exchange for a price break); and 3) these terms carry some remote risk (yes, this term provides that if every EU country is conquered by Tanzania in a war, the contract is terminated…I think there’s a pretty low risk of that happening, so you need to make the business decision of whether you can live with that risk), so decide if you can live with that risk. Note that the overall value of the contract has some bearing on the amount of risk to be tolerated.
Generally, if you spend a shitload of time haggling over category 3, you’re either a dumb client or a bad lawyer (spoiler: there are plenty of both out there).
Oh, and writing in plain English isn’t hard. But a lot of lawyers who are addicted to using forms that have been used and re-used for 20 years have a hard time with it. I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear. That’s what it’s there for.
Back to the topic: the SCOTUS will fuck this up 5-4 or 6-3, it’s just a question of how they’ll fuck it up.

 

My first boss in private practice was a good-for-very-little solo, but he did have a few nuggets of wisdom.

 

1.  Whenever possible, you draft the contract.

 

2.  There are some cases you should lose but will win.  There are some cases you should win but will lose.  Preferably, there will be more of the former.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:

It becomes a Game Theory exercise of who will pay the price to entry and who will eat the bad contract.

Aggy will always eat the bad contract.  Jimbo says hi.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

The evidence suggests that what is laughably called “originalism” is the jurisprudential equivalent of how extreme fundamentalist evangelicals use proof-texting to demonstrate that God commands us to stone gays here in 2024. 
 

Like finding the world “indictment” or “conviction” in the below text: 

 

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

We are going to see how “engaged in” actually means “convicted” per super smart judges. 

We are going to see super smart lawyers argue the President didn’t hold any office or was not an officer of the United States, after they argued the opposite to try and move the Georgia case to Federal court. 

It’s really fun when “or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” probably covers the people convicted of seditious conspiracy and Trump saying he will pardon the insurrectionists doesn’t cover giving aid? Or do we have to wait till he pardons them? And then remove him from the ballot?
 

 

[jimmyjazz 46,094]

27 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Or do we have to wait till he pardons them? And then remove him from the ballot?

I laughed.  (I wish I hadn't, but any port in a storm.)

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

We are going to see how “engaged in” actually means “convicted” per super smart judges. 

As I write this, Heritage Foundation is drafting an amicus brief about how in 1675 a Special Court of Oyer and Terminer in Virginia found that a certain Goody Badwyfe and her woman Tituba “engaged in” consort with Beleth and thus caused William the Blacksmith’s nethers to swell with pus.

[Brisketexan 105,274]

As I write this, Heritage Foundation is drafting an amicus brief about how in 1675 a Special Court of Oyer and Terminer in Virginia found that a certain Goody Badwyfe and her woman Tituba “engaged in” consort with Beleth and thus caused William the Blacksmith’s nethers to swell with pus.

To “allegedly” swell with pus. Get it right.

[DDD Dad 14,347]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To “allegedly” swell with pus. Get it right.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To “allegedly” swell with pus. Get it right.

I don't think the colonist types were all that conscientious about the presumption of innocence.  

[Brisketexan 105,274]

I don't think the colonist types were all that conscientious about the presumption of innocence.  

They took matters of pus and pustules quite seriously, my good man.

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They took matters of pus and pustules quite seriously, my good man.

But not as seriously as the bloody flux.

[Brisketexan 105,274]

But not as seriously as the bloody flux.

Nothing’s as serious as the bloody flux. Unless it’s the consumption.

[NAVY 6,747]

All this talk of puss and flux is giving me the vapors 

[Chewbacca 7,782]

They'll find a way to keep him on the ballot, whether legitimately or not, but I don't know what it'll be based on other than "let the people decide"
That Postal Service Act language from 1792, specifically mentioning the President was an officer *should* be enough to say the 14th applied to him. Colorado's Supreme Court did a thorough analysis and determined he was engaged in insurrection.
SCOTUS justices swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution too, and the 14th is part of that.

Shit, he admitted the insurrection a day or two ago.

[Chewbacca 7,782]

Garland waiting until November 2022 to appoint a special prosecutor was an abdication of duty.

This makes me sofa king angry.

[Disco Strangler 1,882]

CSB.  Went to Colonial Williamburg and asked Patrick Henry where Thomas Jefferson was.  He snickered that Mr. Jefferson was at home tending to a voracious case of the piles.  

[Gatorubet 30,289]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Nothing’s as serious as the bloody flux. Unless it’s the consumption.

Somewhere, Lindsay Lohan’s taint is laughing at your naïveté

[Macanudo 13,009]

1 hour ago, NAVY said:

All this talk of puss and flux is giving me the vapors 

So you're all hot and bothered?

[tx 3 putt 77,335]

This is some high quality law dogging here ….

 

[tx ind 7,013]

the same immunity that Obama and Biden get?  wtf, they have/had no need for immunity because they did nothing illegal

[RomaVicta 29,968]

On 1/7/2024 at 9:12 AM, Red Five said:

I would say that sitting on his ass and refusing to do anything at all, for hours, as President of the United States, while the Capitol was under attack.... should count. 

In fact, he popped off to people who called him begging for help. "Well I guess they care more about the stolen election than you do, Kevin". And to this day he's talking about pardoning them all. So, yeah, it sort of looks like the 14th was written for him.

You would think that the obvious would count for something.

It can't even get an insurrectionist thrown in jail to await a verdict. It's the same for guys who steal state secrets.

The obvious must pass through the intestines of both-side TV news organizations (FOX isn't among that group), legal debate, and dishonest public discourse before it becomes actionable fact. I should say may become actionable fact; we all know what emerges from intestines isn't what entered them.

This seems to apply on a broader scale than just this unfolding governmental disaster.

Look at the fact of Climate Change. By the time it has emerged as some sort of muddied fact somehow still debated, the great snake like intestine has only just swallowed the current obvious fact of impending Climate Disaster. None of the intestines listed above can handle that obvious fact as though it were a fact. Too soon. 

It is very strange to watch emergent history as an American. 

[tx 3 putt 77,335]

😂😂😂😂😂

 

[Macanudo 13,009]

18 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

 

Edited January 8 by Macanudo
Holy shit.... That's real?

[TexasEd 8,071]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:23 AM, Brisketexan said:

I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear.

You’re talking about dove hunting leases aren’t you. 

[tx 3 putt 77,335]

8 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

 

 

Our country has a longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in a long list of Presidential elections throughout our history, therefore, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 Presidential Election could be criminalized. President Trump, like all citizens, is entitled to have fair warning as to where the line is drawn which separates permissible activity from that which is allegedly criminal. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265 (1997) (“‘No man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.”).

“Due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope…” Id. at 266 (internal citations omitted).

“[A] statute or a rule may be held constitutionally invalid as applied when it operates to deprive an individual of a protected right although its general validity as a measure enacted in the legitimate exercise of state power is beyond question.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971).

[TexasEd 8,071]

The more absurd the argument the more desperate you know he is.

 Although this is approaching the “corporations are individuals” level of desperation that Robert’s might just sign off on.

[Red Five 40,881]

I wonder what some of the Biden campaign ads will look like. "Hey, remember that time the president sent a mob to the capitol in an attempted coup? And refused to provide assistance for everyone there, including his Vice President? So, funny thing here, he didn't go to jail. And he's running for president again..."

[wildcat09 29,376]

 

 

[Red Five 40,881]

Fucking bizarro world we're living in.

[tx 3 putt 77,335]

59 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder what some of the Biden campaign ads will look like. "Hey, remember that time the president sent a mob to the capitol in an attempted coup? And refused to provide assistance for everyone there, including his Vice President? So, funny thing here, he didn't go to jail. And he's running for president again..."

All future ads should also include this ….

 

[GenXer 2,949]

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

 

Reads like an Onion headline

[C-Man 27,254]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

All future ads should also include this ….

 

https://themessenger.com/news/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sex-tape-jeffrey-epstein-sarah-ransome-list-document-dump

Quote

Former president Donald Trump regularly had sex with a woman at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan mansion, and Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Richard Branson were caught on a sex tape by the financier, according to a victim who later recanted the claims.

The allegations were made by Sarah Ransome to a journalist, and unsealed in newly public court documents Monday.

The documents were part of a filing in which lawyers for law professor Alan Dershowitz sought to portray Ransome as a liar who contradicted herself and made outlandish claims.

Ransome later gave a victim impact statement in federal court at Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing, in which she she described being trafficked by the pair.

In one undated email released Monday, Ransome said a friend described Trump’s sexual proclivities and alleged the woman regularly had sex with the former president at Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse, according to court documents.

“She confided in me about her casual 'friendship' with Donald. Mr. Trump definitely seemed to have a thing for her and she told me how he kept going on about how he liked her 'pert nipples’,” the email read. 

“I also know she had sexual relations with Trump at Jeffrey's NY mansion on regular occasions as I once met Jen for coffee, just before she was going to meet Trump and Epstein together at his mansion,” it added. 

Ransome later recanted the allegation in an email to journalist Maureen Callahan, according to the records. 

“I have spoken to my family at some length this morning and I would like to retract everything I have said to you and walk away from this,” the October 2016 email states. 

Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton are pictured in an undated photograph.Netflix

“I shouldn't have contacted you and I'm sorry I wasted your time. It's not worth coming forward and I will never be heard anyhow and only bad things will happen as a consequence of me going public and I know this to be true,” it adds. 

A Trump spokesperson slammed the claims.

“These baseless accusations have been fully retracted because they are simply false and have no merit," said Steven Cheung.

In another undated email, Ransome claimed her friend had sex with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and billionaire Richard Branson — and video recordings of the trysts were made by Epstein at mansion.

“I personally can confirm that I have, with my own two eyes, seen the evidence of these sexual acts, which clearly identifies Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Richard Branson having sexual intercourse with my friend. I will be more then [sic] willing to swear under oath and testify in court over these sex tapes,” the email states. 

In 2019, Ransome told the New Yorker that the tapes were made-up. The fabrication was intended to raise intrigue into Epstein's affairs and to convince the financier himself that she had “evidence that would come out if he harmed me," she said.

Ransome's emails were included in a 2017 motion filed by Dershowitz to keep the allegations under seal. He contended the allegations were “deliberate lies.”

A spokesperson said previously said Clinton had no knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking, and did not comment on the new claims.

Branson's Virgin Group also denied the claims. "We can confirm that Sarah Ransome's claims are baseless and unfounded. Ransome admitted that she had 'invented' the tapes," in a 2019 article in the New Yorker."

Prince Andrew has denied wrongdoing.

 

[C-Man 27,254]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

At some point, one of the MAGA crazies is going to forego "swatting" and just straight-up attempt to assassinate Laetitia James, Chutkan, Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

[Dnaguy 12,045]

21 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Reads like an Onion headline

That’s how you know it’s true.

[dcbc 14,507]

14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

At some point, one of the MAGA crazies is going to forego "swatting" and just straight-up attempt to assassinate Laetitia James, Chutkan, Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

I hope they don't. 

 

But I honestly don't think any of them is smart enough not to talk shit about it online ad nauseum first, before ordering supplies online and, otherwise, creating a rich, internet-history-roadmap ahead of time, so as to ensure being caught en route to the target.  

[tx 3 putt 77,335]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

Ain't nothing gonna happen.

[Willfully Horn 8,046]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

All future ads should also include this ….

 

Great. Lock them all up. 
 

[tx 3 putt 77,335]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ain't nothing gonna happen.

he’s bullet proof until proven otherwise 

Edited January 8 by tx 3 putt

[Underdog 28,767]

“ I could shoot a disabled Vet while banging an underaged girl and selling Top Secret info to Russia on 5th Ave. and they’d still vote for me…” 

 

* it should be noted that shooting a disabled Vet is most likely the one thing he hasn’t done listed above. 

Edited January 8 by Underdog

[Rimbo 26,052]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

 

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

[Js1 85,527]

11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

Legal loophole known as:

[HOOKEM4 5,040]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

 

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

34 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

It's a desperate long shot, yes, but not an unheard-of motion to dismiss an indictment.

On a rare occasion, a criminal statute will be "stretched" far enough to encompass conduct no one really thought it would reach.  At that point, it can be said to be violative of due process because it didn't provide fair notice of what it rendered criminal.

This is, fairly obviously, not one of those rare occasions.

Edited January 8 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105,274]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is, fairly obviously, not one of those rare occasions.

[laughs in Alito and Thomas]

[safe sex 11,746]

But still gotta wait weeks for that to be officially determined

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

3 minutes ago, safe sex said:

But still gotta wait weeks for that to be officially determined

All in the game, yo.  Unlike the appeal of the immunity defense, the case will proceed apace.

[YGIFS 19,452]

So even non lawyers know the old “ignorance of the law is no defense against breaking the law.”  What Trump is attempting then is that he was ignorant of his ignorance of the law so therefore, cannot be guilty?  
 

JFC, this is like playing chess against an easily agitated bonobo, with an assault rifle 

[Gatorubet 30,289]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

On a rare occasion, a criminal statute will be "stretched" far enough to encompass conduct no one really thought it would reach.

Just like South Austin’s mom…

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

So even non lawyers know the old “ignorance of the law is no defense against breaking the law.”  What Trump is attempting then is that he was ignorant of his ignorance of the law so therefore, cannot be guilty?  
 

JFC, this is like playing chess against an easily agitated bonobo, with an assault rifle 

Well, to reconcile this, we are all charged with knowledge of the law, whether we have actual knowledge of it or not.

However, when a law is so vague as to violate due process (either as the law is written or as it is applied), being charged with knowledge is of no help to the government because the essence is that the scope of the law is unknowable.