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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Captainant

Captainant 27442

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, we'll still have them.

Just a lot more replays and the replay booth will be at the local (or otherwise) federal courthouse.  Without any convincing evidence to overturn.

In name only. If every court and every case is up for grabs depending on not the established law, but the politics underlying it..... That ain't jurisprudence or regulation. That's fucking chaos and the absence of ACTUAL law.

I mean yeah, you can continue to do a Pollyanna and act like that's actually a good thing - but the courts have not been a friend to democracy or civil rights for the last decade plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

To take it a step further, even if the officiating is "shitty" according to the established rules (say, the defined strike zone), what's important as a fall-back is that it be called consistently and predictably.  Maybe umpires have edged into calling pitches for strikes that are a bit high.  All in all, that's okay, so long as the batter knows it, and it's predictable.  That way, he can plan his at-bat accordingly.  That's honestly the most important thing for "the rule of law" in general -- people, businesses, etc., need to have a known and predictable set of rules, so they can plan and act accordingly (swing at the high pitches, to continue the metaphor).  That's one of the bigger reasons why the current plan of "Calvinball" sucks; my clients ask me what the law on a certain point is, or how a court should rule based on established law and precedent, so they can plan and act accordingly, and my answer is often

elmo-sesame-street.gif

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

TwiceHorn 31263

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s the problem though.

Never said it wasn't. 

To an extent, we already have this problem with the rules ostensibly changing with every administration and their varying policy goals.  But at least it's only every four or eight years.

This presumably will increase the frequency of whipsawing, leading to the problem brisket identifies, which already exists to a lesser extent.

My only point was that the judiciary is taking more away from the executive than the legislative, and empowering the judiciary.  And I think you can largely rely on this Court to accumulate rather than give away power.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29225

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I agree with you. I think.  What they do and why they do it, broadly speaking, is unknowable.  All we can do is guess.

But most of these guys, particularly now, could make more money than the value of all their bribes in a law firm. Greed is not the answer.

Uncle Clarence is the only one against whom significant evidence of bribery or suspicious payments has been accumulated because he had a pitiful private sector career.

They wouldn't be in "public service" except for the power. So, whatever their proclivities and tendencies, you can rest fairly assured that they won't do anything that would significantly diminish their power.

C'mon man. This assumes they're robots, not people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

I wouldn't watch a game where the rules change depending on the conference or team.  What's the point?  Maybe people need their medicare, medicaid and social security taken away before they stop playing teams and start playing reality.   

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

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

My use of they didn't stop unraveling women's reproductive rights, citizens united and several other harmful cases.  I believe Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito are definites and Roberts ignoring SCOTUS ethics along with his ruling on Citizens United ruling makes him questionable. That's almost half which is all that's needed.   Until Roberts takes a firm stand on ethics, unless I missed it--fuck it, Republican appointees judges.  They had to have more than just ideological beliefs to be appointed by Trump.  Trump is a mobster, and mobsters prefer people with blood on their hands for blackmail purposes.  But I am probably pretty far on the ledge at this point, especially since timing is everything now.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31263

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

C'mon man. This assumes they're robots, not people.

Uh. You don't think power is kind of important to them?  Like maybe more important than giving some transient, transactional political figure more power?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29225

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Uh. You don't think power is kind of important to them?  Like maybe more important than giving some transient, transactional political figure more power?  

Of course power is important. But they're processing their desire for power through their human brains, which are notably not computer algorithms.  E.g., I know Clarence very much values his power, but he also very much values all the perks that he's received to keep him from abandoning that for a higher-paying gig, the public revelation of which certainly threatens to diminish his power.

They're not perfectly rational automatons. They overdose on Fox News bullshit and succumb to efforts to buy their votes just as easily as anyone else would, among many other influences, and they do and absolutely will continue to do shit that could result in them losing some or all of their power because they miscalculate shit all the time.

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

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Of course power is important. But they're processing their desire for power through their human brains, which are notably not computer algorithms.  E.g., I know Clarence very much values his power, but he also very much values all the perks that he's received to keep him from abandoning that for a higher-paying gig, the public revelation of which certainly threatens to diminish his power.

They're not perfectly rational automatons. They overdose on Fox News bullshit and succumb to efforts to buy their votes just as easily as anyone else would, among many other influences, and they do and absolutely will continue to do shit that could result in them losing some or all of their power because they miscalculate shit all the time.

They also fear for their lives.  Do you really think that they haven't each received NUMEROUS communications threatening them with violence, rape, death, etc. if they fail to protect the Cult's Orange God?  They know what's at stake: a ruling that is openly negative for Trump puts their lives at risk.

That is 100% where we are as a country.  And remember, every single person who votes Republican REWARDS that state of affairs, and thus is 100% okay with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt

Burt 4062

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2024 at 7:36 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Growing up, I  thought that Redd Foxx was like 65 when this show was on.  Turns out he was 49 at the debut.

Man, I feel old now.

Same!  And on a similar note, I thought Sparky Anderson was well into his 60s when he managed the Big Red Machine of the 70s.  This is a photo of him in 1974.  He was 40!

sparky.thumb.jpg.865fd5eca073d405f31cd48502f1ae5b.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nbmishoid

nbmishoid 938

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

They also fear for their lives.  Do you really think that they haven't each received NUMEROUS communications threatening them with violence, rape, death, etc. if they fail to protect the Cult's Orange God?  They know what's at stake: a ruling that is openly negative for Trump puts their lives at risk.

That is 100% where we are as a country.  And remember, every single person who votes Republican REWARDS that state of affairs, and thus is 100% okay with it.

Fear for one’s life seems to trump, pardon the term, the accumulation of rather abstract power.   The former is a more immediate, and salient emotion.  The latter a calculation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31263

Posted
Posted

On a more objective note, I am expecting the DC Circuit to affirm Chutkan and deny Trump immunity literally any day now.

It will be interesting to see what spins and alterations they put on Chutkan's analysis.

And then we can really start speculating about what SCOTUS will do.

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

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

So I assume you don’t watch NCAA basketball. 

Not much, no, unless Texas is playing and it's March. I stopped watching when I could no longer tell a foul or travel, since the refs didn't call either on star players/teams, especially in pro sports.  Fuck basketball, fuck the changing strike zone in baseball and fuck all the targeting, PI and hold calls against Texas but nobody else.     

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

Or Big 12 football.

Thankfully, we can all wash our hands of anything in the Big 12.   

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13410

Posted
Posted

On Monday Habba had requested a court delay because she had been exposed to COVID and felt poorly. I believe that she later said that she had tested negative but with her request and a sick juror, the Trump defamation trial was postponed until Thursday.

Then Habba was seen at the Trump victory party in NH Tuesday night. While this doesn't mean that she lied or that there was a delay only due to her, it definitely demonstrates poor judgement. And for someone who is struggling to competently represent her client, perhaps she should have spent the evening reading books, or watching youtube videos on being a lawyer.

As an aside, the NH incident came to light because a young Trump supporter posted a picture online with her. After he posted it, he was tossed out of the party even though he claimed that he had volunteered many hours to help Trump win. https://www.newsweek.com/alina-habba-covid-trump-lawyer-1863811

Quote

Later, he posted on X again, this time saying he had been kicked out of the event.

He said: "I was just kicked out of the Trump victory party for absolutely no reason.

"I was standing there speaking with other Trump supporters when I was asked to leave and pushed out of the venue.

 

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

Bozo_Casanova 26277

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/19/2024 at 1:20 PM, Gatorubet said:

But never underestimate what a really rich unprincipled party opponent will do to gain an advantage in a case

I think you meant “never underestimate just how ethically low lawyers are allowed to sink by their profession”

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

TwiceHorn 31263

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think you meant “never underestimate just how ethically low lawyers are allowed to sink by their profession”

The lawyer's first duty is to their client.  That duty mostly, but not completely, excludes other considerations, including duty to abstract notions like "the system," "democracy,"  and even the truth.  This is why the lawyer discipline system is geared toward sanctioning misdeeds directed at clients much more so than non-client-related misdeeds.

For example, when I did the Criminal Defense Clinic, in the introduction to the class, we were given a hypothetical: 

An apple sits on the ground underneath an apple tree.  Are you comfortable arguing that someone put the apple there rather than it having fallen from the tree?

So, criminal defense lawyers often are in the business of arguing "alternative facts."  When does that become a flat-out lie?  You think you know, but I submit that sometimes it's not that easy.  That and the nature of their clients often subjects them to criticism from the unsophisticated. 

Litigation lawyers are in the business, often, of stretching the laws and the system to their absolute credible limits to advance the interests of their clients.  To this end, lawyers often file "shitty lawsuits" apparently unsupported by existing law or fact.  They also prepare witnesses to omit or shade adverse facts, if not outright lie. The line between a groundbreaking civil rights suit and a frivolous one can get blurry.  People around here love to declare lawsuits they don't like "frivolous," but they're mostly wrong under the applicable legal standards.

So, you have lawyers like Habba and Powell that seem to be willing to lie to the courts.  We're pretty sure we know when they're lying, and yeah, we're probably right in that.  But, when you start carefully examining their lies and applying standards of proof for purposes of sanctioning or punishing them, what seems to be an obvious lie or misrepresentation can begin to look less like one for which you can punish them.  And when you consider that they are "lying" to advance the interest of their clients, a certain lenity comes into play.

For example, Habba told the court she had dinner with her parents who are now sick with covid.  That's verifiable and probably true (if not, that's a problem).  She told the court she had tested negative for covid.  That's probably verifiable and probably true.  She also told the court she was "feeling feverish" or something to that effect.  That's not verifiable and also probably not true.  But because it's not verifiable, makes a thin basis for sanctions.  Could the judge rule, like Engoron did concerning Trump on that occasion, that she's full of shit and sanction her?  Yes.  Would most judges?  No.

Lawyer ethics in some of these cases become incredibly situational.  Is the attorney-client privilege, which not only permits but demands that lawyers withhold truth from courts and other parties to protect the interest of their clients ethical?  This bothered me a bit in law school.  It's ethical if you consider that the duty is to the client, and not to the courts or some higher power. Situational.

CPAs have a duty of candor that's inconsistent with the attorney-client privilege.  In many countries, law and accounting practices are combined, but they can't be in the US because of the duty of candor.

Like dcbc said, things like this go in your "credibility ledger" and affect other things in the case, so it's not wholly without penalty.  Meaning, a lawyer who stretches things beyond credibility loses their case before the judge and jury.

I'm not at all saying that lawyers like Habba and Powell should go unpunished.  I'm just saying that it's a more subtle question than it initially appears.

Speaking of which, oral argument in the Bar's appeal in the Powell case is scheduled for February 7, which seems rather slow considering briefing was completed in September.  An opinion can be expected in a couple of months after oral argument, so like April or May.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21053

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The lawyer's first duty is to their client.  That duty mostly, but not completely, excludes other considerations, including duty to abstract notions like "the system," "democracy,"  and even the truth.

For example, when I did the Criminal Defense Clinic, in the introduction to the class, we were given a hypothetical: 

An apple sits on the ground underneath an apple tree.  Are you comfortable arguing that someone put the apple there rather than it having fallen from the tree?

So, criminal defense lawyers often are in the business of arguing "alternative facts."  When does that become a flat-out lie?  You think you know, but I submit that sometimes it's not that easy.  That and the nature of their clients often subjects them to criticism from the unsophisticated. 

Litigation lawyers are in the business, often, of stretching the laws and the system to their absolute credible limits to advance the interests of their clients.  To this end, lawyers often file "shitty lawsuits" apparently unsupported by existing law or fact.  The line between a groundbreaking civil rights suit and a frivolous one can get blurry.  People around here love to declare lawsuits they don't like "frivolous," but they're mostly wrong under the applicable legal standards.

So, you have lawyers like Habba and Powell that seem to be willing to lie to the courts.  We're pretty sure we know when they're lying, and yeah, we're probably right in that.  But, when you start carefully examining their lies and applying standards of proof for purposes of sanctioning or punishing them, what seems to be an obvious lie or misrepresentation can begin to look less like one for which you can punish them.  And when you consider that they are "lying" to advance the interest of their clients, a certain lenity comes into play.

For example, Habba told the court she had dinner with her parents who are now sick with covid.  That's verifiable and probably true (if not, that's a problem).  She told the court she had tested negative for covid.  That's probably verifiable and probably true.  She also told the court she was "feeling feverish" or something to that effect.  That's not verifiable and also probably not true.  But because it's not verifiable, makes a thin basis for sanctions.  Could the judge rule, like Engoron did concerning Trump on that occasion, that she's full of shit and sanction her?  Yes.  Would most judges?  No.

Lawyer ethics in some of these cases become incredibly situational.  Is the attorney-client privilege, which not only permits but demands that lawyers withhold truth from courts and other parties to protect the interest of their clients ethical?  This bothered me a bit in law school.  It's ethical if you consider that the duty is to the client, and not to the courts or some higher power. Situational.

Like dcbc said, things like this go in your "credibility ledger" and affect other things in the case, so it's not wholly without penalty.  Meaning, a lawyer who stretches things beyond credibility loses their case before the judge and jury.

I'm not at all saying that lawyers like Habba and Powell should go unpunished.  I'm just saying that it's a more subtle question than it initially appears.

Speaking of which, oral argument in the Bar's appeal in the Powell case is scheduled for February 7, which seems rather slow considering briefing was completed in September.  An opinion can be expected in a couple of months after oral argument, so like April or May.

I could never have been a lawyer; my morals aren't that malleable.

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

dcbc 14404

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Like dcbc said, things like this go in your "credibility ledger" and affect other things in the case, so it's not wholly without penalty.  Meaning, a lawyer who stretches things beyond credibility loses their case before the judge and jury.

Courts, at least in my anecdotal experience (of the appellate variety), have a very long memory of lawyers' acting unethically or generally being full of shit in their representations.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26277

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The lawyer's first duty is to their client.  That duty mostly, but not completely, excludes other considerations, including duty to abstract notions like "the system," "democracy,"  and even the truth.

For example, when I did the Criminal Defense Clinic, in the introduction to the class, we were given a hypothetical: 

An apple sits on the ground underneath an apple tree.  Are you comfortable arguing that someone put the apple there rather than it having fallen from the tree?

So, criminal defense lawyers often are in the business of arguing "alternative facts."  When does that become a flat-out lie?  You think you know, but I submit that sometimes it's not that easy.  That and the nature of their clients often subjects them to criticism from the unsophisticated. 

Litigation lawyers are in the business, often, of stretching the laws and the system to their absolute credible limits to advance the interests of their clients.  To this end, lawyers often file "shitty lawsuits" apparently unsupported by existing law or fact.  The line between a groundbreaking civil rights suit and a frivolous one can get blurry.  People around here love to declare lawsuits they don't like "frivolous," but they're mostly wrong under the applicable legal standards.

So, you have lawyers like Habba and Powell that seem to be willing to lie to the courts.  We're pretty sure we know when they're lying, and yeah, we're probably right in that.  But, when you start carefully examining their lies and applying standards of proof for purposes of sanctioning or punishing them, what seems to be an obvious lie or misrepresentation can begin to look less like one for which you can punish them.  And when you consider that they are "lying" to advance the interest of their clients, a certain lenity comes into play.

For example, Habba told the court she had dinner with her parents who are now sick with covid.  That's verifiable and probably true (if not, that's a problem).  She told the court she had tested negative for covid.  That's probably verifiable and probably true.  She also told the court she was "feeling feverish" or something to that effect.  That's not verifiable and also probably not true.  But because it's not verifiable, makes a thin basis for sanctions.  Could the judge rule, like Engoron did concerning Trump on that occasion, that she's full of shit and sanction her?  Yes.  Would most judges?  No.

Lawyer ethics in some of these cases become incredibly situational.  Is the attorney-client privilege, which not only permits but demands that lawyers withhold truth from courts and other parties to protect the interest of their clients ethical?  This bothered me a bit in law school.  It's ethical if you consider that the duty is to the client, and not to the courts or some higher power. Situational.

Like dcbc said, things like this go in your "credibility ledger" and affect other things in the case, so it's not wholly without penalty.  Meaning, a lawyer who stretches things beyond credibility loses their case before the judge and jury.

I'm not at all saying that lawyers like Habba and Powell should go unpunished.  I'm just saying that it's a more subtle question than it initially appears.

Speaking of which, oral argument in the Bar's appeal in the Powell case is scheduled for February 7, which seems rather slow considering briefing was completed in September.  An opinion can be expected in a couple of months after oral argument, so like April or May.

Yes, thank you. That is well put and I’m aware. But that’s hard to accept outside the legal realm for many because most of us are required to adhere to a higher standard. For example, if you work for a major corporation in America, particularly in management, your first duty is (at least implicitly) to the company. However- you are also bound by written standards of business conduct that prohibit actions analogous to what @Gatorubet describes. And while we can all think of spectacularly bad behavior by employees and officers of major corporations, the reason why we can do that was that it was newsworthy, they broke their own rules, and they were fired when it got out.

What you call duty is scandalous for the rest of us, and I’m glad it is.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31263

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I could never have been a lawyer; my morals aren't that malleable.

Like I said, in evidence class one time, I declared privileges to be absolute bullshit and a barrier to the truth.  My stance on that has softened, but I rarely have to assert privilege other than in the face of demands from other civilians, where I have no problem saying it's none of their fucking business.

Most lawyers don't come across this kind of dilemma on a very frequent basis, other than arguing shaded facts or perhaps somewhat disingenuous positions on the law.

Some lawyers are willing to sacrifice their personal credibility in order to advance the interests of their clients (like most of Trumpco lawyers), some are not.  It is often a matter of degree.

Criminal lawyers probably find themselves toeing these lines more often than any others.  For that and other reasons, it can be a very difficult job.  And my hat is off to them most of the time.

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

TwiceHorn 31263

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, thank you, I am aware of all that. But that’s hard to accept outside the legal realm for many because most of us are required to adhere to a higher standard. For example, if you work for a major corporation in America, particularly in management, your first duty is (at least implicitly) to they company. However- you are also bound by written standards of business conduct that prohibit actions analogous to what @Gatorubet describes. And while we can all think of spectacularly bad behavior by employees of major corporations, the reason why we can was that it was unacceptable and they were fired when word got out.

What you call duty is scandalous for the rest of us, and I’m glad it is.

That's fine, but I take issue with "higher standard."  The duty to the client is "fiduciary plus."  It's about as high a standard as the law recognizes.  The duty is express and explicit, not implied.  There are also duties of candor to the tribunal, among others, that are in direct conflict with the duty to the client.  In extreme cases, it can present quite a dilemma to the lawyer.

Thankfully, most of us don't find ourselves in extreme cases and many of us avoid representations that would place us in them.  About the worst most lawyers face is being in possession of an incredibly damaging fact for their client and doing their damnedest to avoid that fact coming to light or into evidence.

Is that ethical in some absolute moral sense?  Probably not.  Is it justifiable in the legal arena, and thus ethical, probably so.

I get that you don't like it.  I'm just providing context.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
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...