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

SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 11064

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I've watched lawyers try to do shit this way (introduce a document because they really want it in evidence, but they have zero idea how to prove up an exhibit, and try to just testify to a fact as they question a witness).  They are, uniformly, shitty lawyers.  There are plenty of shitty lawyers out there.  The fact that the former president of the United States employs one of them is mindblowing.  

Remember Bush v. Gore?  Say what you want about the parties, their positions, etc., but neither side was represented by an attorney who would be overwhelmed by a goddamned traffic ticket docket.  They had real lawyers, with real chops.  This....is just fucking pathetic.  Just like Trump.

Easier to discredit the courts when you make a mockery of the process.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.5k
  • 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

YGIFS

YGIFS 19458

Posted
Posted

Counsel to Trump, “I’m sorry Mr. President, but the judge is right.  I tried.  But I can’t just willfully demand the document into being evidentiary.  It was to be accepted first by the court.  I’ll try something else.”

Trump, “you didn’t know you can just turn documents into evidence like classified to declassified documents just by using your mind?  This kinda shit is the reason I’m not going to pay you.”   

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27007

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that the former president of the United States employs one of them is mindblowing.

Why?

Of the following:

1. Trump repeatedly fails to pay his counsel

2. Trump fires counsel who tell him what he doesn't want to hear

3. Trump is on the losing end of most of these cases

4. Trump frequently refuses to listen to the advice of his counsel

5. Trump is generally in denial of reality and expects his employees to also believe his bullshit

Which of the above makes you think he would have better attorneys? Because I don't see very many good attorneys willing to work under such conditions.

So he's a former president. Big fuckin deal. Just proves what our Founding Fathers already knew -- any dipshit can become president if you get enough dipshits to vote for him.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

I assume, then, that Kaplan permitted Mr. Bob Dobalina to withdraw from the case?   The first trial wasn't this big a shit show because he is a real lawyer.

Well, it appears Mr. Dobalina was never counsel in this, the second case, but has withdrawn from representation in the first case, more specifically the appeal before the Second Circuit.

Regardless, habba dabba do is on her own on this one.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

The alleged wrong here is not that "evidence was deleted."  The term is spoliation.  If a party destroys/discards material that the party knows will be evidence in a particular dispute, that's called "spoliation."

And generally speaking, the remedy isn't "A MISTRIAL!"  It is an instruction to the jury that the jury is to infer that the destroyed evidence would have benefited the other party, called a "spoliation instruction."

Fucking clown show.

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm a bit pissed as I didn't know that I was qualified to be a lawyer all this time.

Do you look like Habba, and are you willing to gargle Trump's balls?  Those seem to be the relevant professional criteria here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

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

Acting like an imperious, entitled jackass in front of a jury that is tasked with determining how much in damages you should be assessed for your previous wrongful acts committed in the course of being an imperious, entitled jackass (I can sexually assault whoever I want, and then deny it and say she's an ugly liar) is not a strategy I'd PERSONALLY recommend....but I might enjoy watching it play out in this case.

 

I'm aware of Larry Flynt.  One might say I'm familiar with his life's work.  This man is no Larry Flynt.

 

f1221045e8c69135c5e4acf87aa85a5a0a389487

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

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

IMG_1498.gif

 

"If I were to represent to you that there is a communications team at the White House, they have a thing called a television, and on that thing they show shows, would you have any reason to dispute that"?

 

That's how it usually goes down.  Still a bit of a dicey proposition, but Habba Dabba Don't can't even wing it.  What a maroon.

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

Pig Bellmont 8885

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

It’s federal court! This is basic shit she should absolutely be dragged for. 

 

50 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

I can’t. This is a performance for Trump. She fucking knows better 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22131

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

This can't be real. Mock trial students who suck at literally everything know this procedure. They pride themselves because it's so basic and so easy to script and they think they're smart. This bitch doesn't even know that basic script? I have a book sitting 5 feet away that includes the words to use, I got it the first day of my evidence course 18 year ago.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This can't be real. Mock trial students who suck at literally everything know this procedure. They pride themselves because it's so basic and so easy to script and they think they're smart. This bitch doesn't even know that basic script? I have a book sitting 5 feet away that includes the words to use, I got it the first day of my evidence course 18 year ago.

The little NITA evidence handbook I got when I took a course 25 years ago is still on my shelf.  I could hand it to most high school students, and in 15 minutes, they'd be able to do the basics of getting an exhibit admitted.  It ain't rocket surgery.

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

SimonBolivar 11064

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This can't be real. Mock trial students who suck at literally everything know this procedure. They pride themselves because it's so basic and so easy to script and they think they're smart. This bitch doesn't even know that basic script? I have a book sitting 5 feet away that includes the words to use, I got it the first day of my evidence course 18 year ago.

Yeah but this is a performance for those that think lawyerin is like in Suits where you look at a case for 2 seconds then go up to the judge and tell them what's what.

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted

been doing this job 25+ years, tried over 200 cases, and i don't think i ever fucked up the document dance like this.  i've had my moments and certainly seen some outrageous shit from opposing counsel, but lordy mercy not anything close to this.  most of the time the fuck ups illicited laughs and, if they were good folks who were simply lost and wanted to save them from their E&O or a bar complaint, we'd help 'em out...ask for a recess, get with them to help them with their predicates, not object, etc....so long as it didn't jeopardize my client's case.

this shit?...i'd lean back, smile, log my objection and watch her burn.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 23040

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

been doing this job 25+ years, tried over 200 cases, and i don't think i ever fucked up the document dance like this.  i've had my moments and certainly seen some outrageous shit from opposing counsel, but lordy mercy not anything close to this.  most of the time the fuck ups illicited laughs and, if they were good folks who were simply lost and wanted to save them from their E&O or a bar complaint, we'd help 'em out...ask for a recess, get with them to help them with their predicates, not object, etc....so long as it didn't jeopardize my client's case.

this shit?...i'd lean back, smile, log my objection and watch her burn.

This has been discussed ad nauseum but having an opportunity to represent the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES should be the dream scenario for every single student going through law school.

The fact that this lady is the best he can do says so much.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

been doing this job 25+ years, tried over 200 cases, and i don't think i ever fucked up the document dance like this.  i've had my moments and certainly seen some outrageous shit from opposing counsel, but lordy mercy not anything close to this.  most of the time the fuck ups illicited laughs and, if they were good folks who were simply lost and wanted to save them from their E&O or a bar complaint, we'd help 'em out...ask for a recess, get with them to help them with their predicates, not object, etc....so long as it didn't jeopardize my client's case.

this shit?...i'd lean back, smile, log my objection and watch her burn.

I seem to recall that in state court in Texas, generalized "improper predicate" objections don't cut it.  You're supposed to object and argue as to what is lacking in the foundation line of questioning.

 

Either way, I'm glad she's not in Texas.  Let her burn.

Edited by dcbc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This has been discussed ad nauseum but having an opportunity to represent the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES should be the dream scenario for every single student going through law school.

The fact that this lady is the best he can do says so much.

So much this.  This opportunity - in the abstract - is the career opportunity of a lifetime (usually an opportunity that comes to someone already moving at the higher levels of the practice of law).  It is indeed a dream scenario.  And it doesn't necessarily have to be along party lines -- depending on the case, I would have been honored, and would have busted my ass, to represent Obama, W, GHWB, even Clinton.  

The fact that this piece of fucking excrement has to get the shittiest attorneys on earth -- people who wouldn't even get hired by a sleazy dude running a chain of donut shops that's a front for a half-assed fencing operation -- is incredible.  The former POTUS should be represented by one of the best law firms in the country.  Instead, he's represented by a barely sentient pair of tits, who was hired solely for the "tits" part, not the "sentient" part.

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

Gatorubet 30711

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The alleged wrong here is not that "evidence was deleted."  The term is spoliation.  If a party destroys/discards material that the party knows will be evidence in a particular dispute, that's called "spoliation."

And generally speaking, the remedy isn't "A MISTRIAL!"  It is an instruction to the jury that the jury is to infer that the destroyed evidence would have benefited the other party, called a "spoliation instruction."

Fucking clown show.

Do you look like Habba, and are you willing to gargle Trump's balls?  Those seem to be the relevant professional criteria here.

Court TV now shows the judge after asking if Habba Dabba Doo ever sent preservation letters

IMG_0589.gif.6aeb762bd9836b7cca50ee97a7bfcc4c.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted

 

 

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

The fact that this piece of fucking excrement has to get the shittiest attorneys on earth -- people who wouldn't even get hired by a sleazy dude running a chain of donut shops that's a front for a half-assed fencing operation -- is incredible.  The former POTUS should be represented by one of the best law firms in the country.  Instead, he's represented by a barely sentient pair of tits, who was hired solely for the "tits" part, not the "sentient" part.

Recall that his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is a graduate of The Worst Law School In America (tm)

https://lawschooli.com/should-i-attend-cooley-law-school/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90641

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Remember Bush v. Gore?  Say what you want about the parties, their positions, etc., but neither side was represented by an attorney who would be overwhelmed by a goddamned traffic ticket docket.  They had real lawyers, with real chops.  This....is just fucking pathetic.  Just like Trump.

It’s pretty staggering to look back at the legal teams that Bush and Gore had, meanwhile Trump is treating it like he’s hiring the cheapest contractor that he can find and will eventually stiff them on the bill.

  • Like 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...