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


Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

I don't think Hans Christian Andersen could have ever envisioned this.  

Posted
44 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

No one? Huh IMG_2736.webp.262a8074c4445b1627e302c56e2de528.webp

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 2/21/2024 at 7:16 AM, Horn Dog said:

If any of you fuckers want to set up a grift fund to “Support Donald Trump with his War on Woke”,  I will legally change my dog’s name to ‘Donald Trump’ and my neighbors dog’s name to ‘Woke’, and do a daily stream of their barking matches for 20% proceeds. 

$9.95

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Heisenberg said:

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

I still think Elon might do it. Or the Saudis. Or Putin.

Posted
4 hours ago, tbone_ said:


What can I say. I’m an optimist.

We all are.  It's just that some people here also are masochistic.

Posted
1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

holy fucking shit…how to lose your law license in one simple filing.  fraud on the court, anyone?

 

fraudulent reply to the judge after a guilty verdict for fraud

bold-strategy-jason-bateman.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

holy fucking shit…how to lose your law license in one simple filing.  fraud on the court, anyone?

They won’t lose shit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, NAVY said:

No one? Huh IMG_2736.webp.262a8074c4445b1627e302c56e2de528.webp

Shit I’m half surprised there aren’t bills being introduced into US congress appropriating money to pay his judgments and bills.  There probably are some riders being snuck in.  Which Maga are on the appropriations committee?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 

Yeah this was the deadline cannon held them to earlier. Sounds like they weren't really ready to go on these, not that they could have had much substance to begin with. 

Posted
15 hours ago, dcbc said:

And, as you undoubtedly know, in Texas, for purposes of appeal, we have the "one final judgment" rule, which is to say that a final judgment is one which disposes of all parties and all issues, which typically is indicated by a "Mother Hubbard" clause stating that the judgment does just that.  But to make matters more strange (at least in Texas), even if a judgment does not, in fact, dispose of all parties and all issues, if it appears that the trial court intended to dispose of all parties and all issues, a judgment which is not, in fact, final, is considered final for purposes of appeal.

 

4122fea6-05f2-4628-81a7-35f072b551c9_tex

So you're saying

image.png.b38aab43a3cf553cae6bf0e41cc8cd00.png

Posted

Cannon will reject this… all his twattering, no matter how accurate and well reasoned, completely goes up in smoke with that final line. 

Posted (edited)

Still haven't read the motions to dismiss, but I think even Cannon will make short shrift of the Fitton Socks case based one. It just doesn't hold up and it's not a subtle argument. 

 

One that does kinda pique the curiosity is the lawful/unlawful initial possession problem.  There are two provisions of 793 that focus on wrongful withholding of NDI.  One specifies that initial possession was lawful and the other specifies unlawful.  Trump is indicted on the latter.  Seem easier to prove the lawful one, because depending on when you consider possession to occur, seems like POTUS might have a good argument that he's legally entitled to initially possess.

 

There may be some other subtleties in there and I defer to Smith but I always thought it odd that they indicted under the provision that requires unlawful initial possession. Just seems like more to prove when the guts of the thing is wrongful retention. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

THEN she'll reject it to prevent any appeal from happening because at this point anything that goes to the 11th circuit runs the risk of her being removed.

Que? Now judges can be removed if an appellate court finds reversible error?

Posted
On 2/22/2024 at 8:49 AM, dcbc said:

 

Yeah, in Texas we have a "motion for judgment," the counterpoint to which is a motion JNOV, which wouldn't make sense here.  Maybe style it motion for corrected judgment.  Just a weird naming scheme in Trump University Upstairs Law College and Tanning Salon.

 

And, as you undoubtedly know, in Texas, for purposes of appeal, we have the "one final judgment" rule, which is to say that a final judgment is one which disposes of all parties and all issues, which typically is indicated by a "Mother Hubbard" clause stating that the judgment does just that.  But to make matters more strange (at least in Texas), even if a judgment does not, in fact, dispose of all parties and all issues, if it appears that the trial court intended to dispose of all parties and all issues, a judgment which is not, in fact, final, is considered final for purposes of appeal.

 

4122fea6-05f2-4628-81a7-35f072b551c9_tex

I don't understand any of this, but I'm glad you do.

  • Haha 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, texastough said:

Que? Now judges can be removed if an appellate court finds reversible error?

No, not per se.  But it is possible that the appeals court reassigns it on remand for any of a variety of reasons, stated or otherwise. If no appeal, that possibility, already slim probably, is reduced.

I think as it stands, the Chief District Judge has discretion to reassign, but probably wouldn't do so except on cannons request. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't understand any of this, but I'm glad you do.

 

Some days, I wish I did not.  Maybe if I hadn't had to fill up my biological hard drive space remembering this nonsense, I could have learned how to weld or code or something else practical.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

It seems to me that the imminent filing of a judgment in the Leticia James Civil Fraud Trial will start a 30-day clock running during which Trump will have to either put up something like $500 million (the entire judgment amount, including accrued interest) in cash, or secure a bond in excess of that amount, in order to appeal Judge Engoron's judment and stay enforcement of the judgment, or pay the judgment in full in the amount of about $500 million.

It also seems to me that Trump does not have $500 million in cash and that he will not be able to obtain a bond in the amount required as bonding agents do not want real estate assets as collateral, and besides, bonding agents know Trump's nature and will not want to do business with him.

So it may be that enforcement of Judge Engoron's order may force Trump into bankruptcy or otherwise Trump will face seizure and liquidation of enough of his assets to satisfy the judgment.

I'm no lawyer, but this is what I gather from readings on the internet.

TL;DR - Judge Engoron's judgment, if enforced, will ruin Trump financially.

Anybody see things working otherwise?

"We have all the funding we need out of Russia"

Also, today's NYT "The Daily" seems on point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/podcasts/the-daily/trump-civil-fraud-penalty.html

Edited by DDD Dad
Posted
2 hours ago, The Dog said:

The problem is he and his lawyers keep changing their story/argument between whether they were personal, or declassified, or something else that they come up with. 

Yeah GIF

Posted
18 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

holy fucking shit…how to lose your law license in one simple filing.  fraud on the court, anyone?

 

Nah, that's just called a vigorous defense. /Twice

  • Haha 3
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, not per se.  But it is possible that the appeals court reassigns it on remand for any of a variety of reasons, stated or otherwise. If no appeal, that possibility, already slim probably, is reduced

Sidebar- do you personally think Cannon can be assumed to be on the level at this point, and do you think her peers assume she is? Serious question, not going to argue your answer because I don’t have any thing to base an opinion on.

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Nah, that's just called a vigorous defense. /Twice

What I keep coming back to on it is that, let's say everyone overlooks it and the judgment gets signed.  Those addresses aren't some sort of Kings X, GOT YOU, FUCKERS! legal maneuver.  Nothing changes with regard to the status of these businesses, which are registered in NY.  James files a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to fix a clerical error in the judgment, and the ball keeps on rolling.  All they succeeded in doing is making themselves look even more inept and crooked.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, dcbc said:

What I keep coming back to on it is that, let's say everyone overlooks it and the judgment gets signed.  Those addresses aren't some sort of Kings X, GOT YOU, FUCKERS! legal maneuver.  Nothing changes with regard to the status of these businesses, which are registered in NY.  James files a motion nunc pro tunc to fix a clerical error in the judgment, and the ball keeps on rolling.  All the succeeded in doing is making themselves look even more inept.

Yeah, that's what I would assume.  But I'm also sure nothing will happen to the lawyers. Because Sidney Powell still has a license to practice law. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Yeah, that's what I would assume.  But I'm also sure nothing will happen to the lawyers. Because Sidney Powell still has a license to practice law. 

Yeah, and that's frustrating.  But would you rather he had competent representation?

  • Haha 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, dcbc said:

What I keep coming back to on it is that, let's say everyone overlooks it and the judgment gets signed.  Those addresses aren't some sort of Kings X, GOT YOU, FUCKERS! legal maneuver.  Nothing changes with regard to the status of these businesses, which are registered in NY.  James files a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to fix a clerical error in the judgment, and the ball keeps on rolling.  All they succeeded in doing is making themselves look even more inept and crooked.

This. And, no one was ever going to lose their law license over it. For that to even be suggested at this point just adds needless gasoline for the "NEVER ANY CONSEQUENCES!!!" crowd's bonfire.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Sidebar- do you personally think Cannon can be assumed to be on the level at this point, and do you think her peers assume she is? Serious question, not going to argue your answer because I don’t have any thing to base an opinion on.

Don't know. Besides the obvious thought that she is, there are alternate explanations for her "behavior," to wit being dumb/inexperienced. 

One sign she's not in the bag is that she didn't push this pretrial motion deadline, which he moved her to do and it seems they were less than precisely prepared to meet . Maybe she thought that too obvious. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Don't know. Besides the obvious thought that she is, there are alternate explanations for her "behavior," to wit being dumb/inexperienced. 

One sign she's not in the bag is that she didn't push this pretrial motion deadline, which he moved her to do and it seems they were less than precisely prepared to meet . Maybe she thought that too obvious. 

Kirchner had a possibility that she might pursue (although he said it was very unlikely)

@Brisketexan gird your loins...

Cannon sticks to her deadlines and holds the trial on schedule. We have a jury selection, a trial, then Cannon UNILATERALLY DECLARES A MISTRIAL.

We start the whole thing all over again and it's pushed to after election day.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Yeah, and that's frustrating.  But would you rather he had competent representation?

This is a good point.  As annoying as this continuance/motion bullshit is, at least stop and appreciate that while time is of the essence...his myriad cases are being handled by that are literally one step above Bird Law.  I mean no Lobo hyperbole, but we're talking folks who are board certified in yes...a little tax fraud, but mainly construction law, insurance litigation, reinsurance law, etc.  Half of them have marks against their bar records and in another life would be on late-night television with a pitch that's two seconds away from a telethon.  

Look at Cannon.  Look at Trump.  Look at his various attorneys.  Did you really think this simulation would give us the best and brightest?  Arguably the most unethical dipshit to ever hold elected office is being represented by barely competent lawyers who probably went to school with Saul Goodman presenting to a judge who in any other timeline would be hosting the Judge Judy spinoff instead of being in charge of real, federal shit.  What the fuck did you assholes think was gonna happen?  There's a fucking Bailiff in one of these trials that's probably gonna get a reality dating show deal out of this.  We are not the country they sold us in Elementary School.  

Edited by YGIFS
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Yeah, and that's frustrating.  But would you rather he had competent representation?

I think you are absolutely correct. No one with half a brain was fooled by the attempt to change the correspondence address or address for service/registered agent whatever that was.  So any lie involved (it's not a lie if that what that address wad with the secretary of state) is immaterial. 

That shit can be anything and doesn't change the status of the corporation/entity.  Example

TRUMP HOLDINGS INC
Texas Taxpayer Number 30117699006
Mailing Address 5595 EQUITY AVE STE 500 RENO, NV 89502-2397
 Right to Transact Business in Texas FRANCHISE TAX ENDED
State of Formation TX
Effective SOS Registration Date 03/03/1995
Texas SOS File Number 0134764800
Registered Agent Name DAVID EPPERSON
Registered Office Street Address 700 N. PEARL ST. STE. 1100 DALLAS, TX 75201
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Kirchner had a possibility that she might pursue (although he said it was very unlikely)

@Brisketexan gird your loins...

Cannon sticks to her deadlines and holds the trial on schedule. We have a jury selection, a trial, then Cannon UNILATERALLY DECLARES A MISTRIAL.

We start the whole thing all over again and it's pushed to after election day.

Anything could happen I guess, but why go to this trouble?  That's about as subtle as a cold douche and opens her to accusations of wasting everyone's time, not to mention it is appealable by the government, I believe. 

 

Kirschner is a little bit crazy. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

and in another life would be on late-night television with a pitch that's two seconds away from a telethon.  

It's not too late for them.

Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Anything could happen I guess, but why go to this trouble?  That's about as subtle as a cold douche and opens her to accusations of wasting everyone's time, not to mention it is appealable by the government, I believe. 

 

Kirschner is a little bit crazy. 

He admitted it was crazy.

That said - it's worth the trouble because Trump's only objective is to push all this past election day so that he can "pardon himself." If she's onboard with that then she may just try to do it and she doesn't care if she wastes anyone's time - Trump will reward her (maybe).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

He admitted it was crazy.

That said - it's worth the trouble because Trump's only objective is to push all this past election day so that he can "pardon himself." If she's onboard with that then she may just try to do it and she doesn't care if she wastes anyone's time - Trump will reward her (maybe).

Yeah true, it does push things to the bitter end. 

But if she doesn't gaf about appearances, just push the trial date right now and cite CIPA problems. That is a major Kings X for her if she is inclined to use it because none of the filings are public record and no one can talk about them. 

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Anything could happen I guess, but why go to this trouble?  That's about as subtle as a cold douche and opens her to accusations of wasting everyone's time, not to mention it is appealable by the government, I believe. 

 

Kirschner is a little bit crazy. 

"Are you familiar with Kirschner?

Kirschner does not apply.

Bring this to trial, and we'll see if Kirschner applies. (Client: What's Kirschner).  Please, let me handle this.

Kirschner was in Kentucky.

Kirschner was in Kentucky?

Kirschner was in Kentucky!

Alright, Freddy, forget Kirschner!  What's your bottom line!

Primary residence; 30% of the remaining assets.

What are you, nuts!?!?  Have you forgotten Kirschner?!?"

 

/obscure, perhaps, but hilarious

Edited by dcbc
  • Haha 2
Posted
57 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Kirchner had a possibility that she might pursue (although he said it was very unlikely)

@Brisketexan gird your loins...

Cannon sticks to her deadlines and holds the trial on schedule. We have a jury selection, a trial, then Cannon UNILATERALLY DECLARES A MISTRIAL.

We start the whole thing all over again and it's pushed to after election day.

I have always been Debbie downer on this, and I never quite got the angst of everyone to get this thing wrapped up before the election. I’m mean I understand why, but it’s never gonna be wrapped up before the election because they will always be the right of appeal after a trial and conviction - and there is no way he is not going to appeal.   And you will probably have to wait 10 months at the quickest to get the court of appeal to rule on that conviction. .   

Simply put, there was never gonna be a definitive answer to any criminal conviction prior to the election - no matter what judge works at warp speed.

I do agree a conviction could move the needle pre-election for some people, and I’m not saying that’s not so, I’m just reminding everybody that there was never going to be Trump in jail due to an affirmed conviction prior to the election



×
×
  • Create New...