- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge hands defeat to Mueller team in Russian troll farm case
Posted on 5/9/18 at 5:02 am to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
Posted on 5/9/18 at 5:02 am to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
quote:
Oh look! Another thread bookmarked by Kick.
Poor you, clinging onto every post hoping for something other than an “L”. Yet you leave with an L every time. Reducing yourself to cling to the words of porn stars and their greaseball lawyer who’s been on TV 72 times in 30 days while you hold on to your stuffed Mueller doll with its “resist” shirt on.
Meanwhile our president is getting shite done and dragging his balls all over Obama’s legacy.
You can bookmark this, because we both know how it’s gonna end. With you screaming at the sky disappointed just like always.
1
Posted on 5/9/18 at 5:09 am to GeauxLSUGeaux
Posted on 5/9/18 at 5:18 am to bencoleman
Discovery request is for 70+ years of information and intelligence gather by the US government. Is this correct?
Posted on 5/9/18 at 5:33 am to bencoleman
Rhee got her arse handed to her.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 5:41 am to bencoleman
quote:
bencoleman
Someone needs to help Rhee get the boot out of her arse.
ROFLMAO
Posted on 5/9/18 at 8:59 am to ShortyRob
Hey Shorty!
Let’s try a third time
Discovery request is for 70+ years of information and intelligence gathered by the US government. Is this correct?
Let’s try a third time
Discovery request is for 70+ years of information and intelligence gathered by the US government. Is this correct?
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:06 am to TigerBait1971
quote:Denial of a last-minute continuance on a routine, procedural matter does not constitute “handing her arse” to anyone. I suspect that anyone who believes otherwise has had ... limited ... exposure to the court system.
Rhee got her arse handed to her.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:09 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Which is why I do not understand the blowback on bulletin boards when someone who DOES understand the ruling provides the context necessary for everyone ELSE to understand it. If I were not an attorney, I think that I would welcome the help.
Dude. You have to be the most condescending pretentious new guy I have ever seen on this board. 1) nobody cares that you are a lawyer. 2). There are at least ten other lawyers on this board. 3). Our job isn't that hard. The board doesn't need one of us to translate what a simple ruling means. If people want to get into intricacies, we may have insight...but you really think you are much more special than you are.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Denial of a last-minute continuance on a routine, procedural matter does not constitute “handing her arse” to anyone. I suspect that anyone who believes otherwise has had ... limited ... exposure to the court system.
Did you read the transcript of the hearing? How many oral arguments have you been in where the judge outright mocked you? I'm guessing you don't spend much time in court.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 9:12 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:26 am to BBONDS25
quote:I think you are confusing two different cases. The judge in the Manafort case gave the lawyers a dressing-down. I have made no comment regarding the Manafort hearing.
Did you read the transcript of the hearing? How many oral arguments have you been in where the judge outright mocked you? I'm guessing you don't spend much time in court.
The judge in the Concord case issued a two sentence Minute Order without hearing ... or any substantive comment.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 9:40 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:36 am to BBONDS25
quote:You are correct in saying that becoming an attorney is not especially hard. I have always said that Clyde the Orangutan could pass the Bar, if you gave him two months of BarBri prep. I see SOMETHING every week that reinforces this opinion.
Dude. You have to be the most condescending pretentious new guy I have ever seen on this board. 1) nobody cares that you are a lawyer. 2). There are at least ten other lawyers on this board. 3). Our job isn't that hard. The board doesn't need one of us to translate what a simple ruling means. If people want to get into intricacies, we may have insight...but you really think you are much more special than you are.
But we DO have knowledge and experience that most non-lawyers do not share. When you combine that fact with the AWFUL reporting on EVERY legal matter (which I discussed on this thread), I think that some input from an experienced attorney can very often be helpful for the average layman
You think I am pretentious, and that is fine. You would not be the first, but the upvotes/downvotes seem to indicate that more people appreciate my perspective on this ruling than the number who agree with you ... by a rather large margin.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 9:57 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
You stated that "denial of a last-minute continuance on a routine, procedural matter does not constitute handing her arse to anyone"
So...your statement doesn't apply to the Manafort denial of continuation?
Additionally, it is fine to add your interpretation to what an order says...but to declare your interpretation as dispositive (which you seem to do) is silly. Attorneys disagree all the time on interpretation of an order. Attorneys disagree all the time about simple legal concepts. it happens every day in court.
So...your statement doesn't apply to the Manafort denial of continuation?
Additionally, it is fine to add your interpretation to what an order says...but to declare your interpretation as dispositive (which you seem to do) is silly. Attorneys disagree all the time on interpretation of an order. Attorneys disagree all the time about simple legal concepts. it happens every day in court.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 9:46 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
Didn't you stick up for Schneiderman yesterday?
I don't think anyone appreciates you
I don't think anyone appreciates you
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You think I am pretentious, and that is fine. You would not be the first, but the upvotes/downvotes seem to indicate that more people appreciate my perspective on this ruling than the number who agree with you ... by a rather large margin.
Yikes. Basing anything on upvotes....risky move counselor. Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:41 am to SDVTiger
quote:I do not recall posting anything positive about him.
Didn't you stick up for Schneiderman yesterday?
I don't think anyone appreciates you
Edit: You are probably referencing the thread about Soros campaign donations. I simply indicated that politicians of ALL stripes have had rich patrons since the beginning of time. I hardly consider that objective statement to be an endorsement of Schneiderman or his actions.
If it makes you feel better, “Assuming that the allegations are true (which seems reasonable at this time), he is scum and deserves to be prosecuted.”
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 10:33 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
but the upvotes/downvotes seem to indicate that more people appreciate my perspective on this ruling than the number who agree with you ...
Give it a while
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:53 am to BBONDS25
quote:Of course not. That entire exchange related to an asserion that the Judge “handed her arse” to Jeannie Rhee. Ms, Rhee is the prosecutor on the CONCORD case.
You stated that "denial of a last-minute continuance on a routine, procedural matter does not constitute handing her arse to anyone"
So...your statement doesn't apply to the Manafort denial of continuation?
Michael Dreeban was the lead OSC attorney at the Manafort hearing, which was NOT a request for continuance. It was a substantive hearing on DEFENSE motion.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 11:08 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 9:55 am to BBONDS25
quote:I am assuming that “continuation” is Louisiana-speak for “continuance.”. Is this correct?
Additionally, it is fine to add your interpretation to what an order says...but to declare your interpretation as dispositive (which you seem to do) is silly. Attorneys disagree all the time on interpretation of an order. Attorneys disagree all the time about simple legal concepts. it happens every day in court.
Yes, interpretations can vary. My problem was that so many people were formulating “interpretations” based upon objectively-inaccurate premises and a complete lack of understanding of Federal Criminal Procedural rules.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 10:07 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am assuming that “continuation” is Louisiana-speak for “continuance.”. Is this correct?
Nope it's continuance. If I stated otherwise, it was incorrect. Strange that you would point that out. Were you confused by the word continuation or are you trying the make me look silly? Either you are easily confused or you are being pretentious and patronizing.
quote:
Inaccurate premises
Such as? Thank God for you coming to correct everyone. You are certainly very impressed with yourself.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 10:07 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:09 am to BBONDS25
quote:Neither. I have seen several posters use that terminology during this discussion. I know that y’all use different terms than the “other 49” for a lot of things (I handled some silicosis cases in South Louisiana in my youth), so I wanted to be sure we were on the same page.
it's continuance. If I stated otherwise, it was incorrect. Strange that you would point that out. Were you confused by the word continuation or are you trying the make me look silly? Either you are easily confused or you are being pretentious and patronizing.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 10:11 am
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News