|
Proper legal text is so formalised it is insane. It's funny when someone professionally fucks it up, but it's also a huge barrier to common people interacting with the legal system.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
goatface posted:Proper legal text is so formalised it is insane. It's funny when someone professionally fucks it up, but it's also a huge barrier to common people interacting with the legal system. I actually don't think the writing formality itself is what would trip a layman up in court. The court will actually bend over backwards to understand what you are trying to say and determine the case on the merits. There's a case you read in civil procedure called Dioguardi v. Durning where an Italian immigrant in the 40s filed a complaint that was like barely comprehensible: quote:In his complaint, obviously home drawn, plaintiff attempts to assert a series of grievances against the Collector of Customs at the Port of New York growing out of his endeavors to import merchandise from Italy "of great value," consisting of bottles of "tonics." We may pass certain of his claims as either inadequate or inadequately stated and consider only these two: (1) that on the auction day, October 9, 1940, when defendant sold the merchandise at "public custom," "he sold my merchandise to another bidder with my price of $110, and not of his price of $120," and (2) "that three weeks before the sale, two cases, of 19 bottles each case, disappeared." The court actually said he did state a claim, even though he didn't do it very well, and he deserved his day in court, even though they strongly advised him to get a lawyer. He did not get a lawyer and lost because the thing that will get you is...everything else. Unless I'm just saying this to a lawyer and sound ridiculous right now haha, I'm just assuming most people in here aren't lawyers but it seems like a lot are! I will say from experience tho my dad has been a trial lawyer for 50 years and he definitely turns poo poo in with like typos and phrasing I would be really embarrassed to use but if you get before a jury they don't know any of that poo poo, like they don't see the complaint you wrote or anything like that I don't think, and a judge probably isn't going to rule against you on motions because of some typos so I think a lot of the legal professional writing is overblown for standard trial court stuff
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Did we lose the live stream? Link isn’t opening for me anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:Did we lose the live stream? Link isn’t opening for me anymore. They're on break for 5 more mins
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
just came back, this is the latest link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F908RjCmijU
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Jones' lawyers are one of the funniest things to come out of this whole insane mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Karagoonis
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Well, that Texas Appellate ruling might be bad for the sanctions argument if Texas really does have a higher court ruling on file that you cannot issue sanctions on motions for a new trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Saltpowered posted:Well, that Texas Appellate ruling might be bad for the sanctions argument if Texas really does have a higher court ruling on file that you cannot issue sanctions on motions for a new trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Will there be a ruling on all this today?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
I can't believe how much I've missed hearing Mark Bankston say, "Objection, non-responsive."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
Saltpowered posted:Well, that Texas Appellate ruling might be bad for the sanctions argument if Texas really does have a higher court ruling on file that you cannot issue sanctions on motions for a new trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
goatface posted:Proper legal text is so formalised it is insane. It's funny when someone professionally fucks it up, but it's also a huge barrier to common people interacting with the legal system. I've generally seen legalese as "Human Social Programming Language". Of course humans have incredibly wide tolerance for their programming and a lack of standardization for their hardware so you have to make sure to standardize and define everything so you can later come back and correct the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
I'm gonna say they are probably not being honest about what that case says. I find it unlikely it says that it's ok to lie and write nonsense. It probably just says that the filing of a motion for retrial is in and of itself not sanctionable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:I honestly can't imagine why that'd be the case, it seems like a pillar of practice that you can't turn in stupid, vexatious, dishonest (especially this), incompetent work no matter what the issue is at hand. Duty of candor and all that. If I lied through my teeth on a motion submitted to the court that would severely undercut its authority if the judge can't bonk me on the head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
I can already feel his fury. AND we're gonna get video?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
lol this is a pretty good rebuttal
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you don’t super want the judge to say you signed your name to some of the worst lawyering she’s seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
I feel like she's spending tonight trying to talk herself out of sanctions, not into them. Which is not great for the defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Wow, that was intense! The judge ending with something like (to Jones' attorneys) "I took your filing seriously and spent time reading it, but I'm not sure it was a serious filing" or something like that, and said earlier it was "disingenuous at best." That must have stung, although they both seem dulled. I loved how Bankston got Martin to acknowledge many factual and procedural errors but that he still stood behind the entire filing. It was also funny how Bankston said that he had thought Reynal and Martin were equally culpable but after today's testimony he was rethinking that and that Martin may be the most responsible for all that went down. I left the video going after the judge left it going after leaving, in hopes there'd be a fistfight, but no luck. PS I am not a lawyer with a lawyer's precise recall of what I heard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
if you can't recall the precise wording of today's sanctions hearing give me a pm
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
I like there part where Martin tried to be snide about typos and said Bankston filed in the wrong court, and then Bankston got to come in and basically "no, you dumbass, the case is actually based where I filed and the judge has repeatedly remind us that despite being before her now that is not where the actual case is and actually you once again got it wrong" https://mobile.twitter.com/speechwrs/status/1643727849008889858
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:if you can't recall the precise wording of today's sanctions hearing give me a pm For my purposes I think I have enough of a mental picture, thanks, though. As a lay person, I have a minimal need for precision in this. My takeaway is that Martin and Reynal agreed that they had done a lot of stupid poo poo (my legal term for sloppy/misleading/factually incorrect filing), but that nobody had the authority to punish them under Texas law. Which according to Bankston, they repeatedly misstated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Any legal goons have a perspective on “something to do with retrial could have been submitted in crayon and it still should be considered”
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
If you were pro se or something maybe. As a licensed professional charging $800 an hour? gently caress no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
HAmbONE posted:Any legal goons have a perspective on “something to do with retrial could have been submitted in crayon and it still should be considered” Everything gets considered. Is the judge's job to give every filing and argument professional consideration. It takes an extreme amount of what they call "vexatious litigation" for filling to have any sort of lesser consideration. Now, whether the consideration leads to a difficult or easy decision is a separate matter. I imagine the Motion for a New Trial (or whatever they titled it) was an easy decision for the judge, and the judge was for sure pissed at having her time wasted in this bullshit. But she still read it and thought about it. I once saw a lawyer whiff a deadline to file an opposition to a complete bullshit thing, and the judge granted the complete bullshit because it was unopposed. So, you know, it's ok for a lawyer to go for some bullshit sometimes. The other side might be idiots or your client is paying you to fight like hell or whatever. Unmeritorious is different than sloppy lies. You don't lie, and you really don't lie sloppily. This judge (likely) here is super pissed because of the sloppy lies. Not because Jones' lawyers are going to simply lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
I'm not an expert at all, but the sheer number of disgraced and possibly debarred attorneys in the wake of these trials has to be unprecedented, right? Since no one with integrity or concerned with their reputation was willing to work for Alex Jones, it's just a cavalcade of scumbags and fools, and they're getting exposed in the most embarrassing and public way. There can't be any coming back for Martin after this, right? Even if he's not sanctioned, his reputation must be shot to hell, right? What happens to him?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:I'm not an expert at all, but the sheer number of disgraced and possibly debarred attorneys in the wake of these trials has to be unprecedented, right? Since no one with integrity or concerned with their reputation was willing to work for Alex Jones, it's just a cavalcade of scumbags and fools, and they're getting exposed in the most embarrassing and public way. There can't be any coming back for Martin after this, right? Even if he's not sanctioned, his reputation must be shot to hell, right? What happens to him? He gets hired by other right-wing people who want a lawyer who will blatantly lie for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:I'm not an expert at all, but the sheer number of disgraced and possibly debarred attorneys in the wake of these trials has to be unprecedented, right? Since no one with integrity or concerned with their reputation was willing to work for Alex Jones, it's just a cavalcade of scumbags and fools, and they're getting exposed in the most embarrassing and public way. There can't be any coming back for Martin after this, right? Even if he's not sanctioned, his reputation must be shot to hell, right? What happens to him? I suspect that it's way easier for a non-licensed batshit lawyer to find jobs with the bathshit right wing than it for a batshit non-licensed medical professional to find work. Which uh.....I don't have a final thought for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Looking stupid is like dying for a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
Borscht posted:Looking stupid is like dying for a lawyer. Trump and Alex represented by a horde of zombies is a useful visual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
There's always the right wing hate machine grift train. They're being so horribly mistreated by the radical leftist Soros-funded deep state pedophile cannibal vampire puppy kicking judge, they'd get top billing on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
So, if not disbarment, what sanctions might we see? A $500 fine and a "we'll be extra mad next time" or something with teeth?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:So, if not disbarment, what sanctions might we see? A $500 fine and a "we'll be extra mad next time" or something with teeth? The judge cannot disbar them. The judge can refer them to the ethics board for that. Sanctionwise for damage could be a wide range of things from several thousand slap on the wrist to they have to pay the estate back for large amounts of money. Sanctions amounts are often a crapshoot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 03:41
|
|
|
Scipiotik posted:As someone in the legal field this is amazing. We poo poo ourselves if a comma is out of place. Counterpoint: I’ve had cause to read the work of like five different lawyers recently and every single one of them was riddled with typos including one that misspelled the defendants name in every single use (ie it wasn’t a typo they just never bothered to learn the defendants actual name) and many pretty obvious and pertinent things like saying someone lives on “Jackspn Lsne.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 12:25
|
|
|
the continuation of the sanctions hearing starts in roughly 7 hours going by: https://www.traviscountytx.gov/courts/civil/tccfc/case?cause=D-1-GN-18-001835 it should cover bankston talking about potential fees and gamble making a ruling people were asking for docs surrounding this sanctions hearing so: motion for new trial: https://www.dropbox.com/s/99dsy3rc9736epg/Motion_for_New_Trial_or_in_the_Alternative_Motion_to_Modify_Judgment_4EF57C2F.pdf?dl=0 motion for sanctions for groundless pleading: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rbhxyra4...eading.pdf?dl=0 notice of oral hearing: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rbhxyra4kt7al5h/AABgbdQxfwIaKbNx01Ssjzria/2023-03-28%20Heslin%20Notice%20of%20Hearing%20%28April%206%29.pdf?dl=0 and a prior court transcript of Taube's sanctions hearing: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sttra1jj0n2o7ld/Taube%20Sanctions%20hearing.pdf?dl=0 Wiggly Wayne DDS fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 13:08
|
|
|
Does anyone remember how to spell that case that Martin was citing that he claimed held that you can just turn in anything you want in a motion for a new trial and it's not sanctionable? I wanted to look at it and see what it actually says
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
Stefan Prodan posted:Does anyone remember how to spell that case that Martin was citing that he claimed held that you can just turn in anything you want in a motion for a new trial and it's not sanctionable? I wanted to look at it and see what it actually says Martin posted:To start with a Motion for Sanctions, to allow it to be overruled by operation of law is not only unprecedented in the history of Texas Jurisprudence it ought to be an insult to the court because they're just expecting one more round of sanctions. My personal history is I've never had this argued against me, I searched Texas case law and found one case where the court said you cannot sanction a motion for new trial period paragraph, and there is no case in support of what they want, there is no history of what they want. And I argue that anything done is not going to be sustainable. first slide posted:THE COURT CANNOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS UNDER TRCP 13 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A SUIT EVEN IF IT IS SHOWN TO BE BASELESS second slide posted:Karagounis failed to appear when the case was called for trial. The court proceeded to hear PCA's request for sanctions under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The request had been included in its amended answer filed several weeks earlier. Sanctions were sought because Karagounis' suit was allegedly groundless and initiated in bad faith. After hearing evidence presented by PCA's legal counsel, the trial court entered final judgment. third slide posted:[red text starts here]Karagounis then timely moved for a new trial, contending that he had discovered new evidence [red text ends here] and that PCA "had not file [sic] a Counterclaim on February 28th [sic] 1997, as required by TRCP 47, [sic] and 97." When that relief was denied by written order, he again moved the court to "reconsider new trial." [red text starts here] Though colored in a different shade, the grounds alleged therein again involved newly discovered evidence and the impropriety of the court awarding sanctions.[red text ends here] That motion too was denied by written order. Sanctions were sought for the motions for new trial and were also granted. Reversed on the lack of judicial authority under Rule 13.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
Yeah thanks I just needed the name Karagounis I couldn't remember how it was spelled Oh I don't even need to think I looked it up I think I can spot the problem based on Bankston's response which iirc was "yes that's correct rule 13 requires intent that's why we are seeking sanctions under rule 10 instead you dumb idiot" edit: maybe I'm remembering the rule he said wrong or misunderstood because I looked it up and rule 10 is only about an attorney withdrawing so I don't know which one he was talking about but I feel like Bankston was talking about some other rule that didn't require the level of scienter oh I think this is where I got the 10 from, chapter 10 of texas civil practices and remedies code, not rule 10 of texas civil procedure https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.10.htm Stefan Prodan fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
it's not mentioned in the decision but Karagounis was also pro se
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 14:43
|
|