How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who’s harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients’ interests, period.
The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn’t nearly the longest case I’ve had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we’ve been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.
The board can vote to waive it.
I’m not sure they could though. They could probably waive his ability to pledge the stock as collateral, but not sale. Ultimately, the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and I’m not sure there’s a conceivable reason they could come up with that’s in the shareholders interest. Power to do it, sure, but they’re going to be defendants in a shareholder derivative suit.
He’ll stand trial, so we’ll certainly see if he’s criminally negligent or not.
Things can be electronically filed through Pacer 24 hours per day. Depending on the local rules there may be a cutoff for what is considered timely that day, but it’s usually after close of business. I wouldn’t expect any action on this today.
I don’t think it’s a patsy when the person who was criminally negligent is held accountable.
I think line item vetoes are a bit ridiculous to begin with, but no one should be able to change 2025 to 2425 with veto powers.
They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.
No, they couldn’t.
All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.
Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.
When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.
Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.
I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.
So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.
We could also talk about the recent immigration bill
So you go from being upset that they didn’t try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It’s gamesmanship.
There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.
And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.
Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.
Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren’t willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.
If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don’t address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a “both sides are the same” while you’re at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.
So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you’re also somehow positive they could have done something? That’s such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn’t done.
When they didn’t avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama’s nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.
Avoid it how? What specifically would you have liked them to do?
I hear this opinion a lot, and I always ask what specifically would you have them do? They don’t control the house, so if they can’t get Republicans to go along they can’t pass any legislation. That’s just reality.
Your comments are made in the context of the OJ story, so to say “Dont we all want our executors to try to carry out our wishes to the best of their ability?” is incredibly dishonest.
Personal representatives must pay the debts of the estate. They can decline or challenge debts that they believe to be invalid. The debt to the Goldman family is a valid judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. What legitimate challenge is the personal representative making about the debt?
I assume the challenge is an effort to waste all of the assets of the estate on attorneys fees and administration costs. Essentially so that when a court tells them that they must pay the Goldman family that there are no assets left to pay.
Its my understanding that the executor is legally required to execute the will as defined by the will or instructions from the deceased.
You are at least partially wrong. The will cannot exceed the bounds of the law. Every state (that I’m aware of) has an order that expenses and debts are paid. An executor cannot choose to not pay a debt simply because the will says not to pay it.
…I know we can do both…
I’m not convinced.
The important thing for everyone to remember is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. It can’t cause anyone to do anything. Christianity on the other hand is the driving motivator for repressive laws meant to subjugate and punish “others” based on the wants and needs of a non-existent imaginary sky friend.
Also, China might be atheist but the Nazis were Christians.
That’s not bad for James if she can just argue to the court that this bond is blatantly invalid.
Between Knight not being approved in NY, not having adequate cash reserves, and writing a bond that just says Trump will pay, I don’t think that should be a problem.
That being said, I would still prefer having a valid bond posted. Turning a judgment into liquid assets is not easy, and can be very time consuming.
It would be bad for James in that an insurance company isn’t going to pay $175m if the judgment is affirmed or the appeal dismissed. It’s obviously much easier to cash a check from an insurance company than it is to find assets, domesticate a judgment, and then to levy and sell those assets.
It’s bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.
This is patently false. He does NOT need to post a bond in order to appeal. He can absolutely appeal without posting a bond. The only purpose of the bond is to stay enforcement on the judgment.
Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022) were not decided yet. It’s impossible to overstate how significantly those decisions change gun laws in this country.
Neighbor: Why does this dog eat so much corn!?!