ADVERTISEMENT

Sullivan lawyers up.

Interesting. I assume this means the judge will have to recuse himself from hearing any case in the future in which that law firm is a participant.
 
Strikes me as odd. But I'm not a lawyer or judge.

Shouldn't a judge have a grasp of material that seemingly prompted his actions?

what’s the two bit political strategy in this malarkey

normally i think oh damn this is odd
what’s the end game here

but the CCP/DNC just keep shoving w/7/2

it’s totally consistent
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Strikes me as odd. But I'm not a lawyer or judge.

Shouldn't a judge have a grasp of material that seemingly prompted his actions?

A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client. - attributed to A. Lincoln.

It’s actually extremely common for judicial rulings to be defended by lawyers other than the Judge that made the ruling....almost universal, in fact.
 
Strikes me as odd. But I'm not a lawyer or judge.

Shouldn't a judge have a grasp of material that seemingly prompted his actions?
He’s totally corrupt! Everyone knows it, but the lawyer’s will twist this into being totally normal! This doesn’t or shouldn’t happen! Dude is a scum bag that’s been bought and paid for. He needs to be disbarred and tossed in jail
 
It’s actually extremely common for judicial rulings

Judge that made the ruling....

this is about a judicial ruling
and
a judge that made the ruling

what am i missing?

the need for representation seems we have traveled outside of that spectrum
 
this is about a judicial ruling
and
a judge that made the ruling

what am i missing?

the need for representation seems we have traveled outside of that spectrum

Most....arguably all in some form or manner.....civil and criminal....appeals and writs are about a judicial ruling and a judge that made a ruling.

They are routinely argued by lawyers other than the trial judge that made the ruling which is being appealed.

I’m not sure what you are missing.

Actually I am....that’s not in the script you’re following.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
This guy knows nothing! Everything is on the up and up in this caseo_O. Couple of our resident lawyers will disagree because they totally outclass him in the knowledge of our laws.
Do you lawyers/attorneys think the judge has been fair and balanced in this case? Yes or no answer.

Why do lawyers try to make something so simple into classical mechanics?

I actually believe the judge may know something but erred. The simplest component of critical thinking is likely not a long suit with this judge.

My answer to okcpokefan12 is an emphatic no. I'm not trained in law. Some pals are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
Most....arguably all in some form or manner.....civil and criminal....appeals and writs are about a judicial ruling and a judge that made a ruling.

They are routinely argued by lawyers other than the trial judge that made the ruling which is being appealed.

I’m not sure what you are missing.

Actually I am....that’s not in the script you’re following.

who is the ideologue here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
Most....arguably all in some form or manner.....civil and criminal....appeals and writs are about a judicial ruling and a judge that made a ruling.

They are routinely argued by lawyers other than the trial judge that made the ruling which is being appealed.

I’m not sure what you are missing.

Actually I am....that’s not in the script you’re following.

for clarity

i just finished coffee with an eighty year old esteemed attorney
 
for clarity

i just finished coffee with an eighty year old esteemed attorney

Cool.

Believe who you want. *shoulder shrug*

Or maybe take a look at the millions of appeals of judges’ rulings and the multitudes of extraordinary writs directed at judges’ rulings filed and see how many of those have the Judge actually responding personally. *another shoulder shrug*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
Trumpesphere in this case is a former assistant US Attorney

Point being - there’s always another lawyer saying they know what’s up. And nothing about this entire case seems normal.

na man

it’s settled science
and we’re trump bots
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
Most....arguably all in some form or manner.....civil and criminal....appeals and writs are about a judicial ruling and a judge that made a ruling.

They are routinely argued by lawyers other than the trial judge that made the ruling which is being appealed.

I’m not sure what you are missing.

Actually I am....that’s not in the script you’re following.

Look in the mirror! Love how you act like you are not biased...a total joke. Your TDS shows daily and you make excuses for liberals/Democrats all the time. Kinda embarrassing
 
I mean....

Trumpesphere has an agenda. Who knew?

Believe who you want though. *shoulder shrug*
Are you implying you call balls and strikes better than Andrew McCarthy?

Is it because he's part of the "Trumpesphere" solely or only in part?

Does being in the "Trumpesphere" preclude individuals from making accurate calls?

What the defining characteristic of someone in the "Trumpesphere?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
Most....arguably all in some form or manner.....civil and criminal....appeals and writs are about a judicial ruling and a judge that made a ruling.

They are routinely argued by lawyers other than the trial judge that made the ruling which is being appealed.

I’m not sure what you are missing.

Actually I am....that’s not in the script you’re following.

I guess what comes off as dirty is the fact that he is actually hiring an independent lawyer to argue his ruling. Maybe that is commonplace I am lucky in that my only court experience is traffic court. What would seem normal is that you have two parties at odds in a lawsuit, one side wins and one loses. When they meet in the appeals court an independent attorney is arguing in favor of the lower court judge/ruling but they are doing for their own self interest, not to support the judge who made the ruling. In this case it seems the two sides in the case, the DOJ and Flynn, are in agreement on what should happen but now the judge has inserted himself as a third party, that appears biased based on the steps he is taking. Again, maybe this is commonplace and normal, but to an inexperienced person it seems shady.
 
Cool.

Believe who you want. *shoulder shrug*

Or maybe take a look at the millions of appeals of judges’ rulings and the multitudes of extraordinary writs directed at judges’ rulings filed and see how many of those have the Judge actually responding personally. *another shoulder shrug*.
How many of these did Appeals Courts specifically order the Judge, himself, to respond to Court itself?
 
Former US Attorney for Sourhern District of NY probably knows what he's talking about.


God forbid that I would come to JD’s defense. In the first place I doubt he feels the need for anyone to come to his aid. And secondly, if he did feel such need I’m certain I’m the last person he would want.

That being said, I believe most of you are making a mountain out of a molehill out of what he is saying. JD is arguing one microscopic point: judges frequently hire lawyers to explain their rulings. He is making no judgement on the correctness of this judge’s ruling, just pointing out that judges hiring lawyers is commonplace.

Nothing in JD’s comments points to an iota of TDS. Nothing he has said implies he agrees with the judge’s ruling. He is simply explaining something that is commonplace within the legal process, a commonplace that most of us had no idea existed. I know I didn’t.

So I would suggest that some of you calm down with your exhortations. Not everything is a pro-Trump/anti-Trump situation. IMO JD was doing nothing more than trying to educate us on legalistic practices about which none of us were aware.
 
God forbid that I would come to JD’s defense. In the first place I doubt he feels the need for anyone to come to his aid. And secondly, if he did feel such need I’m certain I’m the last person he would want.

That being said, I believe most of you are making a mountain out of a molehill out of what he is saying. JD is arguing one microscopic point: judges frequently hire lawyers to explain their rulings. He is making no judgement on the correctness of this judge’s ruling, just pointing out that judges hiring lawyers is commonplace.

Nothing in JD’s comments points to an iota of TDS. Nothing he has said implies he agrees with the judge’s ruling. He is simply explaining something that is commonplace within the legal process, a commonplace that most of us had no idea existed. I know I didn’t.

So I would suggest that some of you calm down with your exhortations. Not everything is a pro-Trump/anti-Trump situation. IMO JD was doing nothing more than trying to educate us on legalistic practices about which none of us were aware.
I'm asking for clarification what qualifies being part of the "Trumprsphere," is it a binary or metric measurement (degrees to Trumpeshperic), and what is the defining threshold at which those afflicted no longer possess the ability to call balls and strikes.
I mean....

Trumpesphere has an agenda. Who knew?

Believe who you want though. *shoulder shrug*
Further, while JD may be accurate in his original response, in this specific situation is he leaving out broader context which may or may not support/refute the original impulse for this thread?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
I'm asking for clarification what qualifies being part of the "Trumprsphere," is it a binary or metric measurement (degrees to Trumpeshperic), and what is the defining threshold at which those afflicted no longer possess the ability to call balls and strikes.

Further, while JD may be accurate in his original response, in this specific situation is he leaving out broader context which may or may not support/refute the original impulse for this thread?.
You’ll get no argument from me that JD’s style is arrogant and antagonistic. He seems to find entertainment by insulting one who disagrees with him. He did so in this thread by invoking the “Trumpesphere.”

I sometimes wonder if that’s his style when he argues a case before a jury. I know if I were a juror I would find it extremely annoying and would have to fight the urge to vote against him just to spite him.

His style aside, his point in this thread is well taken.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT