Engorgeous George

The only clear line uis at don't do it at all. Otherwise we now have to make value (literally) judgments. I hzave not looked to see whether there was a ruling by the Ethics Board. If there is a written ruling i bet they condemned giving any amount but found this amount low enough that they were not going to censure the past act but they would if it were repeated. I bet even without a law degree you can find the ruling of the ethics board if you choose to look. There is nothing terribly unique about a law degree. Law school is nothing more than a three year reading comprehenson test. My brother told me so. Dismissed with a caution. Also looks like it was $15 not $20, with an additional $35 going to another democratic cause. The actaul written opinion is not released unless it comes with a censure rather than a caution.

The only clear line uis at don't do it at all. Otherwise we now have to make value (literally) judgments. I hzave not looked to see whether there was a ruling by the Ethics Board. If there is a written ruling i bet they condemned giving any amount but found this amount low enough that they were not going to censure the past act but they would if it were repeated. I bet even without a law degree you can find the ruling of the ethics board if you choose to look. There is nothing terribly unique about a law degree. Law school is nothing more than a three year reading comprehenson test. My brother told me so.

The Supremes were not subject to a Code of Ethics but had they been i might guess such gifts would have been highly frowned upon.

And failing, obviously.

In fully agree. That said i don't think police departments ought to be hiring Diecks. Seems a recipe for trouble.

Model Code of Judicial Conduct (americanbar.org) I would suggest any campaign contribution is imprudent for a sitting judge. That his contribution was 4 years ago seems irrelevant as presidential campaigns are every four years so his donation was in the last campaign. If this is brought up in the apeal it will nmot, in my estimation, be sufficient to overturn the verdict. It will result in a mild admonition from the appellate court. It may, however, begin to add color to Judge Merchan's other rulings, color those rulings do not need. I do note that the model code is not binding on jurists. CJC.pdf (nysba.org) (The New York Code which is based on the model code but is fleshed out a bit with definitions and commentary). I like my judges to be as pure appearing as Caesar's wife precisely so we don't devolve to these types of arguments. I say as pure appearing as i understand Caesar's wife was a saucy tramp in reality while officially maintaining cecorum.

I would suggest that every defense attorney and every public defender learned to shout "Batson!" every time they orgasmed and every time any person of color was struck from a jury beginning in 1986. In my experience the courts were stringent in enforcing Batson challenges. They seemed to err on the side of caution.

I find he gets carried away in his hyperbole. When that happens I think his points are diminished. I do not, however find his points negated, I simply find thier impact diminished, for me. I mostly stay out of it with he and others in this thread. I find the back and forth tedious. That said when arguments or hyperbole involves misrepresentaion of the law, whether substantive or procedurally, I comment. I probably should not as folks on a rant or a roll (the differenece is in the ear of the beholder) rarely take correction as a learning opportunity. They tend to take it as opposition even when it is not meant to be.

I believe the author may have been looking for the term "remorse and contrition" I have difficulty taking the article seriously as written. I also doubt the premise of the article without lookng into it. The verdict came down late in the day. I imagine the probation office was closing. I find it difficult to believe Trump was suppose to report there that evening, but I suppose anything is possible even if I find it unlikely.

With Batson v. Kentucky having been decided in 1986 I would maintain the practice you mention here did not occur in the 1990's. I would not argue that it did not occur before the ruling in 1986, but after, I would argue otherwise.

Hogamous higamous, man is polygamous.

How about paying them for a good review.

Not Macau!

Unless you are catholic, then its wrong and shameful unless first blessed by the church in an archaic sacrament.

I don't think he wants to anger Randy Marsh fans by claiming he took a bigger dump than did Randy. Randy makes the biggest crap of the world and breaks Bono record - South Park s09e11 (youtube.com)

Standards for the Prosecution Function (americanbar.org)

He's gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

He clearly needs more water and more ruffage in his diet. Definately not a spinach and kale sort of fella.

So like a minor imp or demon, something short of The Devil.

Off to work out now. Then maybe some paddling depending on the weather. Have fun. Play nice.

Not an attorney anymore. I retired. I could have chosen to maintain my license but chose to not do so precisely because I did not want others believing I am currently an attonrey. It was the only way to get folks and institutions to stop asking me to come back and to represent them). I fish now, and I run whitewater. I may get one last dog to train. I am an observer, on the sidelines, a relic from another time.

I opened that with my sound off. At first i thought it was going to be another Jardiance commercial.

In my first post in this discussion I agreed there were six to eight reversible errors in the trial. Did I get into them specifically, no, because as the trial occured I got into them at that time. Do I disagree with you as to what the main issues are here for appeal, I do not. I simply disagree with your approach to raising them. As I have said, on appeal this is about whether the defendant recieved fundamental due process, it is not about attacking the trial court or the democratice party at large, it is about the constitution. You seem to view any view different from your own as an attack rather than a slightly different perspective in essential agreement. I find that less than fully rational. The due process violations here have you so conflated you are beyond rational discussion with at this time. In time you may clam down and decide not to push away those in essential agreement with your main points, those, who by the way, spent their careers arguing just such matters, not reading a few partisan republican blogs and then adopting the positions uncritically. You Trumplicans need to get a grip. He is not the way, the truth, and the light. He ws a dem 12 years ago. He saw a parade, jumped in front of it and is pretending he has been leading it all along. The blind support for this charlatan has destroyed the GOP which now stands for nothing but a cult of personality to a person with massive personality flaws. I do thank you for the discussion, however. It has crystalized for me I cannot vote for Trump as I cannot be on the same side of an issue as folks like you and Trump. As offended as I am at the trial process I will not show my disdain for that by supporting your candidate. I was considering doing so but you have reminded me what that would mean. I will continue to vote third party as I also cannot support the ongoing democratic redistribution of wealth to the indolent and stupid.

And yet that is exactly what you said in the post leading to my first comment to you in this particular discussion. You wrote: There were dozens of clear intentional errors ..."

I am not a flag pole guy. I am a Home Depot, buy a flag on a flimsy pole which gets bracketed to your house until the cheap plastic bracket breaks in the wind guy.