Does anyone know if the move requested was some sort of desperate and legally novel attempt; or is that something that actually would happen if it weren’t strongly suspected that the bankruptcy filing is in very debatable faith and will probably descend into a bunch of forensic accounting and asset-hunting?
My (utter layman’s) assumption would have been that the bankruptcy proceedings and the defamation case would be completely unrelated until the point where the damages from the defamation case actually need to be collected, at which point they presumably acquire some specific type of creditor status and join the queue of creditors over in the bankruptcy case.
Is this not, in fact, how it works; and having otherwise unrelated matters that might end up producing creditors against someone who has declared bankruptcy folded into the operations of the bankruptcy court a standard practice?
This part is well worth quoting:
In this respect, it’s not really useful, or possible, to specify a break point where the money game ends and the ideological one begins. They are two facets of the same coin—where the con selling 23-cent miracle cures for heart disease inches inexorably into the one selling miniscule marginal tax rates as the miracle cure for the nation itself. The proof is in the pitches—the come-ons in which the ideological and the transactional share the exact same vocabulary, moral claims, and cast of heroes and villains.
“Gas giant” Rudy Giuliani hasn’t completed his yet.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.