Well you’re welcome, but I’ve actually come to like reading these sorts of opinions myself, because the media reporting on them is so often so bad. I encourage others to start doing this as well. I think I found the link to this one in the NPR story on it. Anyway, modern legal opinions are written in much plainer English than in the past, so I think most of them are pretty digestible by most people with a high school education, or maybe at least some college.
17 Likes
I’m glad you think so. Not so sure I agree. It’s not the language so much as the background knowledge assumed of the reader. It’s why I rarely link to the original articles in my specialty, but to analysis by (usually) Ars or another trusted source. Most specialties have a language of their own that uses words that sound like regular English, but mean something quite different. (The kerfuffle over “death recorded” comes to mind)
10 Likes
And they are so much more accessible - though you wouldn’t know from most coverage.
It’s always worth praising the outlets that do link to or otherwise provide the actual court documents because so few do.
I’m long enough in the tooth to have started my legal training at a time when most judgments were only available if a court reporter was present at the hearing or one of the lawyers involved thought it worth doing a write-up and providing it to one of the law report publishers.
That’s right folks, there was a time when lawyers had to rely on the scribbled notes taken by baby lawyers or interns.
The idea that almost every judgment would be publicly accessible, in many cases for no fee, was miles away.
ETA: And then within three years, there we were.
9 Likes
Yeah, although I think it’s pretty inexcusable that Naomi Wolf didn’t do the most basic of research on what that term meant, and that her publisher didn’t fact check her, especially when it wasn’t the first time she had drastically misrepresented a statistic. Of course, everyone thought Wolf was a serious journalist at the time.
10 Likes
In triplicate.
The CNN story I posted seemed to indicate so, yes.
8 Likes
Ah, sorry. I saw your mention of the possible ruling on Willis and just assumed those articles were about that. That’s what I get for making assumptions.
9 Likes
I’ve just started reading Naomi Klein’s Doppelganger, and… no, no they didn’t. She was still riding on the cachet from The Beauty Myth thirty years later, and her final descent into anti-Vax conspiracy and being banned from all the platforms was a continuation of a predictable trajectory.
4 Likes
Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein are not the same person.
5 Likes
Yes. That’s the point. Doppelganger is Naomi Klein writing about how people have been confusing her with Naomi Wolf for decades, and how it’s affected her. (“Her” = Klein).
6 Likes
Roger that; your phrasing threw me off.
Not evident from the phrasing of the previous comment; thanks.
5 Likes
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3knlxm2mrzs24
The terms of this bond, again approved by Ms.Carroll’s counsel, provide that if Mr. ■■■■■ does not pay after the appeals process is complete, she can demand payment from Chubb. If that happens, then Chubb takes the collateral and is made whole.
https://bsky.app/profile/mitchellepner.bsky.social/post/3knm5kcfjw22h
I read this carefully twice. The “dog that does not bark” in this letter defending Chubb’s decision to issue a supersedeas bond to Donald Trump is there is NO discussion of (a) what assets Chubb received as collateral to secure the bond or (b) who posted those assets.
7 Likes
Only not funny, i suppose.
1 Like
10 Likes
If Judge Aileen “Loose” Cannon buys Trump’s “personal records” line, President Biden should immediately declare any records related to Trump that the government possesses his “personal records” and then choose what among his “personal records” to release immediately. Cannon’s acceptance of Trump’s argument would provide precedent that President Biden’s decision to do so is immune from judicial review.
Of course, Trump’s tax returns filed with the IRS would be first among those “personal records” to be released, showing just how rich Trump isn’t. This would finally satisfy Trump’s promise from way back when to release his tax returns, just not exactly how Trump thought it would be satisfied!
10 Likes
Do we believe a word of this?
“As the surety, we don’t take sides, it would be wrong for us to do so and we are in no way supporting the defendant. We are supporting and are part of the justice system plumbing included in this case,” the letter said. “When Chubb issues an appeal bond, it isn’t making judgments about the claims, even when the claims involve alleged reprehensible conduct.”
“I fully realize how polarizing and emotional this case and the defendant are and how easy it would be for Chubb to just say no. However, we support the rule of law and our role in it. We considered this the right thing to do and we frankly left our own personal feelings aside,” the letter said.
12 Likes
I mean, sure, but even as a strict risk assessment, they have to realize 1. He will lose the appeal, and 2. They will never see a penny of repayment. The only justification for this is ideology; basically a way of laundering an illegal campaign donation.
18 Likes
“In his letter Wednesday, the CEO said Chubb had protected itself by requiring that Trump’s bond, like any others issued by the company, is “fully collateralized.”
“If the bond is called, then Chubb takes the collateral which is intended to make us whole,” Greenberg wrote.”
Good luck collecting on that collateral. He’ll delay until he’s dead.
17 Likes
14 Likes
If this really is just a non-ideologically-driven business decision then won’t they have just as much power to go after his assets as E. Jean Carroll would if he doesn’t pay up? TFG probably isn’t the first dirtbag the company had to seize assets from.
From a “Carroll getting paid what she’s owed” perspective this is actually great news because now that a bond has been posted there won’t be anything stopping her from collecting the full amount the instant Trump loses his appeal.
13 Likes
I think the language said they will pay the full amount within 30 days of Trumpy losing the appeal.
5 Likes
