Fogbow

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 6:53 am Was that particular footnote relevant or is it just something he pulled out of his ass to make himself look smarter than everyone else in the room? And how is a remark like that handled? I can't imagine court going into recess so everybody can pull out a document and read through it in order to enter it into the transcript.

Rachel A is trying to show that Eastman is whipsmart and making mincemeat of the State Bar. The footnote itself had no relevance and was just an aside by Eastman. Rachel A makes a living focusing on the irrelevant.

The court did not go into recess to track down the footnote; questioning went on uninterrupted. Eastman and the judge occasionally talk directly to one another. In that sense, the trial sometimes strikes me as more informal than what I'm used to. I guess bench trials can be like that. Eastman can and does interject thoughts freely. It does not slow down proceedings; nor are his interjections remarked upon or discouraged.

Administrative hearings are generally more informal than trials. Each state has rules for it's administrative agency hearings. The CA Bar appears to be a state agency. (Arkansas's Bar Association is a separate nonprofit. Licensure is governed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.)

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 10:00 am Administrative hearings are generally more informal than trials. Each state has rules for it's administrative agency hearings. The CA Bar appears to be a state agency. (Arkansas's Bar Association is a separate nonprofit. Licensure is governed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.)

Yes, this seems informal in that the judge questions the witnesses/Eastman, as well as the lawyers (both sides). She seems meticulous.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 10:00 am The CA Bar appears to be a state agency. (Arkansas's Bar Association is a separate nonprofit.

The Cal. Bar is a public corporation that operates (mostly) under the direction of SCOCA.

The California Lawyers Association is a voluntary trade association.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 10:00 am Administrative hearings are generally more informal than trials. Each state has rules for it's administrative agency hearings. The CA Bar appears to be a state agency. (Arkansas's Bar Association is a separate nonprofit. Licensure is governed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.)

For now anywaqy, but Sarah Huckleberry Bovine is working on that. She's gonna try to make it up to the Church Council of Little Rock.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 7:19 pm

It's almost 5 in CA, and they still have tomorrow scheduled for this. I guess we get to see a whole day of Carling (for CA Bar) roasting Eastman all day. And Miller (JE's atty) yammering on and on about nothing.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 7:19 pm

Huh. I must have missed that. I'm watching Carling conduct rebuttal at the moment. The just finished cross and redirect for Eastman and then Carling called one of his experts (Grimmer?) to rebut Eastman testimory.

They had a discussion as to whether certain questions were suitable now or in the aggravation stage.

Not my week for legal ins and outs, apparently.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 7:50 pm

bob wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 7:19 pm

Huh. I must have missed that. I'm watching Carling conduct rebuttle at the moment. The just finished cross and redirect for Eastman and then Carling called one of his experts (Grimmer?) to rebut Eastman testimory.

They had a discussion as to whether certain questions were suitable now or in the aggravation stage.

Not my week for legal ins and outs, apparently.

This is the aggravation phase. They moved right into it! Grimmer is the expert who's showing how wrong - and I'd say willfully wrong about his whole election scam.

I guess.

But Grimmer has been scheduled as a rebuttal witness for quite some time.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious

6:40PM EDT 11/2/23: MAJOR #EASTMANTRIAL RULING:

State Bar of California Court Judge Yvette Roland issues a PRELIMINARY FINDING OF CULPABILITY FOR JOHN EASTMAN.

Aggravation and rebuttal moves forward. Break until 6:50PM EDT. Will resume with with Prof. Justin Grimmer.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 10m
11/2 #EastmanTrial: Preliminary Finding of CULPABILITY. Grimmer dismantled WEEKS of testimony by Eastman's witnesses, who lacked skills, background or experience to offer opinions.
PART III: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 41513.html
PART II: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 24835.html
PART I: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 83965.html

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 27m
In the #EastmanTrial, Justin Grimmer dismantled WEEKS of testimony from John Eastman’s witnesses in mere hours. They lacked the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis re election subject matter. Grimmer was the decisive SMOKING GUN.

Judge Yvette Roland’s Preliminary Finding of CULPABILITY FOR JOHN EASTMAN, along with Judge Carter’s conclusion that Trump & Eastman ‘MORE LIKELY THAN NOT’ committed crimes related to the #Jan6 attack, will accompany Eastman to his indictment in Georgia.

#LukeCrew, you’re incredible! Thanks for all your support. Tonight’s SMOKING GUNS are for John Eastman’s Preliminary Finding of CULPABILITY in #EastmanTrial. Let’s celebrate with grand cocktails! First toast for Duncan Carling & @StateBarCA team! Cheers till 11/3 Noon EDT!

Thanks for everybody's support and everybody who donated at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lukejohnson2! It's been hundreds of hours of work, I bought a new laptop to handle all the production management, and the X premium for longer tweets. It's been worth it, it's really cool folks are calling themselves #LukeCrew.

One more day... NOON EDT 11/3 and Judge Roland wants to be done by 7:30-8PM EDT. If witnesses drag on, it will cut into their 75 min per side Closing Arguments. We're in the home stretch kids!

BUT... Bad News for RicherHeads, he's been cut from tomorrow for time (damn you Randy Miller). It'll be Jonathan Marx and Bo Dul only.


So many SMOKING GUNS!

Well hot diggity dog! Looking bad for the East Man.

Does anybody know what a “preliminary finding of culpability” means in terms of the disbarment process

orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:26 pm

Sent ya half a bill in lew of the Hero of Fogbow Labor award that Foggy is dragging his feet on...

orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:26 pm

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious

6:40PM EDT 11/2/23: MAJOR #EASTMANTRIAL RULING:

State Bar of California Court Judge Yvette Roland issues a PRELIMINARY FINDING OF CULPABILITY FOR JOHN EASTMAN.

Aggravation and rebuttal moves forward. Break until 6:50PM EDT. Will resume with with Prof. Justin Grimmer.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 10m
11/2 #EastmanTrial: Preliminary Finding of CULPABILITY. Grimmer dismantled WEEKS of testimony by Eastman's witnesses, who lacked skills, background or experience to offer opinions.
PART III: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 41513.html
PART II: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 24835.html
PART I: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 83965.html

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 27m
In the #EastmanTrial, Justin Grimmer dismantled WEEKS of testimony from John Eastman’s witnesses in mere hours. They lacked the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis re election subject matter. Grimmer was the decisive SMOKING GUN.

Judge Yvette Roland’s Preliminary Finding of CULPABILITY FOR JOHN EASTMAN, along with Judge Carter’s conclusion that Trump & Eastman ‘MORE LIKELY THAN NOT’ committed crimes related to the #Jan6 attack, will accompany Eastman to his indictment in Georgia.

#LukeCrew, you’re incredible! Thanks for all your support. Tonight’s SMOKING GUNS are for John Eastman’s Preliminary Finding of CULPABILITY in #EastmanTrial. Let’s celebrate with grand cocktails! First toast for Duncan Carling & @StateBarCA team! Cheers till 11/3 Noon EDT!

Thanks for everybody's support and everybody who donated at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lukejohnson2! It's been hundreds of hours of work, I bought a new laptop to handle all the production management, and the X premium for longer tweets. It's been worth it, it's really cool folks are calling themselves #LukeCrew.

One more day... NOON EDT 11/3 and Judge Roland wants to be done by 7:30-8PM EDT. If witnesses drag on, it will cut into their 75 min per side Closing Arguments. We're in the home stretch kids!

BUT... Bad News for RicherHeads, he's been cut from tomorrow for time (damn you Randy Miller). It'll be Jonathan Marx and Bo Dul only.


So many SMOKING GUNS!

Thanks so much for all your hard work. Somehow I missed your smoking guns, so I left one for you on the thread.

I had to step away, but I was wondering how the BIG MOMENT happened. Did both sides rest and then the judge just lower the boom? Dang I hate I missed that moment.

NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:56 pm Does anybody know what a “preliminary finding of culpability” means in terms of the disbarment process

It means there's a tentative finding that Eastman violated an ethical rule. But no ruling (yet) as to which rule(s), or how grievous was Eastman's conduct (e.g., was he negligent or willful?).

This ruling is meant to allow aggravating and mitigating evidence sooner rather than later.

Given the judge's handling of the case thus far, a tentative ruling of culpability is unsurprising. So this is mostly a housekeeping measure intended to further the proceedings along.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 12:51 am

NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:56 pm Does anybody know what a “preliminary finding of culpability” means in terms of the disbarment process

It means there's a tentative finding that Eastman violated an ethical rule. But no ruling (yet) as to which rule(s), or how grievous was Eastman's conduct (e.g., was he negligent or willful?).

This ruling is meant to allow aggravating and mitigating evidence sooner rather than later.

Given the judge's handling of the case thus far, a tentative ruling of culpability is unsurprising. So this is mostly a housekeeping measure intended to further the proceedings along.

Thanks, Bob. Applying this to what I was listening too, I'm guessing the judge made the statement, without fanfare, to allow Carling to ask the aggravating evidence questions he wanted to ask while Eastman was on the stand. Carling said he wanted to do it to save time. I must have just missed it when she said the words "preliminary ruling" and "culpability".

The trial is due to end today, so it makes sense that Judge Roland would do whatever she has to do to save even the smallest amount of time (they're starting a 9 now, and the lunch break is down to just over an hour).

Today we have more Grimmer, then two more rebuttal witnesses, plus Miller's no-doubt-dragged-out crosses, then closing arguments (I'm still missing something if this is somehow the "aggravation stage"). Roland said that if they didn't have enough time left for the promised 75 minutes each for closings, she would divde whatever time was left in half and that would be it.

Have to say that the State Bar's case has taken a hell of a time hit, thanks to Miller's sloth-like questioning. And I'll be shocked if MIller doesn't bitch about "being rushed" at some point today, because...appeal!!!!

My favorite moment yesterday was when Roland did not allow Miller to ask questions about some arcane nuance involving the role or Congress in certifying the election: Carling objected for "Asked and Answered;" Roland sustained; and Miller, with his favorite shocked basset-hound expression, said, "Okay, but I wanted to ask Dr. Eastman _why_ he thought this [insert arcane nuance] was convincing to him!" Roland gave a short laugh and said something like, "Have you been listening? That's _all_ he's testified to since June!"

bob wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 12:51 am

NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:56 pm Does anybody know what a “preliminary finding of culpability” means in terms of the disbarment process

It means there's a tentative finding that Eastman violated an ethical rule. But no ruling (yet) as to which rule(s), or how grievous was Eastman's conduct (e.g., was he negligent or willful?).

Thank you, bob!

Today, so far, has been excruciating - if you're Eastman or one of his supposed "experts." Dr Grimmer, expert for the Bar - who is an actual expert in elections - is absolutely shredding JE's folks. He even called info from one of them "less than high school level knowledge." Ouch.

Grimmer is easy to follow and understand. Miller moaned that the exhibits are new but the judge slapped him right down. It also appears to me that again, JE is reading something on his screen during the hearing (he's appearing remotely) as he did yesterday. I am fantasizing that's he panicking with his homies.