Let’s remember that at Trump’s last civil trial in NY, he said that he only lost b/c the jury was rigged against him and if he had a jury for this trial, he would be saying the same thing.
In a NY civil trial I would think Trump would have better odds of winning a bench trial. The jury in general would lean left, and in a civil trial he couldn’t hope for one die hard causing a mistrial. IANAL, JMO.
1 Like
That’s probably correct. But now he gets to have the bench trial and bitch about not getting a fair jury trial.
Perhaps you have to check the box, then see if the judge grants the request. I dunno.
Given the Trump attorneys’ collective results, my guess is the primary criteria is loyalty, not legal expertise. To each his own, I suppose. Sorta brings to mind advice I got long ago from a mentor.
Never buy anything from a rich salesman. Never hire a poor attorney. And if it flies, floats, or fux…rent don’t buy.
Rent a vibrator???
Democratic House Representative from Palm County writes letter to Palm County assessor asking him to tax Mar-A-Lardo at Trump’s estimated appraisal value. LOL
6 Likes
Type “rent a sybian” into your favorite search engine (on a device you don’t mind NSFW results coming back), and see what happens.
It’s probably not so much a search criteria as an “it’s all we can convince to work with us”.
Sure. Feel free to buy as long as the vibrator doesn’t have a rich attorney on retainer.
..and his first name wasn’t Rupert.
This is “just” the Chesebro - Powell trial.
1 Like
Just curious: does GA have to pay travel expenses for such witnesses it subpoenas?
1 Like
I have always wondered that too. Or compensate them for their time. (Seems less likely.)
TIL: https://www.waed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CJA/FACT%20WITNESS%20COMPENSATION%20GUIDELINES.pdf
…and it goes on into more detail, some of which is probably familiar to those of us who travel for work.
It’s rules for a Federal court, but it makes sense that state courts would have similar rules in place.
2 Likes
Thanks. And those seem sensible, except that I would think it would always be sensible to cover economy airfare over some distance even if bus, train or personal auto might be cheaper.
I think the “economy airfare over some distance” would fall out when you consider the potential need to add a hotel room if taking the bus or train would extend travel over a day.
Reading between the lines, the guidelines seem similar to but slightly more miserly than the corporate travel standards I live with.
If, for example, I needed to go from Hartford to Washington DC, these rules potentially say that I’d have to spend 6 hours on a train if it’s cheaper than a refundable ticket for a 1-hour flight (the court rules require tickets be refundable, but it also authorizes access to the special fares the feds get from the airlines, which might offset).
However, my company would usually push for me to get a plane ticket (albeit a nonrefundable one), even if it were more expensive than the train ticket (within reason), because corporate standards place value on my time.
Also, reading between the lines, it sounds like there would be tolerance for the lower end of business-class hotels. I don’t think they’d reimburse only to the Motel 6 / Econolodge level; they’d probably accept Fairfield or Hampton Inn…byt maybe not Homewood Suites or Hilton Garden Inn.
If I were subpoenaed as a witness, I would try to get further clarification before committing to various expenses (and as a citizen I would expect such clarification would be available, because it can’t be in the public interest for witnesses to be stuck with unexpected unreimbursable expenses.)
Yes, it would fall out if you look at total cost, which might be how the rules are applied, but it isn’t what the rules say, as I read them. They refer to transportation by the least expensive method.