I somehow screwed up using RECAP again, and so even after paying for these docs via PACER, they don't appear on courtlistener.com yet.
To spare others of paying for them, here they are:
Main doc: https://www.scribd.com/document/413055091/Filing-210-Main-document-Kleiman-v-Wright
Exhibit 1 (Hearing transcript from May 6) https://www.scribd.com/document/413055089/Filing-210-Exhibit-1-Kleiman-v-Wright
Text of proposed order (Note this is not the judge's order; it's the plaintiffs proposing what the judge's order should be ) https://www.scribd.com/document/413055090/Filing-210-Text-of-Proposed-Order-Kleiman-v-Wright
Some very entertaining stuff in all this. Apparently, Craig is still skirting the judge's very emphatic order and has failed to disclose a lot of the information to do with the trust, the addresses, and how he supposedly would've transferred all his billions to the fictitious trust.
He did produce "two sworn statements, copies of various trust instruments, and a statement from the purported trustee re-attaching a trust instrument" -- a lot of which I'm assuming are the same forgeries we've seen before, but presumably, he finally gave a name for the trustee, although the language used there makes me think the plaintiffs have not been able to find them yet.
I recommend everybody to read the exhibit 1 (the transcript) in its entirety because it's chock full of instances of the judge getting more and more exasperated as Craig's lawyers stumble and "uh" and "you know" through their explanations (poor Ms. McGovern). Here are a couple excerpts:
> THE COURT: Okay. Why didn't you do this seven weeks ago? Why have I been running around in circles when I should have been told he can't produce when you ordered him to produce?
> MS. McGOVERN: Your Honor --
> THE COURT: Hold on. That's Question 1.
> Question 2 is, other than because your client told you so, what due diligence have you done to determine that this blind trust even exists?
> THE COURT: You realize it is facially incredible that in 2011 your client transferred potentially billions of dollars in Bitcoin to someone and you can't tell me who that was. You understand that, right?
> And your client needs to understand that. Your client needs to understand he is under the jurisdiction of this Court. I will not hesitate to order him to come to the United States and
... keep reading on reddit ➡Looks like KIK has been paying witnesses to testify and lied about it to the SEC.....Ted has been caught again.
Long story short, STBX left a few months ago. We have elementary age children. We both have lawyers and live in FL. He has filed for majority custody, alimony, and child support. Since he moved out, he's seen the boys 3 times. I do not allow him to drive the children around because of his history of drinking and driving. He doesn't text our oldest, who has his own phone and wouldn't even have to go through me. The kids are in counseling and have told the counselor that they do not want to spend the night with their dad and that life is "easier" without dad at home. I have turned in all my mandatory financial disclosure. STBX and I make within $5k of each other, so I don't think he can get alimony. He refuses to turn in his financial information. My attorney filed a motion to compel last week. Is that going to help my side at all? You would think if he's so hard up for money he'd be quick to show how much money he doesn't have. He's living back with his mom and has purchased a new car, new tattoos, new phone, smartwatch, etc. I can't figure out why he hasn't turned in his info if it's legally mandatory in Florida. He doesn't seem to want anything to do with the children until the judge assigns custody so he can "save money" on child support. Do judges normally see past the BS? I don't even know where this post is going. I hate the unknown. I'm hoping STBX is doing enough making himself look bad that all I have to do is show up. He hasn't paid a penny - hasn't asked if the kids need clothes or shoes, if I need help paying their tuition, nothing. Will he have to pay back-dated child support?
A dissolution case filed three years ago.
Respondent has repeatedly stalled the dissolution process to prevent Petitioner from getting remarried.
Respondent, first, filed a Motion to Quash, then contested every aspect of the dissolution, didn't bother to appear at a number of hearings, asked for continuances, then didn't show, also filed for a second dissolution in another county, to obfuscate matters.
I am entertaining the idea of filing a Motion to Compel in order to foreclose Respondent from continuing on with these stall tactics, dishonesty, a uncooperative behavior.
My question is this:
On what grounds could I possibly be successful in submitting such a motion?
My ideas thus far are:
Failure to respond. Dilatory tactics. Imputation. Blatant dishonesty.
But, are those legally sound reasons?
The D.C. Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision Friday ruling the courts do not have constitutional authority to compel former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. The 88 page document is about half decision and half dissent, with a rough summary of the court's evaluation on page 34:
>Nevertheless, the inevitable consequence of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is that Congress will obtain only the concessions it can wrest from the Executive Branch with the ample but imperfect tools at its disposal. Sometimes, those tools will yield fewer concessions than Congress might wish, but the remedy for that perceived wrong is in politics or at the ballot box. If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual “overseer[s]” of our elected officials. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 594 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case.
Here's the link to both of today's hearings.
I listened to these up to the second case rebuttal today (about 3 hrs in). The most interesting points were both counsels for the House saying their cases need to continue because they involve matters which could generate further articles of impeachment. It was clarified by the bench this was the position of House leadership and confirmed by counsels.
The other point featured largely in the "certain Grand Jury materials" case (second case) but I think was presented in both. Counsel for the DOJ argued there is no history of similar (enough) compelling actions and this demonstrated part of the reason for dismissal. Counsel for the House sternly argued the opposite and that the particularly unusual circumstance the DOJ is fighting House requests makes this judicial action extraordinary and necessary.
The bench requested alternate actions and House admitted two options: send the Sgt at Arms to arrest AG Barr and collect the wanted materials, or shutdown the government (appropriations control) until compliance is attained. House counsel in this case deemed those available options as the extreme and unwanted alternatives that drive cause for a judicial intervention.
With COVID-19 cases and deaths growing larger each passing day, Governor Kay Ivey is utterly failing to protect Alabamians with her refusal to issue a mandatory stay-at-home order. Every state around us has reversed course and issued one.
Ivey needs to be held accountable for her negligence. Now is the time for action. For every day she delays, more Alabamians will die and the virus will be that much harder to contain. She claims she's trying to protect the economy, but our lives are more important than profits. And there won't be an economy left if she continues to let COVID-19 ravage our state. Her order to "close" non-essential businesses is a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough.
Everyone should inundate her office with phone calls at 334-242-1700 and if you are on FB and/or Twitter, get as many as you can to send messages on those platforms calling for a mandatory stay-at-home order. Ivey's Twitter handle is @governorkayivey. Ivey's wilfull ignorance and negligence has gone on long enough. Thank you.
It seems simpler to lug over the original text from a post in a much smaller subreddit.
Original question text follows:
Spectrum seems to have changed their online billing panel to no longer allow you to remove your credit card information. They absolutely insist on saving it on their servers for the next major hacker attack. Anyone know how to nonetheless forcibly remove that security risk?
Update: I just finished calling Spectrum. A boiler-room representative dragged out the whole dull, plodding process of manually removing the stored information on two credit cards by acting dumb at every opportunity. For Christ's sake, the idiot even demanded the last four digits of my Social Security number. I repeatedly asked how to remove the cards myself but got no answer. Likewise, trying to find out how to prevent this unwanted security nightmare behavior from happening again was like extracting teeth from a hen. After it became clear that this person had no intention of telling me anything, I gave up.
It would appear that Spectrum has purposefully made the process as painful as possible with the specific intention of forcing virtually all of their customers to grit their teeth and let the unwanted autosaving slide by. I hadn't even given permission previously to pull this crap. They just up and did it behind my back. The whole telephone call took half an hour, including the waiting. Who the hell wants to have to go through that every month? O_o
Frankly, the next step is to file a complaint with some government agency or other. Maybe I can sue them as well? This can't be legal. Le sigh.
My players rarely ever want to refuse a compel. If they don't like a compel idea (although they usually do) I don't make them pay a fate point to refuse. I wonder whether that screws up the fate point economy, or whether I shouldn't even worry about it.
I just figure if they're not excited about the compel, why force the issue? I just forget it and move on. There are plenty more opportunities to compel coming up.
On average, I probably compel one PC per scene. Does that sound like too many compels? Not enough?
And to be honest, I just don't like the idea of making them pay to refuse. I figure I already make things difficult enough for them.
Maybe because of that, 95% of the time, my players are hungry for fate points (and/or eager to hose their own characters, I suppose) so they'll take any compel at the drop of a hat.
What are your thoughts?
Apart from 5G.
