Developers are Crabgrass

Thursday, December 21, 2023

Giuliani files Chap. 11 bankruptcy petition, Southern District of New York. [UPDATE: "Donald Trump happened to Rudy."]

[...] the Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition he filed today, [...]

Republicans have been quite clear that they believe that kind of tax negligence merits immediate incarceration — at least it does in Hunter Biden’s case.

In addition to the $148M judgement he owes Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, he also owes his co-defendant in the Hunter Biden lawsuit, Robert Costello, over $1.3M for past representation.

He has a lawyer and is not filing pro se. He lists his civil lawsuits all as contingent and contested. It appears the $148M verdictd in the defamation lawsuit has been reduced to a judgment.

As to collection efforts, there is a bankruptcy stay on pending litigation, with its exact reach unclear to Crabgrass. Given that the filing is recent, there likely are no court papers yet beyond the debtor in possession's filing.

Do note, the EmptyWheel quote gives an online link for the filing.

search = rudy giuliani bankruptcy

From the return list, Politico, e.g., from a plethora of links:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in New York Thursday, as legal bills from his failed efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election for former President Donald Trump pile up.

The filing comes days after Giuliani, 79, was ordered to pay $148 million in damages to two former Georgia election workers who said their lives were upended after the former Trump lawyer falsely accused them of manipulating ballots during the 2020 election.

“The filing should be a surprise to no one. No person could have reasonably believed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be able to pay such a high punitive amount,” Ted Goodman, Giuliani’s political adviser, said in a statement. “Chapter 11 will afford Mayor Giuliani the opportunity and time to pursue an appeal, while providing transparency for his finances under the supervision of the bankruptcy court, to ensure all creditors are treated equally and fairly throughout the process.”

According to the Chapter 11 filing , Giuliani holds debts of about $153 million, while only claiming up to $10 million in assets. The former mayor owes close to $1 million in state and federal taxes and owes millions to several law firms, including $1.36 million to Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, the law firm where Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello works. Costello is suing Giuliani for unpaid bills.

The vast majority of his debts stem from the decision in the case of the Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss.

Even before the ruling last week, Giuliani was reportedly in dire financial straits, and he has at times turned to Trump’s political action committee for help paying his legal bills. His extraordinary debts could grow depending on the outcome of several other lawsuits against him that he also listed in his bankruptcy filing. They include defamation cases brought against him by Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems and a pending case President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, brought against Giuliani and Costello, alleging they violated federal and California-based computer fraud laws in their efforts to disseminate potentially damaging material.

Again, a link to the filing is given by Politico. With background. Other reporting may have more insight, the Politico item was randomly chosen. There likely will be more detail emerging.

___________UPDATE___________

It is speculative, but this might not have happened had Rudy kept Trump at a distance. It seems people who get close to Trump get burned. Not all, but those charged in the Georgia RICO action, hush-money fixer Cohen, business accountant Allen Weisselberg, Pence with that noose image, bedding guy Mike Lindell, Stone and Bannon but they got pardoned, . . . Son-in-law Jarad is doing okay. It is a mix.

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________

Where this situation may grow legs, is noted by the EmptyWheel sentence, "Republicans have been quite clear that they believe that kind of tax negligence merits immediate incarceration — at least it does in Hunter Biden’s case."

A guess is the Biden DOJ will not want to be piling on, no FBI or IRS investigation launched about delinquent taxes, no special prosecutor, just let Rudy show one thing with the Republicans, juxtaposed to how they hound Hunter Biden. Note it, perhaps political advertising will take a focus, but why should Biden or Garland look vindictive when there are two election workers who got a big judgment because of Rudy's mouth. They won in court and their legal team seems able to do heavy lifting. Let things develop, check asset and liability disclosures as they get pinned down in the Chap. 11 proceeding, with an eye toward asset hiding possibilities. Let Rudy fend for himself, since it seems that is what Trump intends to do. Rudy could turn. Abandonment might weigh on him. Not likely but possible.

________FURTHER UPDATE________

Strib carried the AP report which noted:

Giuliani's filing came a day after U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington said Freeman and Moss did not have to wait the standard 30 days before starting work to collect the judgement, finding that Giuliani could use that time to hide his assets.

Cause and effect. Where time takes this story will prove interesting.

_________FURTHER UPDATE________

There was some handwriting on the wall that Rudy was facing financial ruin, Sept. 1, this Guardian report:

Brian France, a former Nascar chief executive, was slightly more conciliatory. But he told the same outlet his wallet was staying shut: “I was a major supporter of Rudy in 2008 and at other times. I’m not sure what happen[ed] but I miss the old Rudy. I’m wishing him well.”
Donald Trump happened to Rudy.
Giuliani, now 79, was once a crusading US attorney who became New York mayor in 1993 and led the city on 9/11 and after. Capitalising on the resultant “America’s mayor” tag, he ran for the Republican nomination to succeed President George W Bush. Briefly leading the polls, he raised $60m but flamed out when the race got serious.
When Giuliani struggled with drink and depression, his former wife has said, Trump gave him shelter. When Trump himself entered presidential politics, in 2016, Giuliani became a vociferous surrogate. When Trump entered the White House, Giuliani failed to be named secretary of state but did become the president’s aide and attorney.

From the perspective of the Democratic Party, the single sentence nutshell needs to be advertised:

Donald Trump happened to Rudy.

And now Rudy is a broken man. Facing a judgment he can neither pay, nor appeal, nor escape. In a bankruptcy Chap. 11 the defamation judgment is stalled, but only a successful appeal could lessen the amount to where his remaining assets, and negotiation, may cover things. How likely the two election workers may be willing to engage in negotiating might change with time.

____________FURTHER UPDATE__________

Web search = Trump hosts a $100,000-per-person fundraiser to help Giuliani pay legal bills

Web search = Allies of Rudy Giuliani have created a 'Freedom Fund'

One might expect something about the outcome of such "help Rudy" efforts to surface as a part of Rudy's bankruptcy asset disclosure. Was it Rudy's money, or controlled otherwise, and if otherwise, who, what, when, how apply to following such money.

The unpaid lawyers Rudy disclosed in petitioning for Chap. 11, in particular, might ask.

Remember, as to allegations of Trump "sharp" dealing -

Web search = trump portrait charitable sale buy-back

Guardian reported about the alleged portrait dealings:

Cohen told the House oversight committee that Trump told him to find a straw bidder to purchase the portrait by William Quigley, with the objective being to “ensure that his portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon”.
Cohen told Congress: “Mr Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself.”
Trump also tweeted about the sale saying he had “just found out about it”.

Just found out that at a charity auction of celebrity portraits in E. Hampton, my portrait by artist William Quigley topped list at $60K
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 16, 2013

Wednesday, December 20, 2023

Colorado's Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be on the State's primary ballot because, he is not now qualified for the office of President because, in turn, he engaged in insurrection; per 14th Amendment, sect. 3.

Their procedure was that a trial court held a proceeding where it was held Trump had engaged in insurrection, and being unqualified, he could not have his name put on the primary ballot.

There is a lot to that, including that Trump exceeded limits of free speech by inciting insurrection.

What this does is present a situation where the U.S. Supreme Court either accepts certiorari or Trump is not a candidate for President, 2024, in Colorado.

Until now, no state supreme court has held Trump ineligible for the state's ballot.

The matter is independently reported by Seattle Times (an AP feed), and Breitbart (its own coverage). Readers can consult both, while the presumption here is the U.S. Supreme Court will review and issue an ultimate decision.

EmptyWheel posted:

Colorado just booted Trump from the ballot, building on the lower court ruling that no only was January 6 an insurrection, but Trump is an officer thereby disqualified to be President.

I’m not going to read the opinion closely — I’m sure the whole world will do that.

This ruling’s impact will be more important for the way it will accelerate and expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s review of Trump’s January 6 conduct. The state has stayed their decision until January 4, giving Trump time — but not much — to appeal.

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

There’s a non-zero possibility this will lead SCOTUS to accelerate their consideration of the Absolute Immunity appeal, which is more important in the near and long term. After all, if Trump were found guilty, then states really could and should consider the 14th Amendment implications.

One more point: Because Trump will have appealed by January 4, he will be on the primary ballot, giving SCOTUS lots of time to consider this issue before the General. But it really does put the onus on SCOTUS to decide a lot of these issues quickly.

The Colorado decision is linked at the outset of that post, and is long.

With the stay to expire in Colorado unless cert is sought before the deadline, it will be sought; while if cert is somehow denied promptly; Trump will not be on that ballot.

Other states may follow Colorado's throwing the gauntlet, and there is likely zero chance cert will be denied, i.e., the Supremes shall opine. And there is zero chance of a unanimous per curiam opinion. The Supremes will move at their own self-chosen time frame. A slow chosen speed, or expeditiously. We'll see. This is or will be a Gore v. Bush kind of exceptional case. And the individual Justices can go all over the map on the question.

Coincidentally, Breitbart reports, "Vivek Ramaswamy on Colorado Ruling: I Will Withdraw from State Primary if Trump Not Allowed on Ballot," (should anyone care). Talk about a MAGA suck-up, talk about Vivek.

Locally, Gary Gross - who as a long-standing Republican supporting DeSantis - has opined:

Vivek Ramaswamy is either on his last legs or he's angling for a position in Donald Trump's cabinet. In either case, this is a major move to get on Trump's good side. This isn't done for altruistic motives. After the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump isn't eligible to be on Colorado's GOP Primary ballot, "Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy pledged on Tuesday to remove himself from Colorado’s Republican primary ballot in response to the state’s Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run in the state over his activity surrounding Jan. 6."
I would've forgotten that he was still in the competition if not for all of his obnoxious jabs at Nikki Haley. And no, I'm not a fan of Haley's.
This ruling is spilling lots of ink across the internet and X, formerly known as Twitter. The majority of X opinions are that SCOTUS will a) accept this case on an expedited basis and b) rule against the Colorado Supreme Court. I think that's correct. Here's what Alan Dershowitz tweeted:
Supreme Court will overrule Colorado anti-democratic and unconstitutional decision. Watch the Dershow live tomorrow @ 5:30pm est on Rumble and Youtube.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 20, 2023
Ron DeSantis added this:
The Left invokes “democracy” to justify its use of power, even if it means abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal grounds. SCOTUS should reverse. https://t.co/D4pCzZ7FhY
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) December 20, 2023
Jonathan Turley weighs in: [embedded FOX video segment omitted, whoever Johathan Turley is, beyond FOX talking head, a FOX POX]
As for Ramaswamy's stunt, the better way for serious GOP presidential candidates to register their opinion is for Gov. Christie and Gov. DeSantis to submit briefs to SCOTUS in support of Trump's appeal. Ramaswamy is obviously a man of great intellect and limited discipline. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

With cert not yet granted, Gary presumes the obvious. And Gary clearly believes that Trump should be on the ballot in states other than the one in which he resides. On the Republican ballot nationwide seems to be his viewpoint. Meaning he views Jan. 6 as less than an insurrection, where there is strong counterargument, but I tend to agree it was less than armed, serious insurrection - an event where the QAnon Shaman got his howl, but bit nobody.

In two adjacent posts Gary showed he questions aspects of Trump's credibility and/or the Trump candidacy's validity, here and here. That leaves little more to question about Trump, perhaps his need for exercise, or his speaking style of bloviating without interruption. This from a perpetual Republican. There seems a split within the party. Tea Party MAGA acolytes vs. traditional vanilla partisan conservatives.

If a person owns a self-made firearm, made singularly and not in a series, can it have a "serial number?"

While not at all a gun bunny, I find charm in what I would call "stupid court cases."

A Google Alert set for "Anoka County" yielded a link to this an Action4Liberty story about a stupid court case:

Keith Ellison Wins Court Case to Infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights

Posted by Jake Duesenberg 296sc on December 18, 2023 · Add your reaction

The Minnesota Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of Attorney General Keith Ellison that the government has the ability to infringe on the rights of individuals who keep and bear arms they made themselves. This case stems from a gun made by an individual that allegedly lacked an arbitrary serial number on it.

In February of 2022, state troopers responded to a vehicle rollover. The driver, a young man named Logan Hunter Vagel, was transporting a pistol and informed the trooper he did not have a permit to carry it. The trooper located the firearm and concluded that it was not marked with a serial number. Vagel was charged by Anoka County attorneys with "possession of a firearm that is not identified by a serial number, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3)."

Since federal laws do not require a serial number on self-made firearms, Vagel moved to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause. The court agreed with him and dismissed the charge.

[... On appeal] the Appellate Court ruled:
Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3), which prohibits the possession of a firearm that is not identified by a serial number, is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Vagle’s possession of a privately made firearm without a serial number. The district court erred by granting Vagle’s motion to dismiss the section 609.667(3) charge for lack of probable cause. Reversed and remanded.

This is a sad blow to our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Judges act more as agents of the state, propping up unconstitutional overreaches of power, than arbiters of individual rights and liberties.

There's no stronger language in law than "shall not be infringed," yet lawyers manufacture exceptions to the Supreme law of the land all the time.

[bolding in original] Well, adding the appellate court's hair-splitting is needed to see the degree of stupidity involved:

In full, Minnesota Statutes section 609.667 provides:
Whoever commits any of the following acts may be
sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:

(1) obliterates, removes, changes, or alters the serial
number or other identification of a firearm;
(2) receives or possesses a firearm, the serial number or
other identification of which has been obliterated, removed,
changed, or altered; or
(3) receives or possesses a firearm that is not identified
by a serial number.
As used in this section, “serial number or other
identification” means the serial number and other information
required under United States Code, title 26, section 5842, for
the identification of firearms.

Minn. Stat. § 609.667.

Vagle acknowledges that section 609.667(3) “clearly states that it is a crime to possess a firearm without a serial number.” Vagle also concedes, and the record reflects, that he knowingly possessed a firearm that is not identified by a serial number.

As a result, Vagle’s conduct falls squarely within section 609.667(3)’s scope: “possess[ing] a firearm that is not identified by a serial number.”

Vagle’s position that Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3) does not apply to his possession of a privately made firearm—and the district court’s conclusion that section 609.667(3) is unconstitutionally vague—relies on section 609.667’s definition of the term, “serial number or other identification[,]” which refers to United States Code, title 26, section 5842. Vagle contends that, because section 609.667 incorporates a provision of
the United States Code in defining the foregoing phrase, the prohibition in section 609.667(3) is limited to firearms that are required to have a serial number under federal law, and the state has not established that Vagle’s privately made firearm falls within that scope. We are not persuaded.

The phrase “serial number or other identification”—which Minnesota Statutes section 609.667 defines by reference to United States Code, title 26, section 5842—appears in both section 609.667(1) and section 609.667(2). [...] But section 609.667(3), under which the state charged Vagle, does not use the phrase, “serial number or other identification.” Instead, section 609.667(3) criminalizes the possession of “a firearm that is not identified by a serial number.” Nothing in that unambiguous prohibition limits the purview of the serial number requirement set forth in section 609.667(3) to the scope provided by section 5842. As a result, section 609.667(3)’s plain language prohibits the possession of any firearm that is not identified by a serial number, regardless of whether federal law would require a serial number for a particular firearm. This prohibition encompasses privately made firearms, including the firearm Vagle possessed in this case.

That is true about what the statute says. However, impossibility raises its ugly head. If as it appears Vagle only made the singular firearm, it was not made in a series, and hence could not have a serial number.

Presume Vagle could have taken a magic marker and put a line on the weapon somewhere, and then said, "It is serial number 1." Then the court could use the impossibility argument, that if not made in a series, Vagle wrongfully placed a "serial number" on a weapon not made in a series.

It could cut either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's not good law.

Bottom line: If there is no series, there logically cannot be a serial number, thus saying if you make your own handgun, and make only one, you're screwed, yet if you make a second and use a magic marker to put "1" and then "2" sequentially on each of the two separate weapons, you skate.

That is absurd. The defense of impossibility - if there is no series it is impossible to have a serial number seems controlling. Indeed, compelling. The Second Amendment seems strong enough to justify "no number, if there is no series." Common sense alone justifies it.

And you see why I call it a stupid case, yes/no? Hopefully it will go unpublished, not precedent. It is a case that never should have been filed. Why was it?

And Jake Duesenberg is an idiot for posting that headline and image.

And - closing - for some reason this reminds me of Charles Dickens' noting of the law as it stood at his time, "The law makes a man liable for the torts of his wife because it presumes he controls her actions. If the law presumes that the law is an ass." Of course that legal fiction applied because all property was owned by the male spouse then, so the presumption was formed to make judgments collectable; while today we have moved from such patriarchy, even allowing the wife to vote and own property.

It looks like something somebody would fly from a sailboat mast, with an azure fabric piece added on.

From Strib homepage today - the homepage will change, the screen capture will not:

Harry Niska is my Minnesota House Dist. Rep. (although I voted for the Democrat).

Harry, do something, please?

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Francis teaches that a Catholic blessing need not be and is not now set as liturgical in formality, but is open to the priest to express hope and blessing for the persons, not the union.

The Pope's formal statement of blessing being a kindness and charity open and available to all out of goodwill toward those seeking and in need is online in several languages. Blessing is of such a kind of recognized action of the Church through pastoral means generally available out of abundant kindness to those honestly seeking blessing while trying to live a good and faithful life.

Roughly that. The document explains and expands the concept of blessing being open to all of the faith.

The document also clearly distinguishes blessings and rites of "marriage" as two things expressly different within the faith and having -

[...] pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.” Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.

So, contraception within a man-woman indissoluble union makes it not a marriage, something less and problematic, still, (contraception being not "naturally open to the generation of children). Doctrine is unchanged in that dimension. And divorced persons under civil law in a new civil law recognized marriage remain and are within the document's term, in "irregular situations" as are Catholics practicing contraception, same sex unions, all that - i.e., in the Papal view not "married" yet if of the faith and seeking blessing, the pastoral kindness of giving blessing - with no code wording - exists in a large and generous sense.

It is not easy to write of the document, which speaks for itself, when not of the Catholic faith (nor any other beyond belief in science and a moral sense of live and let live while avoiding malicious behavior).

But the public media reaction is to note only a breakthrough of major importance to the LGBTQ+ community. In doing so, that ignores a breakthrough on contraception and second marriages in a civil sense but not recognized by the Church, where now blessing is expressly permitted. There is still the distance of "irregular situation" status, but that now is not a roadblock to "blessing."

Again, the English part of the multilingual Papal item is at this link. Effort in writing this post has been aimed at fair analysis and conclusions of things perhaps assumed within but not obviously explicit where the document is speaking for itself. Nothing disrespectful toward the Catholic faith nor toward Francis should be read into what is stated here - that is not at all the intent.

The question of the bounds set for the breakthrough is one of major importance. Yet as a breakthrough nobody should view it as lessened in significance because doctrine is not changed as much as some might wish. It is a breakthrough, and hopefully none within that faith dislike or feel scornful toward the newly reduced-to-writing teaching or have hostile feelings toward Francis for teaching in a direction he, from his position in the Church, feels an inspiration to state and clarify things to the hierarchy shepherding the faithful. (BOTTOM LINE: Don't second guess the Pope if you are Catholic. It is disrespectful.)

____________UPDATE___________

There is not only the one restatement of Catholic "marriage" doctrine early in the document. There is:

11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.
12. One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing.

Liturgical rites and receiving the sacraments stand on established norms, left in this document unchanged, while blessings are taught as open and merciful. That seems to be the message. The degree of movement.

This update cannot avoid that contraception related Church doctrinal loosening is not a part of the document.

With six Catholic Supreme Court Justices, and no laxness upon Church doctrine regarding contraception, but rather a re-enunciation, a clear secular consideration that should concern us all is how an attack against contraception availability, morning after pill and all, may fare when civil law standards meet faith beliefs between the ears of those six who Leonard Leo got elevated to that court.

Leave it there. But be aware. Forces may be poised to move. Yet that question is apart from the gist of what Francis has enunciated most recently. Which is a liberalizing of outlook.

Monday, December 18, 2023

U.S. Steel being acquired by Nippon Steel. Growing up, U.S. Steel was on top of the "biggest corporations" list with IBM and Exxon and the other oil companies. Now, biggest? Google, Microsoft, the NFL? It is news, plus high on the list of famous movie quotes.

Axios coverage:

Photographer: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images.
Japan's Nippon Steel on Monday announced that it will buy U.S. Steel for $14.9 billion.
Why it matters: One of America's most iconic companies will be owned by a foreign entity, despite domestic interest earlier this year.
Details: The $55 per share offer represents around a 40% premium to where Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel shares ended trading on Friday.
It's also substantially higher than the rebuffed bids from American rivals Cleveland Cliffs and Esmark.
Nippon says it will honor all of U.S. Steel's existing labor union agreements.
The deal will require regulatory approvals.

The nation's steel industry importance likely peaked during WW II when our nation was supplying Russia and Britain with war goods. The nation's steel industry got passed up, globally.

However one timeless reminder remains. Click that link!

UPDATE: PiPress.