Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/8/2024 at 8:28 PM, Sawbonz said:

eta i guess it’s possible but I can’t believe healthcare law is the only area where intent to defraud is presumed 

Under the Louisiana civil code fraud is never presumed. Silence or inaction, without fraudulent intent, does not constitute fraud. Fraud cannot be predicated upon mistake or negligence, no matter how gross.

Obviously, Louisiana is only one state. I am actively involved in a bunch of cases against a manufacture.  Fraud is our only remaining available cause of action. You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.  For example, It is well settled that fraud cannot be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events.  And statements promissory in their nature and related to future actions, if not honored, do not constitute actionable fraud without evidence of intent.   

My earlier comments questioning whether or not some of the bond irregularities constituted fraud were not me minimizing or condoning the Trump teams behavior.  They were merely my opinion of how it would be difficult to prove fraudulent intent - as you cannot assume it.    

I admit to being ignorant of New York’s fraud, statutes and jurisprudence

 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Under the Louisiana civil code fraud is never presumed. Silence or inaction, without fraudulent intent, does not constitute fraud. Fraud cannot be predicated upon mistake or negligence, no matter how gross.

Obviously, Louisiana is only one state. I am actively involved in a bunch of cases against a manufacture.  Fraud is our only remaining available cause of action. You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.  For example, It is well settled that fraud cannot be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events.  And statements promissory in their nature and related to future actions, if not honored, do not constitute actionable fraud without evidence of intent.   

My earlier comments questioning whether or not some of the bond irregularities constituted fraud were not me minimizing or condoning the Trump teams behavior.  They were merely my opinion of how it would be difficult to prove fraudulent intent - as you cannot assume it.    

I admit to being ignorant of New York’s fraud, statutes and jurisprudence

 

 

Imputation or presumption of a cause of action or offense, particularly the elements of an offense like fraud (usually requires clear and convincing evidence, etc.) poses pretty serious due process concerns in a criminal context, possibly civil as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots.

And I think Twice and the lawdogs (band name?) will say "No kidding, just like every other part of our society". 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I have all the respect for you, TwiceHorn and all the real lawdogs on this site. I think what has become painfully obvious to many of us non-attorneys is that while this is apparently following the law for the most part -- Cannon's fuckery aside -- but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots. This stands to reason because the system was set up -- and tweaked over the years -- by this wealthy, ruling class for the most part. Of course the rules will favor this sector of the public.

These cases against Trump are the highest-profile cases this country has ever seen. Period. There is a massive spotlight being shined on the system and it's forced many of us who don't live it day-after-day like y'all to take a 30,000-foot view and say, "Hey, this system fucking sucks in many ways." Hopefully, we will ultimately get where we need to get. Anything short of Trump convicted and in financial ruins is a loss for this country and the judicial system.

It is an inherently pay-for-play system.  I'm not sure how we escape that.  Public defenders are getting better in the criminal arena because of the spotlight you mention.  There are other areas, such as contingent-fee litigation, where little or smaller guys are getting top-notch, vigorous representation, but that's in pretty limited circumstances in civil cases.

Trumpco is milking available procedures for all they are worth, but it's not working very well outside of Cannon's court, as you note, even in the pretty short term.

One thing we have to acknowledge is that Trump is unprecedented in virtually every area that pertains to government institution and his abuse of same.  The institutions were unprepared for the likes of him.

In the courts, that lack of preparation takes the form of novel legal questions, so-called "issues of first impression."  As a corrupt former President, Trump has presented those in spades unfortunately.  But the judicial system has dealt with them better than other institutions of government.  As has been noted, courts are a fundamentally fact-based forum, where Trump's bullshit is far less likely to work than other fora.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

the highest court in the land would disagree with you

See, here's where you're wrong.  The Supreme Court has never really cared about facts.  Those get handled in the courts below.  It may be more obvious that the court is cherry-picking cases with certain fact patterns now that it is full-on activist, but that's the way it has always been.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

He also geneuinely beleives it's fake news that not everyone loves him. It's all a minority of deep state actors keeping him from power and adoration.

These are the sick, deranged never-Trumpers who should never be listened to except for their appeals for mercy prior to secret execution.

Never-Bideners or never-Obama-ers are not sick or deranged. They should be in charge and are the only ones who should be investigating Trump or other GOPs.

It is known.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

See, here's where you're wrong.  The Supreme Court has never really cared about facts.  Those get handled in the courts below.  It may be more obvious that the court is cherry-picking cases with certain fact patterns now that it is full-on activist, but that's the way it has always been.

And those lower courts don't give a shit about the facts of the cases that they're grooming to send to the supremes.

Citizens United. Kennedy v Bremmer. Shelby v Holder. 

I could keep naming cases that hinged on counterfactual findings in the district level that were carried and helpfully ignored every step along the way to the supremes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.

It's like people other than Trump try to hide their fraudulent intent.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Oh, God!  Down $1 per share at the open.  When will this end?  (Narrator: when trading is halted or it gets to $0).

image.thumb.png.b7ffa64a2a52eb83964ed8d561c5b764.png

image.png

Under 35. Going to be really difficult for bad actors to prop it up unless they just take it private.

Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

And those lower courts don't give a shit about the facts of the cases that they're grooming to send to the supremes.

Citizens United. Kennedy v Bremmer. Shelby v Holder. 

I could keep naming cases that hinged on counterfactual findings in the district level that were carried and helpfully ignored every step along the way to the supremes.

I thought the District Court (Panel) in Citizens United upheld the constitutionality of BCRA?

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is an inherently pay-for-play system.  I'm not sure how we escape that.  Public defenders are getting better in the criminal arena because of the spotlight you mention.  There are other areas, such as contingent-fee litigation, where little or smaller guys are getting top-notch, vigorous representation, but that's in pretty limited circumstances in civil cases.

Trumpco is milking available procedures for all they are worth, but it's not working very well outside of Cannon's court, as you note, even in the pretty short term.

One thing we have to acknowledge is that Trump is unprecedented in virtually every area that pertains to government institution and his abuse of same.  The institutions were unprepared for the likes of him.

In the courts, that lack of preparation takes the form of novel legal questions, so-called "issues of first impression."  As a corrupt former President, Trump has presented those in spades unfortunately.  But the judicial system has dealt with them better than other institutions of government.  As has been noted, courts are a fundamentally fact-based forum, where Trump's bullshit is far less likely to work than other fora.

 

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

One year and 303 days after Joe’s inauguration.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

This is just my wild ass guess, but I think a lot of the old institutionalists thought it impossible that Trump could come back as a viable political candidate after J6.   A failure of imagination as to how much of a cult it actually was. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Whoa, let’s pump the brakes, because we are not all lawyers.

It's an average, man. Like how the average family has 2.4 kids; almost no one has four-tenths of a kid, even though EVERYONE does... on average.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is just my wild ass guess, but I think a lot of the old institutionalists thought it impossible that Trump could come back as a viable political candidate after J6.   A failure of imagination as to how much of a cult it actually was. 

The old institutionalists are dumb af.  Most everyone on this here board knew he would come back like a roach.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The old institutionalists are dumb af.  Most everyone on this here board knew he would come back like a roach.

I agree.

But I could see some of them thinking that he’s likely gone forever, but putting him on trial would give him a bully pulpit and platform to spread his infinite number of bullshit lies to his followers, all the while cementing the bona fides of his claims that he was being persecuted.   

I have no idea if they made that call for those reasons, but if they did, it was a fuck up. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 hours ago, TeeDubya said:

Fucking Sunday School:  why was I never warned the mark of the beast is a triple chin with fucking hamberber grease dribbling down it?

 

13 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe you just missed a lesson or two because it seems fairly straight forward 

 

66f3f6eafccb96dc83b48c69a5d66030f81761a5

 

☝️

The only real difference between what I was taught and the reality is... O was taught we'd be easily fooled. But only the fools are. Never thought the antichrist would be so obvious.

 

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_2544.thumb.jpeg.4e337864b630e65611e550f8dfc00d48.jpeg

“The cost of them roofies is too damn high!!!”

Bill Cosby GIF

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree.

But I could see some of them thinking that he’s likely gone forever, but putting him on trial would give him a bully pulpit and platform to spread his infinite number of bullshit lies to his followers, all the while cementing the bona fides of his claims that he was being persecuted.   

I have no idea if they made that call for those reasons, but if they did, it was a fuck up. 

This.  Mostly likely, it was a terrible, tactical miscalculation rather than misguided, wishful thinking.

Edited by dcbc
Posted (edited)

Also, re: money, money is not power.

If I may quote a comic bookstick figure lich, POWER ... is power.

Our society is somewhat egalitarian in that you can buy power with money, and anyone can potentially gain enough money to be able to buy quite a bit of power, but there are some very strict yet undefinable limits on how much power your money can buy. Even infinite money can't buy all the power.

Power is power.

What pisses off Trump is that he's believed all this time that money WAS power, and he's now finding out those limits. That's why he walks out of yet another court loss muttering "This isn't America!" Because he thought, in America, that money was power.

But money isn't power. Not even here. POWER is power.

Other countries have their own mechanisms. China's power, for 5 millennia, has been tied up in the bureaucracy; when Kublai Khan took over after his father "conquered," it was only by remaining subservient to the bureaucracy that he could reign. Repeat for every new conqueror, for every new revolutionary. Military might can get you most of the power, but not all.

And for all that time, if a Chinese person passed the civil service exam, no matter who you were, you became part of that bureaucracy, and from there you wielded power. Education could get you power, but not all the power.

Power is power. You can buy power with money, you can conquer power with armed forces, you can gain rank with education. But these are just effective but limited tools that hide the reality.

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Also, re: money, money is not power.

If I may quote a comic bookstick figure lich, POWER ... is power.

Our society is somewhat egalitarian in that you can buy power with money, and anyone can potentially gain enough money to be able to buy quite a bit of power, but there are some very strict yet undefinable limits on how much power your money can buy. Even infinite money can't buy all the power.

Power is power.

What pisses off Trump is that he's believed all this time that money WAS power, and he's now finding out those limits. That's why he walks out of yet another court loss muttering "This isn't America!" Because he thought, in America, that money was power.

But money isn't power. Not even here. POWER is power.

Other countries have their own mechanisms. China's power, for 5 millennia, has been tied up in the bureaucracy; when Kublai Khan took over after his father "conquered," it was only by remaining subservient to the bureaucracy that he could reign. Repeat for every new conqueror, for every new revolutionary. Military might can get you most of the power, but not all.

And for all that time, if a Chinese person passed the civil service exam, no matter who you were, you became part of that bureaucracy, and from there you wielded power. Education could get you power, but not all the power.

Power is power. You can buy power with money, you can conquer power with armed forces, you can gain rank with education. But these are just effective but limited tools that hide the reality.

200.webp

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Under 35. Going to be really difficult for bad actors to prop it up unless they just take it private.

Sitting at a shade under $34. Down 9.5% for the day.

It's only going to get worse.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 2
Posted (edited)

Man, if I just decide to ignore aspects of my job just thinking that the issue will resolve themselves, I can lose my license!

Edited by safe sex
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

oots0657.thumb.gif.2b20b7c6aa48dd679712c0a14b08132c.gif

it's surprising how impactful a comic with stick figures and obscure D&D rules can be, dramatically, when well-written

if you're in a hurry, start from the third row

Edited by Rimbo
  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, C-Man said:

I have all the respect for you, TwiceHorn and all the real lawdogs on this site. I think what has become painfully obvious to many of us non-attorneys is that while this is apparently following the law for the most part -- Cannon's fuckery aside -- but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots. This stands to reason because the system was set up -- and tweaked over the years -- by this wealthy, ruling class for the most part. Of course the rules will favor this sector of the public.

These cases against Trump are the highest-profile cases this country has ever seen. Period. There is a massive spotlight being shined on the system and it's forced many of us who don't live it day-after-day like y'all to take a 30,000-foot view and say, "Hey, this system fucking sucks in many ways." Hopefully, we will ultimately get where we need to get. Anything short of Trump convicted and in financial ruins is a loss for this country and the judicial system.

I think @Gatorubet had an excellent post above, the wealthy have every advantage in our society, the legal system being just one of hundreds of examples. Any real fix will require an agreement among our people that maybe, just maybe, we can better regulate our form of capitalism. But 75% of our population would write you off as a dreaded "socialist." As a very narrow example, public defenders are criminally underpaid, so really promising lawyers rarely take those jobs, and the ones that do are way overworked with too many files. The solution is to hire a ton more public defenders and to pay them well. That requires more tax revenue. Guess what happens when someone dares suggest raising the marginal tax rate from 36% to maybe 39%, or somewhere above 40%, even though it would still be far less than the 90% rate during our countries most prosperous era? Especially when the pitch is to help poor people (you know lazy minorities who refuse to lift themselves up from their bootstraps and whatnot)? SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST! WOKE SOCIALIST! That's the country we live in today. There is no solutions that I can see ever getting any traction. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Also, re: money, money is not power.

If I may quote a comic bookstick figure lich, POWER ... is power.

Our society is somewhat egalitarian in that you can buy power with money, and anyone can potentially gain enough money to be able to buy quite a bit of power, but there are some very strict yet undefinable limits on how much power your money can buy. Even infinite money can't buy all the power.

Power is power.

What pisses off Trump is that he's believed all this time that money WAS power, and he's now finding out those limits. That's why he walks out of yet another court loss muttering "This isn't America!" Because he thought, in America, that money was power.

But money isn't power. Not even here. POWER is power.

Other countries have their own mechanisms. China's power, for 5 millennia, has been tied up in the bureaucracy; when Kublai Khan took over after his father "conquered," it was only by remaining subservient to the bureaucracy that he could reign. Repeat for every new conqueror, for every new revolutionary. Military might can get you most of the power, but not all.

And for all that time, if a Chinese person passed the civil service exam, no matter who you were, you became part of that bureaucracy, and from there you wielded power. Education could get you power, but not all the power.

Power is power. You can buy power with money, you can conquer power with armed forces, you can gain rank with education. But these are just effective but limited tools that hide the reality.

I mean, yeah...kinda.

Power is the end, the destination.  There are two key ways of getting to that destination: 1) money and 2) brute force.  Hey, and would you look at that, Trump is trying both.

Power is the destination.  You can get to that destination by walking, sure.  But it's a lot quicker to hop on a private jet and fly there direct.  That's how money is a proxy for power.  Those of us who have to walk to DC are not going to have the success as those who fly there on their G5.

Money is the shortcut to power.

It is also the shortcut to pussy.

Those facts are not coincidental. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, yeah...kinda.

Power is the end, the destination.  There are two key ways of getting to that destination: 1) money and 2) brute force.  Hey, and would you look at that, Trump is trying both.

Power is the destination.  You can get to that destination by walking, sure.  But it's a lot quicker to hop on a private jet and fly there direct.  That's how money is a proxy for power.  Those of us who have to walk to DC are not going to have the success as those who fly there on their G5.

Money is the shortcut to power.

It is also the shortcut to pussy.

Those facts are not coincidental. 

So, power equals pussy?

the hangover GIF

Posted
9 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

So, power equals pussy?

the hangover GIF

Bingo.  My wife still loves the adage of "There's no good reason women don't run the world: they have half the money and all the pussy."  And men are suckers for all of it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There are two key ways of getting to that destination: 1) money and 2) brute force. 

This isn't just oversimplified; it's inaccurate.

That's the point of Xykon's little rant, there: Whatever you think is the way to get power isn't real if, say, a single dedicated DA and a non-corrupt judge out of New York can (and will) take all of it away from you with a little bit of evidence and the standard rules of the NY Court system.

That's what DJT himself doesn't seem to quite grasp... but he's getting an education.

Posted
Just now, Rimbo said:

This isn't just oversimplified; it's inaccurate.

That's the point of Xykon's little rant, there: Whatever you think is the way to get power isn't real if, say, a single dedicated DA and a non-corrupt judge out of New York can (and will) take all of it away from you with a little bit of evidence and the standard rules of the NY Court system.

That's what DJT himself doesn't seem to quite grasp... but he's getting an education.

Sort of. I think that this fraud actually did have a massive negative impact for someone at one of the many institutions in the web of financing

Posted
4 minutes ago, immamac said:

Sort of. I think that this fraud actually did have a massive negative impact for someone at one of the many institutions in the web of financing

Of course it did. The point is... power that can be taken away, power that you're borrowing or renting, isn't real power.

Trump's power is all on loan, and the bills are due. Laetitia James et. al. have come to collect.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The old institutionalists are dumb af.  Most everyone on this here board knew he would come back like a roach.

image.png.2c9f8d5f1581d8d77995dacec372c372.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Of course it did. The point is... power that can be taken away, power that you're borrowing or renting, isn't real power.

Trump's power is all on loan, and the bills are due. Laetitia James et. al. have come to collect.

I think that is somewhat true and think it’s also true those with even more power are trying to prevent the irrevocable power of being dictator of the most powerful country on earth 

Posted
46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My wife still loves the adage of "There's no good reason women don't run the world: they have half the money and all the pussy." 

And she’s a member of the clergy. That’s straight from the top, y’all.

  • Haha 3
Posted
5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

Smith's appointment did not signal the commencement of the investigation.  Smith was appointed when Trump announced his candidacy and created an apparent conflict of interest between him and the administration (prior to that, it was theoretical).  That is the ONLY reason Smith was appointed.  Special Counsel are not roving badasses.  They are appointed when there is a conflict of interest between the DOJ/Administration and the target of an investigation.

Smith, being appointed to do one thing, did focus the investigation, most assuredly, and freed it from the hierarchy and bureaucracy of the DOJ.   There are some innuendos that various factions in the DOJ didn't want to indict Trump and others were in disagreement about what crimes he committed and for what he should be indicted.  Smith bypassed a lot of that, and it's pretty clear that he is single-minded and tough.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...