Today in Supreme Court History: September 27, 1787

9/27/1787: First Anti-Federalist letter by "Cato" is published.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (decided September 27, 2011): cert granted due to Circuit Court split of authority; the Court subsequently held that “compensation to interpreters” recoupable by prevailing party as part of “costs” (28 U.S.C. §1920) did not include expense of translating documents, 566 U.S. 560, 2012 (Mariana Islands resort had won summary judgment against Japanese baseball player who fell through wooden deck; resort wanted to tax the expense of translating Japanese medical records into English, which totaled — $5517.20?? they went all the way up to the Supreme Court for this? were the attorneys working for minimum wage?) (the reports all say Taniguchi was a baseball player but the accident happened in 2006, and he last played in 2001) (the oral argument, which was recorded, was memorably acted out in PuppyJusticeAnimated, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNU6Y13gqZQ)

[apedad]

Here's the oyez summary: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1472, 6 - 3 for Taniguchi that he didn't have to pay the $5K.

Basically, it came down to the difference between interpreter and translator with interpreter being generally defined as a person who translates oral communication from one language to another.

Kan Pacific Saipan had paid $5K to have documents translated from Japanese into English, so were not allowed to charge "interpreter" costs.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Carthago delenda est.

[Dan Schiavetta]

today's movie reviews: War Games and The Day After, 1983

Most knowledgeable people ascribe the end of the Cold War (and the Soviet Empire) to internal causes, but the actions of the United States played some part. If you're going to pick a year as "the beginning of the end", I would pick 1983, with these movies, to be specific when they were seen by President Reagan. He was a simple man who lived in a fantasy world, easily influenced by good directing and cinematography. There wasn't much to him -- in a rare moment of self-awareness, he said, "Where's the rest of me?" -- a disengaged parent and a disengaged Chief Executive. But he was basically good-hearted. Nothing affected him more as President then seeing thousands of Russian children cheering him on his visit to Moscow in 1988. By then, he was all in.

This was a contrast to his earlier "Evil Empire" period, and his tough talk and aggressive actions only (surprise, surprise) strengthened the hand of the hard-liners in the Kremlin. To those of us involved in the nuclear freeze movement, this was a scary period. Putting offensive nukes near Soviet borders served no purpose except provocation. As both JFK and Nixon recognized, you should never give the Soviets the choice of either 1) humiliation or 2) pushing the button. The Reagan people seemed to have forgotten that. It didn't help when one of their "arms control" people (I forget who) tried to console us by saying that some missiles can be recalled once launched. No, they can't.

That era changed when Reagan saw these films. He softened and Gorbachev, who had his own reasons, reciprocated. To unbend requires a degree of courage and secureness in one's self, and both men possessed it.

Both films deal with global thermonuclear war. In War Games, a teenager (Matthew Broderick) hacks into what turns out to be a supercomputer that controls the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It's a race against time as the computer tries to decipher the code for attack. The generals have no patience with these kids warning of catastrophe, and the one guy who can solve it (John Wood) has retired and gone into hiding. As the Broderick character puts it, "You don't care about everyone dying because you're already dead!" The emerging generation breaks through the older folks' death-in-life mentality of "mutual assured destruction". That was my generation, and the fear of a nuclear holocaust (and that it was almost certain to happen) colored our thinking in all aspects of life.

In the TV movie The Day After the holocaust has already happened, though somehow the nuclear war stopped before humanity was exterminated. And we "won". What remains is a devastated society reduced to a radioactive pre-industrial existence. Two scenes stand out. In one, a priest holds an open-air service on the ruins of his church for the handful of churchgoers who remain. Halfway through, a young woman is hemorrhaging and her father gently takes her "home". The minister prays in a desperate voice. "We thank you, God, for destroying the destroyers of the earth!!". These are just words, his faith destroyed.

In the other, a woman is giving birth. We share her anguish -- she has said, "I don't want to bring a child into this world!" -- as she goes into labor.

Another horrifying scene is earlier on, the reaction of local people in the Midwest when the nuclear cistern they've been living next to for years suddenly opens up and missiles emerge and launch.

The movie got shown only after a censorship fight involving an early scene that referenced birth control pills. (!) And only on the condition that there would be a discussion afterwards with Reagan people. I was with the Society of Friends then (the Quakers) and watched with fellow members of our Peace Action Committee. Carl Sagan talked earnestly about the danger of a "nuclear winter" if even a fraction of the existing warheads were used, and George Schultz lied his head off about the Reagan Administration's "arms control" efforts.

So here we are in 2023, the Cold War a clear memory only to us older folks. We fear terrorism but that is nothing like the fear of The Bomb. Thousands of warheads still exist (in both the literal and figurative sense). The aims of the nuclear freeze movement were modest: a bilateral (not unilateral) freeze (not destruction) of nuclear capacity. It succeeded, basically. More needs to be done. But the ball got rolling with these two very well-made movies for which we can be grateful.

[Syd Henderson]

The "Evil Empire" speech was for Andropov or Brezhnev and was at least in part because of Afghanistan. (Carter's response was to boycott the Olympics.) It took the Reagan Administration a while to realize Gorbachev was a different sort of person.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carter began the military buildup we associate with Reagan, authorized the CIA to train guerrillas in Afghanistan, and tried to cancel the sweetheart grain deal Nixon had made with Brezhnev, in which attempt he was foiled by agribusiness interests in Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always thought that the brother swiped her IUD, although it was a more innocent era. The Day After also pointed out something that was largely missed -- the first nuke is exploded at 20,000 feet so as to fry all electronics and thus eliminate both transportation and communication.

My take on War Games was the exact opposite of yours, that the military was competent while it was the scientists who were going to get us all killed. Classic lines: "I'd piss on the spark plug if it'd do any good" and "with all due respect, your computer sucks."

The Cold War was won -- we won it. Three people helped, Maggie Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan. While Reagan wasn't the same after he was shot, he wasn't the country bumpkin you paint him as, either. The thing that saved us was the Soviet leadership had painful memories of WWII and scorched earth.

The mistake we made was in thinking that people like Putin (who was upper KGB at the time) reflected top Soviet leadership. Stalin had, but the Korean War ended upon his death. It's the exact opposite of the mistake we're making with China right now.

Yes, the Soviet economy collapsed, much as China's is now, but WE WON the Cold War -- only to have Clinton lose the peace.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lenin: "And then there were two!"

https://www.gocomics.com/ted-rall/2005/04/07

[Magister]

I always thought that the brother swiped her IUD, although it was a more innocent era.

Dr. Ed 2 should review where IUDs are normally placed. The rest of his comments are similarly disconnected from reality.

[Frank Drackman]

While most Intrauterine Devices are placed in the Uterus, they do have a string that protrudes from the Cervix, that you can pull, like starting a lawn mower.

[Magister]

Yes, that her brother was fishing around in her vagina is definitely the hallmark of a more innocent era.

[Dilan Esper]

“Where’s the rest of me?”

Since you are a movie buff, I hope you know where this line from Reagan comes from.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I thought he said it himself!

(Or maybe, he quoted it later, in reference to himself.)

His movie career was not stellar. When it was pointed out that it was unfair to his opponents to have his movies shown on TV, giving him greater exposure, he said, "With some of those movies, I'd demand equal time!".

[Frank Drackman]

“Bedtime for Bonzo” was actually pretty funny, his portrayal of an alcoholic Grover Cleveland Alexander in “the Winning Team” should have got an Oscar, and his last role in “The Killers” wasn’t bad either. And of course, who would remember George Gipp if it wasn’t for “Knute Rockne All Amurican”??

The Killers (released in the UK as Ernest Hemingway's "The Killers") is a 1964 American neo noir crime film. Written by Gene L. Coon and directed by Don Siegel, it is the second Hollywood adaptation of Ernest Hemingway's 1927 short story of the same name, following the 1946 version.

The film stars Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes, Angie Dickinson, and Ronald Reagan in his final film role before retiring from acting in 1966 in order to enter politics.

At the time of release, Marvin said that it was his favorite film.[1] The supporting cast features Clu Gulager, Claude Akins, and Norman Fell. In July 2018, it was selected to be screened in the Venice Classics section at the 75th Venice International Film Festival.[2]

Frank

[Dilan Esper]

I didn't like Bedtime for Bonzo very much at all (although you can see it as camp given what happened to its star). And Hellcats of the Navy (co-starring Nancy Davis!) is really terrible and corny.

But yes, The Killers is good, King's Row (which is what got us into this) is good (and features probably the best acting of Reagan's acting career), and as you note, his role in Knute Rockne All American (a pretty decent sports movie-- Pat O'Brien is quite good in the title role) is iconic.

He obviously wasn't Jimmy Stewart or Spencer Tracy. But he wasn't bad at all as an actor.

[CJColucci]

I've heard, but never been able to verify, that the studio people were thinking of casting Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan as Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca, but decided against it.

[Dilan Esper]

(In gravelly voice) "Well... we'll always have Paris."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Kings Row", RR's character got this legs amputated after an accident.

[Dilan Esper]

Right. That's where he says "where's the rest of me?".

And despite all the dumping on Reagan's movie career here- King's Row is a good movie and Reagan is good in it.

[Magister]

It didn’t help when one of their “arms control” people (I forget who) tried to console us by saying that some missiles can be recalled once launched. No, they can’t.

Reagan himself spoke of recalling nuclear missiles from ships or submarines. And Reagan previously had commented that he could envision a nuclear war limited to Europe. He casually joked while preparing for a radio address "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." That would be the evil empire, of course. It's no surprise that the early 80s were dominated by fear of nuclear war.

Also, Carter had instituted a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in response to Afghanistan. Reagan ended it saying he had promised farmers he would in his campaign, but declined to end draft registration because it would send the wrong message to the Soviet Union, despite his campaign promise to end that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for the corrections. I was going strictly from memory.

[Mr. Bumble]

You should avoid that (going from memory) since you apparently suffer from CRS (can't remember shit).

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Sad, lonely old man, defeated by life"

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, it's a shame that life has been so hard on captcrisis.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Sad, lonely old man, defeated by life."
Pretty sure everyone knows that's you.
(also, 'extremely effeminate')

[Idihax]

This picture of Arthur Engoron tells you everything you need to know about his "ruling."

https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2018/07/engoron_arthur-Article-201807131927.jpg

[Krychek_2]

And your comment tells us all we need to know about you.

[David Nieporent]

Not his comments yesterday about how the Voting Rights Act isn't meant to protect the rights of blacks to vote?

[Idihax]

It is meant to protect the rights of blacks to vote, but not to guarantee that they can elect a semi-retarded rep like Maxine Waters.

[Krychek_2]

As opposed to a semi-retarded rep like Marjorie Taylor Greene?

[Idihax]

Her IQ is an order of magnitude ahead of that of Maxine Waters

[Krychek_2]

I doubt this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Idihax's handiwork revives a recurring question:

Can the Volokh Conspiracy get through a day -- just one day, one of these days -- without a strong showing of bigotry?

(On the other hand, I figure the racism and white grievance fixation are much of what made The Hoover Institution want to be associated with the Volokh Conspiracy. Which turns out to be a win-win, because I would bet my house that UCLA can't wait to have its name taken off this white, male, clinger blog.)

[Frank Drackman]

"retarded"?? why not just call her a "Mongoloid" ??

[apedad]

Or you could actually read the ruling: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991970/engoron-order-nys-v-trump-1.pdf

[Krychek_2]

apedad, you're missing the point. What's in the ruling is irrelevant to someone like Idihax. The only thing that matters to him is that the judge is Jewish (or at least the picture looks like it) and that he ruled against Trump.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I thought he was making fun of his looks (Engoron is not exactly GQ material). Which hardly makes it better.

[Idihax]

He's a hideous piece of shit. That was my point.

[SRG2]

What has that to do with his judicial competence?

[Estragon]

About as much as the size of his “schnozz” (see below)

[apedad]

Sorry! I'm so ashamed....

[Idihax]

I read the ruling. Total biased fabrication of facts.

[Estragon]

I doubt that.

What facts?

Also- do you agree or disagree that the square footage of an apartment can be measured objectively?

[Life of Brian]

Dunno about the specific facts -- there's a ton of inside baseball and the judge seemed to spend a lot more energy on rapier witticisms than clear writing. It reads a lot more like an advocacy document than a ruling.

What I do find interesting at a higher level is that -- as far as I can tell -- nobody the order alleges to have been defrauded actually claims to have been, and the only party that will receive the rather ponderous sum of alleged unlawful profits will be the state. Call me an unhip fuddy-duddy, but that feels an awful lot like the fox guarding the henhouse. I suspect this one will get tied up in appeals for a good while.

[Estragon]

Do you agree that the square footage of a triplex can be objectively measured?

[Life of Brian]

Do you agree that the square footage of a triplex can be objectively measured?

I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but actually it depends very much on the measurement technique: outside or inside walls, exclusions or not for dead interior space for facilities, counting or not areas such as patios, sunrooms, etc. I did not try to wade through the 30-something-page opinion piece to see if any of that was addressed and if there was any claim of a required objective standard in that regard.

That this is happening in New York is blissfully ironic, since anyone who has ever lived in or purchased an apartment/condo there knows the actual livable space is significantly less than the grossly overstated numbers in the listings.

[Estragon]

“Significantly less”

Ok but how about 200% more? Assuming arguendo your handwaving above is correct, could that account for a 2x error, in your estimation?

[Life of Brian]

Again not the answer you're looking for, but without knowing the particulars of the subject property vis-a-vis the points I raised (e.g., is this a penthouse with a huge walkaround terrace?) and the basis for the claimed 200% discrepancy, I can't categorically say.

Nor is any objective description of the size/layout readily shaking out, other than it has at least 3 floors, which actually raises another potential source of discrepancy: whether open space across floors (such a cathedral ceiling) is counted or not.

It's of course possible he overstated the square footage regardless of measurement technique. But without the actual particulars I don't have a way to know one way or the other, and neither does anyone else on here. The order doesn't provide any detail that I can see.

[Estragon]

I mean, there’s a citation right there in the order. You can be forgiven for not knowing— after all

“I did not try to wade through the 30-something-page opinion”

[Estragon]

“the basis for the claimed 200% discrepancy”

LOL it’s stuff he provided in discovery! After racking up 10k/day for 11 days

[BrotherMovesOn]

Yes, the cubic volume of air under a cathedral ceiling is often included in square foot specs for a residential property.

[Estragon]

So it is possible to determine some objective square footage, though? Using whatever technique you like.

[Estragon]

Or do you agree with Trump’s lawyers that “ the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct
the calculation.”

??

[Magister]

You can go read the Forbes article from 2017, where Trump lied about the size of his (checking notes) apartment (33,000 square feet when records showed it was 10,996 square feet) - apparently counting common areas (another resident shares two of his floors) and mechanical rooms (owned in common by all residents through a condo association).

[Life of Brian]

I mean, there’s a citation right there in the order.

You could take the time to type that, but not to provide the actual citation?

Or is that because then we would all see it's just a citation to another docket number in the case, with no clue as to what it is?

[Life of Brian]

You can go read the Forbes article from 2017

Which, I have not a doubt in the world, used the most conservative measurement method they could imagine in order to make the discrepancy appear as large as possible. Which is why I asked if I had overlooked something and the order mentioned anything about an obligation to measure in a certain way. Looking like not.

apparently counting common areas (another resident shares two of his floors) and mechanical rooms (owned in common by all residents through a condo association).

Well, see, this takes me right back to my Manhattan apartment measurement example. They all do stuff like that as well, which is why an apartment listed as "650 SQ FT ZOMG!!!1!" barely has room for a queen-sized bed. Again, what's the standard, "right" way to measure, and why did it apparently only become a standard for this particular case?

[Life of Brian]

Or do you agree with Trump’s lawyers that “ the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation.”

That's a poorly worded (which poor wording the judge seized on and twisted as the impartial advocate he is) rendition of what we've just been talking about, yes? It's of course not the area calculation itself, but the inputs to it.

[Estragon]

“I know this isn’t the answer you’re looking for, but actually it depends very much on the measurement technique”

Aren’t you saying the same thing as this:

“ the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation.”

??

[Life of Brian]

Not sure if you noticed, but you repeated your question directly below my answer. You seem a bit... obsessed with this entire topic.

[Magister]

Life of Brian, Estragon quoted your reply first and then what Trump's lawyers said that you criticized. The defense could have brought out a plan of the three floors of the building and showed what was included in the square footage claimed. But instead, they pounded the table with arguments similar to those you now bring.

The discussion of the square footage is on pages 15 to 16 of the linked document. The Forbes article is mentioned; its author was subpoenaed to testify about it.

[Estragon]

“Not sure if you noticed, but you repeated your question directly below my answer. You seem a bit… obsessed with this entire topic.“

I was quoting you and trumps lawyers and noting the similarities. Congrats, you’ve taken a position that trumps own lawyers wouldn’t during oral arguments!

[Life of Brian]

instead, they pounded the table with arguments similar to those you now bring.

As I've said from the beginning, I'm unavoidably speaking in the abstract because the actual facts aren't available. If you have plans for the building, bring them on and we can have an actual discussion.

But it sounds like instead you'd rather squeeze your eyes shut and rely on an OMG journalistic hit piece as a baseline, then declare anything beyond that as a "lie." That's certainly a position to take, but there's no need to waste any of our time by pretending you're occupying some sort of higher moral plane by doing do.

The discussion of the square footage is on pages 15 to 16 of the linked document. The Forbes article is mentioned; its author was subpoenaed to testify about it.

Pages 15 and 16 are actually about a SOL tolling argument. But you're in luck: I trundled through several more pages of the non-searchable document until I came upon this statement on page 21: "The misrepresentation continued even after defendants received written notification from Forbes that Donald Trump had been overestimating the square footage of the Triplex by a factor of three."

In an objective universe, you might look at the phrase "received written notification from Forbes" and blink a couple of times, given that last I checked they're in the media business and haven't been granted some sort of weird authority as an arbiter of real estate measurement techniques. But since we're in outcome-oriented land, I'm sure you didn't give it a second thought.

[Life of Brian]

I was quoting you and trumps lawyers and noting the similarities. Congrats, you’ve taken a position that trumps own lawyers wouldn’t during oral arguments!

I covered this part already as well. As I read the opinion, the judge twisted the issue into the notion of whether calculating area given a set of dimensions (like multiplication, yo) is objective or subjective. Of course the answer is objective — the question, at the risk of repeating myself too many times in a 24-hour period, is how the inputs to the area calculation themselves are determined.

I knew coming into this that you were on a mission and didn't want to be disturbed with facts, but fortunately the real world doesn't have to yield to the absurd determinations of a rabidly biased judge that you're clinging to like he's some sort of oracle. See also the Mar-a-Lago valuation in the opinion that has the Florida real estate community howling with laughter.

[Magister]

Sorry about getting the page numbers wrong; I had not noticed that I had moved from the square footage pages when I noted them.

The ruling lists specific evidence on which the conclusion about the square footage misrepresentation was based. The author of the Forbes article was subpoenaed to explain their research and their requests to Trump for comment on the discrepancy. That Trump continued to submit the inflated square footage Various New York documents are referenced, which likely contain relevant information.

You can keep saying “well, I can’t judge the evidence without seeing the evidence”. Sure, if someone is convicted of murder, you didn’t see the fingerprints collected, you didn’t do the DNA analysis, you didn’t talk to the witnesses, etc., so there’s no way for you to say that the verdict is reasonable, let alone correct. But you also can’t say, well, there’s no way to say, unless you want to join Idihax in judging the judge on the size of his nose; the defense had opportunities to present every argument you’ve sort of made, and the judge, as judges are wont to do, judged them and wrote that ruling.

I guess you can say, well, Trump’s lawyers are incompetent, and the ruling and sanctions would seem to support that. You can say, the judge made terrible mistakes, which might be addressed in the promised appeals. Provide your evidence that the judge is biased, other than this ruling against Trump.

[Life of Brian]

Sure, if someone is convicted of murder, you didn’t see the fingerprints collected, you didn’t do the DNA analysis, you didn’t talk to the witnesses, etc., so there’s no way for you to say that the verdict is reasonable, let alone correct.

This ain’t an up/down jury verdict. This is a written opinion by a judge, which traditionally explains the basis for the ruling. All we have at the moment is something along the lines of: “Well, there was this rando journalist that looked at some property records and did some handwaving in support of his “Trump LIED” hit piece, and we invited him in to chat about it and it sounded pretty good. So what the hey — close enough for guv’ment work!”

Provide your evidence that the judge is biased, other than this ruling against Trump.

Why in the world would I need anything outside the ruling? This is one of the most unprofessionally written and nakedly belligerent opinions I’ve had the poor fortune to read in my career, and clearly has a goal of killing, crushing, and destroying rather than deterring. (I’d normally think after a nuclear ruling like this that a substantial portion of the New York business community’s assholes would immediately go into a permanent pucker and we’d see a wave of businesses scrambling hand over foot to be the first to amend their SFCs — or make plans to GTFO of New York — but I suspect most of the players are comfortable enough that they got the scalp they wanted and this is not going to set any sort of meaningful precedent beyond that, and life will pretty much go on as usual.)

[grb]

Life of Brian : “I know this isn’t the answer you’re looking for, but actually it depends very much on the measurement technique”

Actually, that’s 100% wrong. The real estate market has a very precise way to measure square footage. It’s called the BOMA standard and it’s how landlords and tenants exactly define who’s getting what. I know this because BOMA has made my life miserable as an architect many times these past few decades. I’ll be given a proposed building or renovation space and told to produce a BOMA spreadsheet. There’s no guesswork or ambiguity how that is done.

https://www.boma.org/BOMA/BOMA-Standards/Home.aspx

[Life of Brian]

The real estate market has a very precise way to measure square footage.

Now this is a first-rate half truth -- you've outdone yourself.

There are scads of standards organizations in the world. Some are mandated; many are not. Which one of those is BOMA? Please keep in mind I already know the answer -- I just want to see what sort of pretzel knot you twist yourself into trying to avoid admitting it.

[Magister]

On this one issue, the defense could have engaged certified professionals with experience in measuring square footage of apartments. If you're right, it wouldn't have been hard to find estimates that were in the upper half of the range between the approximately 11,000 square feet that the city is aware of and Trump's 33,000 square feet. That they didn't do so suggests that you are not right.

The 33,000 square feet could come from the dimensions of the building itself, but that would include someone else's apartment on those floors and the common elements that are owned by the condo association.

[Life of Brian]

On this one issue, the defense could have engaged certified professionals with experience in measuring square footage of apartments. If you’re right, it wouldn’t have been hard to find estimates that were in the upper half of the range between the approximately 11,000 square feet that the city is aware of and Trump’s 33,000 square feet. That they didn’t do so suggests that you are not right.

Did I miss part of the opinion that said they didn't put in anything? The tenor of the opinion seemed to be one of sarcastically lampooning crop-quotes rather than an exhaustive analysis, and didn't to my eye say anything one way or the other about any evidence they might have offered. Maybe someone that cares enough about this issue to actually pull the hundreds of ECF entries referenced in the front of the order and wade through them (or at the very least the briefing leading up to the order) has a better read on this.

The 33,000 square feet could come from the dimensions of the building itself, but that would include someone else’s apartment on those floors and the common elements that are owned by the condo association.

Do we have anything other than the Forbes hit piece detailing this supposed carve-out second apartment-within-a-three-floor-penthouse-suite? That certainly seems a bit weird on the surface. And for a full-floor penthouse suite that presumably isn't even reachable to others by elevator, it's not clear that there would be any "common elements" not associated with the suite. And even if there were, my understanding is those normally get apportioned on a pro-rata basis to the units on a floor, so that would seem to get you to the same place.

[Magister]

Do we have anything other than the Forbes hit piece detailing this supposed carve-out second apartment-within-a-three-floor-penthouse-suite?

We have the evidence the ruling describes which you studiously ignore. We have the actual name of the other resident on the same floors. There are New York City records of the two apartments.

if the ruling is what you say it is, the defense will have no trouble destroying it in the appellate process. If not, I'm sure you'll move on to some other quibble.

[Life of Brian]

We have the evidence the ruling describes which you studiously ignore.

Ignore? I've said repeatedly why I think it's untrustworthy, sensationalist baloney. You literally have nothing to go on but a half dozen paragraph media hit piece. In most universes, that's not evidence. If the actual, up to date property records or anything else actually objective were in evidence, certainly that would have been a sporting thing for the judge to say instead of -- or at least in between -- all the snark.

We have the actual name of the other resident on the same floors. There are New York City records of the two apartments.

And by "we" I'd imagine you mean yet again what you're uncritically regurgitating from the journalist, who wrote the hit piece based on records he (hopefully) pulled in 2017. See above.

if the ruling is what you say it is, the defense will have no trouble destroying it in the appellate process. If not, I’m sure you’ll move on to some other quibble.

You know, I first got into this conversation over the simple and really uncontroversial observation that there are multiple ways to measure square footage. I also said it was entirely possible Trump overstated the square footage under any measurement technique, but that it wasn't possible to know that given the current record we have available, which at least according to what's surfaced in the opinion appears to be of very shaky quality. Beyond that, you're just stuffing words in my mouth and I've had my fill of that. Have a pleasant evening.

[Estragon]

“more energy on rapier witticisms“

ZOMG one footnote about Groucho Marx in a 35 page ruling

[Krychek_2]

My favorite footnote, though, was Footnote 5 in which the judge says that Trump is not a neophyte at getting sanctioned.

[Idihax]

That proves the judge's bias, and all of his factual determination should thus be tossed out, and the case assigned to a different judge, and that replacement judge should only be allowed to be a white Christian, and not one that likes to peg other men.

[Estragon]

Do I detect some stray voltage here??

[Estragon]

“and all of his factual determination should thus be tossed out”

Is the square footage of an apartment something that can be measured objectively?

[grb]

Estragon : "Is the square footage of an apartment something that can be measured objectively?"

Yep. In the real estate market there is only one standard to measure square footage. It covers all distinctions like balconies, common spaces, vertical circulation, corridors, mechanical shafts, double-height spaces and rooms for building services. It precisely defines whether you measure to the face of wall (as at a corridor) or to the centerline of wall (as at a tenant demising wall). It precisely details how to set the square footage line on an exterior wall. It’s the standard used by all leasing agents and every real estate holding company.

All this talk about area calculations being some big metaphysical mystery is really a heaping pile of horseshit. Trump has been in the business his entire life. If he committed fraud, it wasn’t because of confusion how to count. It’s because he cheated, pure and simple.

[Life of Brian]

In the real estate market there is only one standard to measure square footage.

Oh, I just noticed that you had repeated your shameless lie down here. I'll just link to the first place so everyone can be sure to wait with baited breath for what I'm sure is your soon to be coming proof of this out-of-your-ass claim!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

replacement judge should only be allowed to be a white Christian, and not one that likes to peg other men.

The Volokh Conspirators -- well, at least four or five of them, anyway -- would like to buy you a beer, sir.

[Magister]

I'm not sure I have the right expectations for a ruling like this, but it seems to quote plenty of sources to justify the decisions made. Perhaps you can clarify what bothers you beyond the "Groundhog Day" reference?

"[i]n varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace."

It is unclear whether private parties who were defrauded might later pursue their own claims, or whether they more fear that they would become targets of violent Trump followers. Certainly the decision will be appealed.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and as always, the process is the punishment.

[Estragon]

Square footage. Objectively measured or no?

[apedad]

Except - in this specific instance - Trump and his team brought this decision upon themselves by submitting ludicrous arguments.

Just read some of the ruling and you have to be amazed at the balls on these lawyers.

The absolute don't-give-a-shit-about-anything attitude is breathtaking.

Hope they got their $$$ up front though.

[Bob from Ohio]

Abe Lincoln and Clarence Darrow couldn't win this case for Trump. Fixed from the beginning.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, here's what Trump partisans either don't get or ignore: Donald Trump spent his entire adult life engaged in sleazy and in some cases criminal behavior, while leaving behind him a trail of evidence that Mr. Magoo couldn't miss. And he failed to appreciate that scrutiny comes with running for public office, particularly the presidency. George Santos has probably had second thoughts about the wisdom of running for public office too.

Your side has a point that the Democrats are going after him with guns blazing, but what you're not acknowledging is that he gave them the ammunition. He really did do the sleazy, unethical, and criminal things he's accused of doing. And it's frankly beyond me that he thought he would get away with it. So you can't really blame the Democrats for accepting this gift that Trump gave them, all nicely wrapped with a bow. It would be political malpractice for them not to.

[David Nieporent]

I assume what Bob meant to type after "couldn't win this case for Trump" was "because the evidence that Trump did what he was accused of doing is overwhelming."

[Idihax]

Exactly. And the "judge" is a New York Democrat. Probably had his mother and grandmother take him to pro-death rallies prior to Roe.

[Sarcastr0]

Total biased fabrication of facts

You may not know this, but that's an extraordinary claim. Saying the law was misapplied is one thing. But fabrication of the facts on summary judgement is a pretty stark charge.

What are your specifics? Or are you just venting spleen?

[Idihax]

For example, his "determination" on the value of Mar A Lago.

[Estragon]

Palm beach county did the assessment…?

[Idihax]

Tax assessments are not often FMV, and you know it.

[Estragon]

Oh? So you agree with Eric that:

“Mar-a-Lago is speculated to be worth we’ll over a billion dollars making it arguably the most valuable residential property in the country.”

??

[David Nieporent]

The thing that makes this such an egregious lie is the fact that it isn't a residential property.

Here's what happened with Mar-a-Lago: over the years, Trump agreed to a bunch of deed restrictions with Palm Beach County, preventing him from ever redeveloping the property or using it for certain purposes. (It cannot be used for residential purposes.) In exchange for that, Palm Beach gave him a favorable assessment, which enabled him to minimize the property taxes he owed.

But then he lied to banks by valuing the property as if those restrictions didn't exist. (Even setting that aside, the representations he made to the banks about the value of the place were plucked out of thin air.)

[David Nieporent]

Tax assessments are not often FMV, and you know it.

That is a true statement in the abstract. However, these figures represent FMV appraisals by the Palm Beach County assessor, not mere tax assessments. Quoting from the actual document:

Market (also called "Just") value is the most probable sale price for your property in a competitive, open market on Jan 1, 2021. It is based on a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Also, it might have behooved Trump to put in admissible evidence about the value of the property if he wanted to avoid summary judgment on that point.

[David Nieporent]

You didn't read the ruling.

[Idihax]

I did. Did you? Did you see all the instances of the judge lambasting the defendants and their lawyers? That calls into question the judge's credibility, as does his big ugly schnozz.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're a clinger, Idihax, so the Volokh Conspirators will issue a pass on that one.

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Klinger" with a "K" "Coach"

[David Nieporent]

That does not in fact call into question the judge's "credibility." (That word is not the right choice in this context, as the judge is not a witness to believe or not to believe. But assuming you meant reliability or impartiality or something like that, it does not in fact do so.) There's nothing in this opinion that is unusual for a judicial opinion. Lambasting litigants who make frivolous arguments is routine.

[Estragon]

Bonus question;

Did Eric trump admit to tax fraud when he posted this?

“In an attempt to destroy my father and kick him out of New York, a Judge just ruled that Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach Florida, is only worth approximate "$18 Million dollars"... Mar-a-Lago is speculated to be worth we'll over a billion dollars making it arguably the most valuable
residential property in the country.”

[Internet sloth]

For anyone needing a pick me up today
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=vrMvblpZFq0&si=Qt1O3AgUU6cBeBmM

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

I lived in the rural South, where the courthouse was the center of town, and I saw scenes like that. CCR was a great band and John Fogerty a great writer and singer.

[Internet sloth]

Absolutely!

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Captain, 1983 called, wants it's "Reagan's a Dope" theory back, Try "The Reagan Diaries" even that chucklehead Jon Meacham said “Reading these diaries, Americans will find it easier to understand how Reagan did what he did for so long . . . They paint a portrait of a president who was engaged by his job and had a healthy perspective on power.”
and "Red Dawn" was better than either of the 2 bombs (get it? "Bombs"??) you picked

Frank "WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[loki13]

So, Judge Kacsmaryk did it again. Despite ample precedent, and a lot of opinions of other judges finding the exact opposite, That Guy, citing, inter alia, the Comstock Act (what is it with him and the Comstock Act) decided to uphold a ban on drag shows at University. Because, according to him, the Supreme Court is just wrongity-wrong wrong when it comes to the First Amendment.

It's the judges in the 5th. I'd say that this is the worst decision ever, but hey, it's the 5th. Just wait another day, and you'll get another one.

Wonder when the Supreme Court will create a special "5th Circuit" express docket just to deal with this type of nonsense.

[Magister]

I wonder if the Supreme Court hesitates to bring attention to the overall Fifth Circuit problem by admitting that the problems are not each unique and surprising.

[David Nieporent]

Dude, that's so last week. When you said "did it again," I was afraid that there was yet another wacky ruling from him today.

[loki13]

The stupidity comes so fast from the trial judges and appellate judges in the Fifth that I honestly can't keep up with it all.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can't wait until you get appointed to the federal bench to set things right.

[Bob from Ohio]

Truman too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reserve service stateside (his well-connected parents kept him out of Vietnam) and even from that, he went AWOL.

[Magister]

Unsurprising given the significance of World War II. Similarly, almost all presidents for 40 years after the Civil War had served in it (Grover Cleveland was the exception, having paid someone to take his place, but an outlier in other respects too). Then Theodore Roosevelt (Spanish-American War), but no military service from Taft to FDR).

Clinton was the first president born after World War II and like all later presidents might have been called into the Vietnam War; voters have accepted those who avoided that war (often preferring the candidate with deferments or no foreign service: Clinton over two World War II veterans; George W. Bush over two Vietnam veterans; Obama over a Vietnam veteran). McCain was the last major party candidate with military service; all draft deferments (or ineligibility in Hillary Clinton's case) since.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One might add that Clinton, who certainly did not have family connections, would have been drafted, but his number never came up.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that Rather eventually admitted he'd been conned, right?

[Frank Drackman]

If you'd ever served you'd know AWOL isn't the correct term.
And I guess he was around enough to get 300+ flight hours in an f-102, and another 200 in T-37/T-38s, how many you got? or Parkinsonian Joe? Barry Hussein??

[Mr. Bumble]

Re-writing history.

[Mr. Bumble]

His number was 311. Never likely to come up as the war was winding down.

[Mr. Bumble]

But, but, his sister served. Does that count?

[Mr. Bumble]

Trans gone bad?

[Dan Schiavetta]

There were two or three other ways to show that GWB had gone AWOL. I think Rather was snookered by Karl Rove who supplied that faked record.

[Magister]

Bush failed to fulfill his commitment to the National Guard; he got placement through political influence. The initial reaction to the fake memos was that they were completely consistent in content; it's a pretty weak exoneration that people like General Hodges changed their opinion on their accuracy because of kerning issues rather than the content that they were already aware of.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite?

[Magister]

From Wikipedia article on Clinton:

Clinton tried unsuccessfully to obtain positions in the National Guard and the Air Force officer candidate school, and he then made arrangements to join the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) program at the University of Arkansas.

He subsequently decided not to join the ROTC, saying in a letter to the officer in charge of the program that he opposed the war, but did not think it was honorable to use ROTC, National Guard, or Reserve service to avoid serving in Vietnam. He further stated that because he opposed the war, he would not volunteer to serve in uniform, but would subject himself to the draft, and would serve if selected only as a way "to maintain my political viability within the system". Clinton registered for the draft and received a high number (311), meaning that those whose birthdays had been drawn as numbers 1 to 310 would be drafted before him, making it unlikely he would be called up. (In fact, the highest number drafted was 195.)

Unlike George W. Bush, Clinton lacked the connections to get into the National Guard.

[Magister]

https://www.foxnews.com/story/source-pulls-support-for-memos-on-bush-guard-service

Does Bumble find it unsurprising that Hodges would believe the content read to him but then decide they were fake upon seeing the documents?

[Brett Bellmore]

Something like this?

'Well if you say you've got contemporaneous documents, I suppose it must be true.'

'OH. The contemporaneous documents are obvious fakes. Never mind, then.'

[Magister]

"I have a document that says Brett is a serial killer."

Would you expect people who knew of you (especially when the question of whether you are a serial killer has been discussed for four years) to say "Well, if that document says that I guess it's true" or to say "No, that's not likely to be correct and I'll need to see what that document is based on"?

It's not like the people who said "sounds right" were Bush haters or would not have had plenty of opportunity to ponder the question already.