Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Briefing before SCOTUS is now complete on Donald Trump's application for a stay of the D.C. Circuit's mandate. The Court met in conference on Friday. Do we dare hope to have a ruling today?

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a Federal Holiday?!?

[not guilty]

Oops! I had forgotten about the holiday. Mea culpa. Can we hope for a ruling tomorrow?

[Mr. Bumble]

Having memory issues?

[tylertusta]

Unlikely, but possible. Tomorrow is not listed as a day for issuing orders. The next scheduled day (as of today) is March 4th, but the Court is holding arguments this week and next week, with a conference scheduled on March 1st.

[Josh R]

The red color on the calendar at the SCOTUS homepage indicates no orders tomorrow. But, if you click on the date on the calendar, it says “The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m.” And a bonus: click on Wednesday and you get “The Court may announce opinions, which are posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench.”

[tylertusta]

Yeah, the Court's website operators are either not being clear instruction or the Court itself is confused.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or it’s how the computer program is written and I suspect the latter. “May” release opinions is not “will” release opinions and my guess is that it takes the “will” (or maybe even a case citation) to trip the calendar.

You also are presuming that the folks updating the web server are seeing what you are seeing — and that is NOT always true. If you understand anything about unix permissions you will understand WHY this often isn’t true — more than once I have told people to check their websites on their smartphones, using the TELCO’s ISP (i.e. not their own network) because that’s what everyone else sees.

[tylertusta]

I didn't even know you could click on the dates and get a different summary.

Huh. TIL.

[Josh R]

Going back in time, there are no days that show both arguments and orders. But, there are plenty of "red-only" days with orders. Looks like it is a limitation of the colors available on the calendar (the key shows only one possible two-color combination: conference/non-argument). Plus, there are no colors corresponding to opinions.

Apparently, SCOTUSblog figured it out. They show orders for tomorrow and opinions for Wednesday.

[not guilty]

No order in this case today. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022024zor_7647.pdf

[Kazinski]

I wonder if Jack Smith left this bit in his brief from his cert petition Dec. 11:
And given the weighty and consequential character of the constitutional questions at stake, only this Court can provide the definitive and final resolution of respondent’s immunity claims that this case demands."

Of course Smith also suggests that if they are inclined to grant the stay, they should treat Trump's request for a stay as a cert petition and grant expedited review. I'd say they should grant review, and put it on next terms calendar.

I'm wondering how Trump and his legal team are supposed to turn around from the expedited review of Trump v Anderson in DC, the Fani Wilson hearings, deal with his fraud trial appeal in NY, prepare for his Manhattan trial next month, prepare for his defense in his Florida trial, and then deal with another expedited Supreme Court Trial.

Is it just coincidence that all these trials are happening right now? There is no doubt that Trump is seeking to slow things down now that he is running for President, but he isn't the one that organized this multi-car legal pileup in the first place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Criminal law is the individual allegedly has wronged the people and their government is acting on their behalf to address that.

Civil law is that an individual has wronged another individual and the court seeks to make the latter whole.

The problem I have is when these two get commingled. Trump's recent lynching in NYC comes to immediate mind but take a speeding ticket. You are driving fast on an empty road at 3 AM -- you aren't harming the state, you are instead violating its laws. And that should be criminal with all the due process and protections of criminal law.

Look at it another way -- is it fair to have a civil procedure when one party is the state, with not only the unlimited resources but immunities and to claim that both come to the court as equals?

How did Donald Trump financially harm the State of New York?
He may have violated its laws, but that is criminal. And he should be accorded all the protections of the criminal defendant.

Can anyone imagine the outcry if indigent criminal defendants were denied the right of appeal unless they could post a bond covering all the fines in their sentences? Any criminal law person care to answer what percentage of the fines are actually paid? Roger the Rapist and Charlie the Child Molester (usually) don't have assets so *how* are they ever going to pay the fines?

I think that the state prosecuting violations of its laws as civil offenses is playing both ends against the middle. That's why I use the Dred Scott example -- a decision that was perfectly legal and followed all the legal procedures of the day, but was also completely WRONG.

The Trump lynching is the same thing -- it may be perfectly legal but it is also completely WRONG. No other NYC developer has ever been charged with this under these circumstances, none ever will be and everyone knows that.

The NRA is corrupt as hell -- I say that as a *former* NRA member. But Miss Twit (I will not lower myself to a racial slur) isn't acting on my behalf, i.e. those whose dues were misappropriated. Instead she's attempting to destroy the organization itself.

Shay's Rebellion ended, in part, when John Hancock was re-elected as Governor, ousting James Bowdoin -- Governors served 2-year terms back then. it was how the laws were being enforced that provoked the rebellion.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the thing about this that really confuses me, too. This seems to me to be a criminal case wearing civil law like a skin suit.

It's possible that the legal system in this country has actually evolved in such a way as to render this sort of thing sora "legal"; You can see all sorts of trends towards negating fundamental constitutional protections to the extent possible, like all but outlawing jury nullification, when that's basically the reason to HAVE jury trials. Or plea bargaining almost all defendants into not exercising their right to a jury trial.

But if that's what is going on here, it's a big problem, we're going to see more and more of criminal law disguised as civil law to get the lower due process, as time goes on.

[not guilty]

Professor Kerr ate Brett's lunch on the other thread, so now Brett comes here to blather.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Professor Kerr is alleging this was an Equity action -- and to the extent it is, we have descended into a Judge Dredd society where the judge is the policeman, prosecutor, judge, and executioner.

That isn't what they were planning in 1787.

[Zarniwoop]

Grampa Ed bloviated in his usual fashion:

Professor Kerr is alleging this was an Equity action

Prof Kerr is not "alleging" that it's an action in equity. He's correctly describing it as an action in equity.

Hey look, the court does too! For example, the court notes at p.82 of the opinion that "Public policy favors awarding interest in equity actions. 5 Weinstein Korn Miller, NY Civ Prac 5001.06, at 50-24."

to the extent it is, we have descended into a Judge Dredd society where the judge is the policeman, prosecutor, judge, and executioner.

The astute reader will note that Judge Engeron and NY AG James are, in fact ... different people.

I'd say "you can't make this stuff up!", but Grampa Ed unambiguously disproves that old saw.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well that will BE a moot issue if the truckers boycott NYC -- and with the shortage of truckers nationally, they really can't be fired because they can be making the same money working for someone else TOMORROW, and having once delivered to NYC would be an incentive to hire because of the skill required.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/19/us-news/trump-supporting-truckers-vow-their-boycott-could-shut-down-new-york/

You just lose 10% of your truck drivers and prices WILL skyrocket as shortages appear...

[David Nieporent]

Editor's note: no truckers boycotted or will boycott New York City. (And why NYC, anyway, given that this was a case brought by the state of New York?)

[Zarniwoop]

Grampa Ed blathered:

[something about truckers? WTactualF?]

I got nothin'.

[Nige]

Truckers: BOYCOTT NYC
ten seconds later
Truckers: boycott's off

[Theendoftheleft]

It’s an action in equity wherein the state is the plaintiff, not the private actor banks. Further, in this particular case, the equitable causes of action concern NY’s Executive Law’s (Section 63(12) conception of equitable-ish fraud, its preponderance of evidence standard, and several NY state penal laws (listed for causes of action 2-7).

It thus appears to be a disturbing mixture of criminal-regulatory proceeding operating under the rubric of an equitable action. Per the judgment (if it’s accurate), the original intent of the legislation was to render it easier to cancel a business’ registration and to impose injunctions. 63(12) not only morphed to include more remedies, but it still also lacks clear, established criteria of application for its expansive definition of fraud.

It should be unconstitutional, or at least rendered far more concrete.

I would also be curious to know if any civilized Western country would adopt, or has adopted, this sort of Frankenstein law.

[loki13]

"It should be unconstitutional,"

....under what theory? Not liking something is not the same as it being unconstitutional.

[Theendoftheleft]

Violation of due process. A criminal-regulatory proceeding presenting as an action in equity, one that relied in this case on several state penal laws in conjunction with the executive law 63(12)’s definition and preponderance of evidence standard. That standard is inapt for the kind of action and proceeding it REALLY is, whether understood formally or functionally.

[David Nieporent]

Violation of due process.

The essence of due process, as has been adjudicated many times, is notice and an opportunity to be heard. Trump had that in this case.

While I agree that Trump belongs in jail, this was not a "criminal proceeding" in any way.

[Theendoftheleft]

It’s a pseudo-equitable cause of action. And while that might form the essence of due process, it needn’t exhaust it, e.g., if inappropriate standards are employed. E.g., if the state frames a regulatory/quasi-criminal proceeding as if it were a bona fide equitable action (wherein the state is the plaintiff).

Honestly, I don’t know the answer of whether civilized Western countries have this sort of law (Exec Law 63(12)). It would be surprising, though; and the grounds for its violating rule of law considerations (including the state-as-plaintiff) are palpable.

Do other US states have it?

[Drewski]

I didn't even realize they executed Trump. Man, I have to keep up with the news better.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s possible that the legal system in this country has actually evolved in such a way as to render this sort of thing sora “legal”; You can see all sorts of trends towards negating fundamental constitutional protections to the extent possible, like all but outlawing jury nullification, when that’s basically the reason to HAVE jury trials. Or plea bargaining almost all defendants into not exercising their right to a jury trial.

An impressive performance of being wrong.

Civil penalties have been a thing for centuries;
Civil penalties are not "legal" they are legal;
Jjury nullification is not outlawed;
Jury nullification is not basically the reason we have juries
Plea bargaining as a way to avoid trial is not because The Man is afraid of juries.

It's not a big problem, it's you, as you often do, discovering some longstanding ordinary thing about the law and declaring it a tyrannical conspiracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Revolutions happen, Gaslight0.

Out legal system needs reform, much like after Watergate.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, stamping your foot and saying it's no fair there will be blood is becoming really boring.

Get help; you seem miserable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcarst0 -- was the legal profession circa 1977 what it had been circa 1967?

That was a revolution....

[Brett Bellmore]

Go look up the William Penn case, or the Zenger case. Both classic examples of the jury system. Both formative for its development in America.

And both jury nullification. Penn and Zengler were both guilty as hell.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So if someone who had much better mathematical training was explaining how I am wrong about number theory, and I smugly responded with “look up Euler’s identity, it’s formative for the development of mathematics” that would be dumb, right?

Well you’re kind of doing the same thing here. There are literally centuries worth of jurisprudence and commentary on the availability of juries for various types of civil cases, the nature of civil penalties, the law-equity distinction, the public rights exception to the jury right etc.

Smugly saying: well look at these two criminal cases as a gotcha is not smart.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not your original thesis of jury nullification is basically the reason to HAVE jury trials.

This is, jury nullification was at times important.

No new goalposts.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but its still Trump Rules in its application.

Governor Hochul had to go on the radio to reassure business owners that it was just Trump Rules and that they weren't next:

Hochul tells NY businesses not to fear about Trump verdict: ‘Nothing to worry about’

"I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded

I think my prediction that the decision will cost NY far more than Trump will be borne out, and certainly Hochul shows she is concerned about fallout.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4474774-hochul-tells-ny-businesses-not-to-fear-about-trump-verdict-nothing-to-worry-about/

[Sarcastr0]

You're really picking and choosing what matters to you here. The actual words (extraordinary, unusual, law-abiding have nothing to worry about) are immaterial to you.

The mere fact of the statement? That's vital info!

I like that you engage, I really do. But you are using a la carte facts to confirmation bias your way into the outcome you want.

[Kazinski]

You miss the point, the business owners don't care whether Trump's situation is unique or not, because everyone's situation is unique, what they worry is this kind of civil litigation could be applied to them if they get crosswise politically with NY authorities.

And this isn't a one off, how many gun manufacturers have left NY? The NRA left because of a campaign of harassment. Oil companies are being sued because they sell a legal product in high demand, everyone uses, including the government. All of those are political.

Yeah, if I were a prudent businessman I would limit my exposure in NY as much as possible.

[Sarcastr0]

"You miss the point, the business owners don’t care whether Trump’s situation is unique or not, because everyone’s situation is unique, what they worry is this kind of civil litigation could be applied to them if they get crosswise politically with NY authorities."

This mindreading is getting pretty convoluted. You now require that this be seen as political targeting by NY businesses, and your proof is that *you* believe it's political targeting.
Seems like the speech isn't material to making that less or more likely, based on your take here.

this isn’t a one off, how many gun manufacturers have left NY
I have no idea - were there gun manufacturers in NY?

Oil companies are being sued That is so old it predates me. And I don't think that's a NY specific issue.

[Kazinski]

Take it up with Governor Hochul, if she is concerned that business owners will see it as political and seeks to reassure them, then I can't see how you can fault me for having the same concerns.

And as for lawsuits against oil companies being before your time, I didn't realize you were that young, I guess the D&D should have given it away. I should cut you more slack being barely of drinking age:

"Today, on Earth Day, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Corporation Counsel James E. Johnson announced the filing of a lawsuit against Exxon, Shell, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute for violating New York City's Consumer Protection Law through false advertising and deceptive trade practices. Apr 22, 2021"

[Sarcastr0]

And we're back to 'I don't believe a word of the speech, but the existence of the speech is very important.'

Surely you see how this is overdetermined, and how much you are filling in with assumptions that businesses agree with your take.

[Kazinski]

Surely even you can see Hochul thinks its an entirely rational fear and she is trying to head it off.

And it is overdetermined:
"determine, account for, or cause (something) in more than one way or with more conditions than are necessary."

Or did you mean underdetermined?

[Sarcastr0]

You think politicians only engage people when they have a *rational* concern?!

That is ridiculous. You missed how politically ignorant it is, because you're too laser focused on your narrative.

When I say overdetermined, I mean every bit of evidence is either ignored or turned so that it supports your preferred story.

[Kazinski]

Well then say that, because that’s not what overdetermined means.

And here is one data point for you.
https://twitter.com/GrantCardone/status/1759707635916452065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1759707635916452065%7Ctwgr%5E1d34660465516819fc06125525782775a8b4c45c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Flevon%2F2024%2F02%2F19%2Freal-estate-investor-grant-cardone-says-he-wont-invest-in-ny-will-double-efforts-in-several-red-states-n2170362

And here is another:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/donald-trump-truckers-boycott-new-york-city-b2498838.html

[Bwaaah]

Hochul: "I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior"

All major real estate developers lie about their valuations, and are therefore law-breakers just like Trump. Hochul can't say why they're safe. Her qualification, that they be "law-abiding," doesn't save them, and to the contrary, indicates they are at risk.

But they aren't. She's a lying sack of shit. They don't have to be law-abiding to go unpunished. They just have to *not* be Donald Trump.

Destroy Trump. (And pretend this is the rule of law.)

[Nige]

'All major real estate developers lie about their valuations, and are therefore law-breakers just like Trump'

Amazing how many people are as guilty as Trump despite specifics, let alone evidence.

[Keldonric]

IANAL
I do not think it would be hard to imagine that many entities would have actions covered by the section.

"The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false
promise or unconscionable contractual provisions."

This seems to state that even "legal" concealment or misrepresentation, as will take place during negotiations, would fall under the scope of this statute.

Does this statue make illegal anything but absolute truth and complete transparency?

[LawTalkingGuy]

[SimonP]

Brett - I am not really sure how to punctuate this bubble of aggressive stupidity you've constructed around yourself. But Orin provided you a link that was sufficient to illustrate to you, a layperson with no training in the law or familiarity with its nuances, why your complaining about the "civil" nature of this claim or the lack of "damages" was leagues off-base.

The more you repeat this complaint, the more you're just illustrating to the lawyers here that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that you also don't care to inform yourself and refine your understanding. You're committed to your outrage, and you'll continue to tug at this point like your leaky penis pump, wondering why it doesn't get any results. Just fucking stop already.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the lawyers need to understand is that we are their masters, not they ours.

Change can come peacefully, as it did after Watergate, or it can come violently as it did in 1775 and 1786. But change is coming and you don't own us.

[SimonP]

The country's founding fathers were lawyers, politicians, military officers, established businessmen. They varied in age, but many were young men with a fresh vision for the country.

You have no right to invoke their legacy or purport to count yourself among them. You're a moron nursing violent fantasies in order to distract yourself from the utter failure of a life you've led, as you're heading into your twilight years, bound no doubt to die in diseased poverty.

If any violent revolt comes, you will not be fighting in it, you will provide no material support for its cause. You will cower anonymously like the coward you are, and watch silently as a disorganized bunch of poorly-armed idiots fails to accomplish anything other than demonstrate to the nation's population that we've tolerated your idiocy far longer than has been healthy. Which will, of course, only enrage you further.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nah, you're country's in deep shit.

People across the political spectrum, and especially the youth, are deeply angry about your system. They are tired of being lied to constantly by your oligarchy, and they can see that the system is rigged.

You need major, major reforms. And the people elected to office cannot be trusted to bring those about. Further, your entrenched bureaucracy isn't just anti-democratic, its institutional norms make it impossible for the myth of American republicanism (let alone democracy) to be believed.

I blame Chester A Arthur.

But also Lincoln.

[Nige]

'are deeply angry about your system'

And they see Trump as a symptom.

[Theendoftheleft]

Some do. Many, many millions seem (rightly or wrongly) to view him as an antidote---especially since the political parties aren't trustworthy.

Similarly in Blighty. What self-respecting Tory could still possibly respect Sunak? or Boris? The party has proven to the people that voting for Brexit has meant nothing in terms of immigration, subordination to key EU institutions, etc. Many Labour voters are also still upset that that their preferred totalitarian Marxist was outed from the leadership position.

[Nige]

'Many, many millions seem (rightly or wrongly) to view him as an antidote'

Yeah, mostly the people who think Brexit is going well and who think Europe is too woke and could do with being a bit more Christian.

[Theendoftheleft]

What if they’re Muslims? What if they’re Hindus? What if they’re atheists? A lot of people despise what’s being done to their countries now, including in Blighty, and not just worshipers of the dead jew god.

You’re really quite blind, or at least wholly indifferent, to your imperialism and totalitarianism, yeah?

You’re not a real liberal or libertarian. Your espoused ideology is a veneer for a comprehensive social re-engineering project, one for which your lot lacks any credible empirically-grounded-and-tested knowledge and skills. Were things otherwise, you would easily be able to point to the established social scientific literature establishing the effectiveness of known techniques (to yield the social norms and outcomes you desire, within some bandwidth).

You don’t even have a ‘bloody theory’, at least not a publicly established social scientific one. All you have is your veneer-ideology and normative aspirations masquerading as knowledge and skills. It turns out you’re no different from the Marxists in your global social re-engineering aims and efforts to police and reshape forms of consciousness. (The only difference is that you just aren’t focused on eliminating class distinctions.)

Kapeesh, Ingsoc?

[Nige]

'What if they’re Muslims? What if they’re Hindus? What if they’re atheists?'

One would hope they're too intelligent to fall for the populist anti-wokism scam creating scapegoats for fascists, but one hopes that about everyone. However it's Christian groups in Europe that are getting the funding from far-right Christian nationalists in the US, and Putin, to keep the hate alive.

'Kapeesh'

Uh, no. You’re raving, building straw men, gish galloping, making shit up and there’s some sort of formless and generic conspiracy theory in there, too.

Fwiw I'm *definitely* not a libertarian.

[Bwaaah]

He wasn't building straw men, Nige. He was talking about _you_. One day, you might try to justify _your_ position, with seriousness. For a lot of talk about how things should be, you never describe how we get from here to there without resorting to the age-old screwing of the many for the vision of one genius.

[Nige]

What the actual fuck are you on about? My position about how things should be is stuff like: don't persecute trans people. Fucking up the environment is a really bad idea. War is bad. You can control borders without treating people inhumanely. Stuff like that.

[Theendoftheleft]

Gender is COMPLETELY social constructed, yet SOMEHOW essential to trans identity. Ignore the doubethink! Accuse people of ‘ignorance’ instead—including the TERFs!

Police, through institutional and governmental rules, and via media influence, the idea that 'gender' pronouns refer to gender and not to sex.

Police WHICH pronouns must be used for people.

And PRETEND that ALL of that isn’t entirely political (let alone Orwellian). Pretend that it’s just about respecting a floor of basic civility (basic, SHARED, social/moral/etiquette norms) and treating people with basic respect. Pretend that those are not instead a political moves, ones meant to both normalize and control what’s acceptable to say and think and what’s not. To ASSUME equality when that’s entirely contestable, when reasoned debate (that involve scientific evidence) is warranted. It is to place the issue into the range of identity self-formation and/or socialization, and outside of the sphere of medical science—based WHOLLY on ideology, NOT upon science.

War is bad! But not our chicanery abroad. When WE do it, it’s to defend against imperialism, and to defend democracy!

You’re evil, Ingsoc. You are totalitarian. Your mystifications cannot screen what’s going on any longer.

[Nige]

'Gender is COMPLETELY social constructed, yet SOMEHOW essential to trans identity.'

This straw man sounds like a good reason to pass laws against trans people!

'Police WHICH pronouns must be used for people.'

The opposite. People use their own pronouns.

'And PRETEND'

Lotta mind-reading in this bit.

'But not our chicanery abroad'

What chicanery have you been up to? This is tiresome. You're talking to yourself.

'Your mystifications cannot screen what’s going on any longer.'

Rant harder. None of it makes sense, but you can be nice and loud, I suppose.

[Theendoftheleft]

It’s no strawman (strawperson???), Ingsoc: there is no credible, scientifically-grounded claim for trans’ gender (as opposed to sex) essentialism. Trans folks and their allies largely accept the gender social constructivity proposition, but can never ground their own essentialist claims.

You can deflect all you want. It’s clear what the uni policies now require, what criminal law now requires in certain jurisdictions, etc, in terms of thought policing. Thoroughly fucking evil. Unforgivably totalitarian.

[Nige]

'It’s no strawman'

Oh it absolutely is. This is supposed to be about what I supposedly think, remember? Not the wimpy pathetic libs who you trounce effortlessly in debates in your head. But good to know you're one of the screeching hysterics that actually think the world is threatened by the existence of trans people. It really marks you out as a profoundly stupid person.

'It’s clear what the uni policy now requires, what criminal law now requires in certain jurisdictions, etc, in terms of thought policing.'

I recognise all those words, but that is not a sentence.

For someone who claims to loathe the US you absolutely fully and completely bought in to the American right wing culture war, didn't you?

'Thoroughly fucking evil. Unforgivably totalitarian.'

Remember, in scapegoating and supporting the persecution of trans people, you're following in the footsteps of the Nazis.

[David Nieporent]

What if they’re Muslims? What if they’re Hindus? What if they’re atheists? A lot of people despise what’s being done to their countries now, including in Blighty, and not just worshipers of the dead jew god.

Immigration is not something "being done to" a country.

And ranting that every change you don't like is 'social re-engineering' plays better at Nuremberg rallies than in reasoned discussion.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nah Ingsoc, ALL trans defenders take the same line, ‘libs’ or otherwise. They unite in their defense of the very concept of transgenderism, let alone trans ‘rights’.

All your responses vis-a-vis trans are subsumable under what I wrote vis-a-vis treating it a matter basic civility, and as if they’re normal and their identities must be held as respectable and equal.

There was ZERO scapegoating of trans: they’re the ones insistent upon their identities, their rights, etc, all whilst employing totalitarian tactics. Ask any TERF. Ask anyone in the scientific community who has to deal with this topic. The dialogue around trans, as promoted and enforced BY trans and their allies, is squarely totalitarian.

Thanks for providing further evidence–including your nonsense claim about somehow being threatened by their identity, or thinking the world somehow is.

Choose Reason, Ingsoc.

[Theendoftheleft]

Flooding millions of poor people into Western countries now, from various cultures, is social re-engineering, Ingsoc. You’re committed not merely to cultural genocide, but to a larger project of pan-cultural genocide.

Your capacity to gaslight is waning.

You have no scientific or social scientific competency to make a new inclusive society, and you will not tolerate a spontaneous ordering of new social and moral norms. You’re just screwing everyone over in the name of your normative aspirations for (what you consider to be) a better society and world.

You’re fake.

Nieporent: your efforts to slight, to delegitimize, etc., by comparing to Nazis or anyone else, doesn’t make the diagnosis untrue. In the American jargon, it cannot be a government of the people by the people for the people when those people are all treated as fungible commodities and millions upon millions of them are to be thrown under the bus socioeconomically in order to fashion a new sort of society. Doing so is anti-democratic. It’s anti-rule of law. It’s anti-republican and anti-constitutional monarchy. It’s evil and unjust.

[David Nieporent]

Flooding millions of poor people into Western countries now, from various cultures, is social re-engineering,

It turns out that immigrants have agency and nobody is "flooding" them here.

You’re committed not merely to cultural genocide, but to a larger project of pan-cultural genocide.

That's very much not an actual thing.

It's certainly not a thing in the U.S., which is not a degenerate blood-and-soil European country where immigrants are deemed to be outside the people.

In the American jargon, it cannot be a government of the people by the people for the people when those people are all treated as fungible commodities

In the American jargon, immigrants are part of the people. And it's sort of rich to describe immigrants as a "flood" and then whine about treating people as "fungible commodities."

and millions upon millions of them are to be thrown under the bus socioeconomically in order to fashion a new sort of society.

Again, not a thing. Immigration is good for the economy.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your bald assertions are worse than useless, Nieporent.

Have you every considered the possibility that you’re a wildly uninformed, parochial ideologue?

Do you even understand the points about transgenderism...?

[Nige]

‘ALL trans defenders take the same line,’

How devious of them not to say the utterly bizarre things you’d prefer them to say forcing you to resort to mind-reading and pure invention.

‘There was ZERO scapegoating of trans’

You must not be paying attention to your own comments.

‘or thinking the world somehow is.’

You expend a lot of convoluted and broadly nonsensical verbiage on people who are by your own admission zero threat to anyone, and who at the same time are imposing some sort of overwhelmingly evil totalitarian order on the world. Umberto Eco has words about that sort of thing.

‘Flooding millions of poor people into Western countries now, from various cultures, is social re-engineering’

People move around. It’s a thing that happens, especially when there are wars and disasters. There has never been a time in the history of the world when people weren’t moving.

‘You’re committed not merely to cultural genocide, but to a larger project of pan-cultural genocide.’

What? No more Marvel movies?

‘You have no scientific or social scientific competency to make a new inclusive society,’

I don’t think there’s a scientific element to any argument about not persecuting minorities or not treating poor people inhumanely. Maybe your science says you have to do those things. Your science is bad.

‘Do you even understand the points about transgenderism…?’

Yeah. Standard right-wing reactionary hate.

[David Nieporent]

Have you every considered the possibility that you’re a wildly uninformed, parochial ideologue?

Yes. Have you ever considered the possibility that you're a racist Putin propagandist?

[Theendoftheleft]

MY science??? Right, yeah, innit Big Bruv?

Your superficial responses show just how untenable your ideological blather is. You CANNOT respond on the merits.

You do, however, provide even more evidence of my claim about mystification and the presentation of the matter as being non-political and simply one of basic civility and decency. Thank you for that.

Nieporent: given that there are millions upon millions of illegals, not all of whom are indigenous Central and South Americans seeking socioeconomic improvement, why wouldn’t any civilized Western country consider their entrance and staying to be a national security threat? So… is Putin paying YOU to publicly support open borders, or are you just a useful idiot? (And since you cannot point to anything actually racist stated, your delegitimization tactic to that end won’t succeed.)

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Change can come peacefully, as it did after Watergate, or it can come violently as it did in 1775 and 1786. But change is coming and you don’t own us"

Is it my imagination, or has Nostradamus Ed grown more circumspect? I swear in the old days he would have come out and predicted revolution, mayhem, oceans of blood & swarms of locust - all just beyond the next horizon. Hell, he's foretold more apocalyptic end days than I have fingers&toes, thrice-over.

Damn if he doesn't seem to be growing coy on us.....

[Longtobefree]

You are clearly confusing a court of law with a hall of justice.

[Keldonric]

As a non-lawyer, I came to gain more understanding of this aspect of the issue. It does not seem morally correct that the state would be one of the parties in a civil suit. I, also wondered about the manner of prosecution and individuals without the same level of resouces as Mr. Trump. There are probably legal technicalities that make this approach legal as far as New York statutory law is concerned. Could this approach be taken in any case where confinement is not available as a result? I hesitate to use the word punishment here, so "result" will have to do. When I read about these sorts of things, "A Man for All Seasons" springs to mind.

[David Nieporent]

The government (federal and state) sues people civilly all the time.

[Keldonric]

I think that is where I am lacking understanding. Most of the searches I performed returned results where there is a difference between civil and criminal cases. The nuances are interesting.

[not guilty]

Uh, Donald Trump has not been "lynch[ed] in NYC." Dr. Ed 2, if in the next life you meet James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, I hope they beat the stuffing out of you and Clarence Toady every day for trivializing the horror of lynching.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I fail to see the distinction -- both were unconstitutional abused of state power.

[not guilty]

You, sir, are a moral idiot. (Probably an intellectual idiot, as well.) And lynching sometimes involved state power, sometimes not.

[Life of Brian]

Oooo... it's Monday morning morals from Mr. Guilty!

What are your thoughts on, say, this fine specimen of humanity?

[not guilty]

I used to know the man well. A fine jury trial lawyer. He made some mistakes along the way, but you, sir, are unfit to shine his shoes.

[Life of Brian]

I used to know the man well.

That's softpedaling it just a bit, don'tcha think?

He made some mistakes along the way

Ditto above. Though there are so many things to be curious about, what was magical about the $7,500 amount that seems to keep popping up in these reports of misappropriating client retainers? Was that just below some sort of statutory threshold?

but you, sir, are unfit to shine his shoes.

Given that 8 years later Mr. Long remains disbarred and has not sought reinstatement (and indeed apparently did not even respond to a subsequent disciplinary proceeding involving four additional clients to the tune of another $40k), I'm in full agreement -- and in fact greatly relieved -- that he and I do not appear to approach the practice of law in anywhere even resembling the same realm. But I do find your choice of heroes telling.

[not guilty]

Last I knew, Mr. Long was employed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and he was much happier than when he was practicing law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He doesn't appear to be an employee of the Commonwealth:
https://transparency.ky.gov/search/Pages/SalarySearch.aspx#/salary

But compare this to Trump -- he STOLE money from people, I doubt he paid it back, and Trump did neither.

[not guilty]

My most recent information dates to spring of last year. I don't know where he is now.

[Absaroka]

"He made some mistakes along the way"

Is this felony extortion case the same guy?

"When the victim refused, the TBI said Long joined Gasaway in making continued demands for the additional payment and later obtained a warrant for her arrest."

If this is the same guy, overcharging clients then getting warrants for the client seems pretty bad. What has LoB done that makes him unfit to shine an extortionist's shoes?

[Krychek_2]

I'm having trouble understanding what "this fine specimen of humanity" has to do with anything at all that we're discussing. Did I miss something, or is this just a typical right-wing what about distraction?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, you missed NG outing himself last week. I was surprised after that he opted to come back and swipe at people about their morality, but I'm rolling with it.

[Sarcastr0]

This is pretty close to doxxing, and you should cut it out.

[Life of Brian]

As is your wont, you're doing extreme violence to both the terms "doxxing" and "pretty close to."

[SimonP]

It may not precisely constitute "doxxing," but it's pretty squicky when you're trying to "out" someone who regularly antagonizes VC commenters who openly enthuse about killing "liberals" here.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Luckily for us they’re all clearly LARPing pussies.

[Life of Brian]

And another one tags in. The thread of course is clear that I'm not "trying to 'out'" anyone -- he already took care of that himself last week. I've not posted his name as a professional courtesy, but any summer intern that could not conclusively determine it in 5 minutes or less based on the information he provided would not be invited back.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve not posted his name as a professional courtesy/i>

Whether you're correct or not, you are threatening doxxing. And you seem pretty smug about it as well.

What a fucker you are.

You fucking suck as much as Ed and all his bloody fantasies.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I’m in full agreement — and in fact greatly relieved — that he and I do not appear to approach the practice of law in anywhere even resembling the same realm.”

I’m pretty sure you don’t commit easily discoverable and sanctionable misconduct like your example. But I’m also pretty sure that you are known far and wide as a major asshole by judges and other lawyers.

[SimonP]

The thread of course is clear that I’m not “trying to ‘out'” anyone — he already took care of that himself last week.

LOB, you know full well what you are doing.

NG may have given the VC commentariat enough rope to chase him down and become real-life nuisances. Again, given the teeming hatred stewing in the commentariat, I am happy to acknowledge that was imprudent on his part. But it is an unspoken rule among active pseudonymous internet commenters like ourselves that what happens online stays online. We may come at one another sharply online, but we don't take our petty disputes here to try to cause real-life harm, even to those with whom we ardently disagree.

It's a kind of professional courtesy. If you, or Brett, or Kazinski, or Dr. Ed, were to inadvertently reveal personally-identifying information about yourselves, I wouldn't look for opportunities to share that information or invite the more unhinged commenters to use that information to cause real-life trouble for them. Heck, there's a couple commenters who use their real names here, who can easily be identified in real life, and I wouldn't do that.

But instead, you're making your moral character clear, here, by linking back to, publicizing, and drawing attention to a stray admission by NG. Fortunately for NG, he almost always conducts himself here in ways that are respectable and even-keeled - so he likely has little to fear if some anonymous tip comes in to try to cause professional trouble for him. But that is not a kind of attack you, or any of us, should be inviting. And you know it.

[Life of Brian]

That's all very neat and tidy, Simon, but the careful reader might note that to cover all your bases you shifted from "someone who regularly antagonizes VC commenters" (yup) to someone who "almost always conducts himself here in ways that are respectable and even-keeled" (not even close, under any reasonable definition of "almost").

As you may recall, he routinely pivots from merits to qualifications as a way of shutting down discussion, and aggressively demands specifics on credentials and accomplishments. I've repeatedly explained why I don't and won't go down that path, which he then triumphantly declares as proof that I'm unqualified to speak on whatever the topic may be. It became such a predictable cycle that after a while I started frontrunning it in my initial responses just to save time. So I agree that the boast was dumb, but given his chosen measuring stick it's pretty hard to see it as inadvertent.

And to your final what-if scenario re anonymous tipsters and professional trouble, NG has always presented himself as retired and I've seen nothing to contradict that. The rest of your parade of horribles is, I take it, just for dramatic effect and not something you actually believe might happen.

[Sarcastr0]

VC is fun, if a bit dramatic.

Life is serious.

This is why doxxing is so fucked up; in the interest of winning arguments in the fun space, it makes it not the fun space anymore.

[SimonP]

That’s all very neat and tidy,...

All your response really amounts to, LOB, is: He deserves it, and it's harmless anyway.

No attempt to address the point I'd actually made.

[Sarcastr0]

No need to engage with someone who thinks pulling that shit is cool and good.

Plenty of other people to debate with.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fortunately for NG, he almost always conducts himself here in ways that are respectable..."

Which do you find more respectable, the comments about "Uncle Thomas" or the claims that the size of Ashleigh Merchant's tits prove that she's a liar?

[Sarcastr0]

Keep your comments within the bounds of the blog; this isn't hard.

I didn't think you'd be so self-oriented you'd take your wins by going after parts of posters' offline lives which they don't appear to be open about, whether or not you're accurate in your suppositions.

Really low behavior. I've found you tedious and supercilious, but this is a level of bad no one else has stooped to.

[Absaroka]

"Whether you’re correct or not, you are threatening doxxing"

I agree. Not cool.

[Life of Brian]

Well, Sarc's perpetual distortions I can fade, but if you truly got the impression I was threatening to directly disclose his identity then I should say in so many words I wasn't. My focus throughout this exchange has been about what he's actually made of compared to what he has pompously and overbearingly represented himself to be over the past few years, not his name.

[Absaroka]

Thanks, glad to hear it. I think it's really valuable to hear from people who might not post if they were worried about their livelihoods being compromised by a twitter mob if they take some unpopular position.

[Nige]

'My focus throughout this exchange has been about what he’s actually made of compared to what he has pompously and overbearingly represented himself to be over the past few years, not his name.'

We all know how much you hate ad hominim.

[Kazinski]

Its ridiculous to call that doxxing, linking to last weeks comment thread.

And you might ask DN, or Esper, Lathrop, or Brett how much harassment they have gotten using their real names.

Quit being a paranoid idiot.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not. I don't know if the analysis is correct, or if it was revealed negligently, but it's not consensual, and using that shit to win arguments is immoral and small.

[OtisAH]

Dude, we know. Literally everyone who reads NG’s post immediately thinks “Dr Ed cannot see the distinction.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

Everything old is new again. Here from Madison is an exasperated description of Anti-Federalist advocacy. It expresses a feeling I get all too often reading comments on this blog:

. . . more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Also, it is impossible not to be struck again and again by an identity in style between today's MAGA movement, and the utterances of Anti-Federalists. Among the more literate MAGAs that identity extends both to their choices of sources for historical quotation, and to an unreflectively axiomatic and hyper-rationalistic style of argument—the latter being another complaint of Madison's. The resemblance is remarkable.

It is almost as if there is one enduring and preferred way to think about killing American constitutionalism, which arises from a revulsion engendered exactly by what the Constitution decrees.

[NvEric]

There are others than the MAGA crowd who know the “germs” to which infect our Republic by those who are temporarily “infect” the federal government, such as the Biden “Gang.”

Please bring up Madison more !, a non-lawyer, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution” – a rather “simple” man who knew stuff. He was more than you might think and would be more MAGA than a Democrat, as he would have been very strongly against what is going on today with the Constitution and its debasement by the Democratic Party, in particular. Not that the Republican Party has “clean” hands, but at least there’s MAGA and Trump to spotlight the utter failure of today’s degenerate political situation towards what the Revolution was partly about, but is greater today as it inflicts onto a greater number – ending the abhorrent misuse of law.

Please bring up Madison more !

[Stephen Lathrop]

NvEric, of course I urge everyone to read Madison. And for everyone I offer the same advice. While reading any essay by Madison, suspend judgment about every paragraph until you get to the overall conclusion. You strike me as someone especially in need of that advice.

[David Nieporent]

a rather “simple” man who knew stuff.

Do you know that we're talking about James Madison?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The roots of the Jacksonian Democracy were in the Anti-Federalists.

[Kazinski]

You kind of ignore that it was the Anti-Federalists that held out until it was agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, which Madison opposed.

I’d say that since the legacy of the Anti-Federalist movement is the most revered part of the Constitution, the part that keeps from being at the mercy of the government, then I’d say your criticism is misplaced.

The Anti-Federalists did the nation a great service. Although looking at our current bloated government they probably should have held out for more.

If you want to identify the Anti-Federalist patriots with MAGA, it is hardly an insult.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, consider two constitutions. First, a Constitution with a Bill of Rights; second, the same Constitution without a Bill of Rights—with both enforced on a principle that every power not explicitly granted is withheld.

Do you conclude that the Constitution with a Bill of Rights better promulgates and protects personal rights than the other one?

What would you answer to a critic who insists that explicitly including some rights cannot fail to disparage all others not explicitly included, no matter what other text may say to the contrary?

Whatever answers you may have to those questions, are they founded on axiomatic insight, or are they founded on proofs you can deliver empirically?

[Kazinski]

I can only look at the British experience that shows that rights not clearly written in a constitution are ephemeral.

After all our Second Amendment was based on the 1689 Declaration of Right that said Protestants had the right of arms 'suitable to their defense', but now not only guns but knives for self defense are illegal.

Not to mention you can be arrested there for offensive tweets, or reading wrong passages of the bible in public.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, the British comparison is inapt. Parliament in Britain enjoys plenary power. The comparison I asked you about involved a government from which every power not explicitly granted is withheld. Please tell me your answers to the questions I asked based on that premise.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, also, see what you left out?:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

That is not, as you may suppose, announcement of a right to bear arms. It is instead a declaration that most British subjects, including Protestants, would remain disarmed, while a few who had been disqualified would be restored to privilege. The vast majority of the population, as everyone understood at the time, could not get over the bar, "suitable to their Conditions," in a class-bound society.

Why did you misquote the text you cited?

[santamonica811]

[posted in wrong thread]

[Michael P]

Apparently it's racist and sexist to expect government officials not to hire their paramours, at least when those paramours are married to other people. And maybe racist to allow them to testify that they covered election-campaign funds to personal use. https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/02/trump-georgia-case-race-card-playing-msm-rush-to-fani-willis-rescue-after-disastrous-testimony/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lawyers behaving badly -- reminds me of Watergate.

[not guilty]

The number of lawyers involved in Watergate was the impetus for the ABA requiring professional ethics instruction at all of its accredited law schools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't it what caused there to be enforcement of these rules?

[not guilty]

No. Prior to Watergate it was not a curriculum requirement for all law schools. That was before I was paying attention, but I surmise that many schools taught professional ethics before it became an ABA requirement for accreditation.

[not guilty]

Last week's hearing in Fulton County on various defendants' motions to disqualify Fani Wills turned into a clusterfuck. The movants came nowhere close to showing a conflict of interest supporting disqualification, and dismissal of the indictment was always a nonstarter.

Terrence Bradley, the witness who had represented Nathan Wade in divorce proceedings, seemed dumb as a box of rocks. I suspect that he had given Mike Roman's lawyer, Ashley DDD Merchant, an earful of salacious information, but then crawfished away from that after being reminded that Mr. Wade had not waived the attorney-client privilege.

It appears to me that Rule 1.6(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct imposes a duty of confidentiality as to information gained in the professional relationship with a client which is broader than privileged communications. (I suspect that many lawyers don't understand this.) Judge McAfee seemed to disagree with that reading, and he's the judge while I am not. Rule 1.6(a) states:

(a) A lawyer shall maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional relationship with a client, including information which the client has requested to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the client, unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or are required by these rules or other law, or by order of the court.

I suppose the "or by order of the court" language is broad enough to support Judge McAfee's ruling, but that is a ruling I would not have made.

[Michael P]

That's an awfully thin reed to support blocking evidence of perjury. Imagine if anyone had held Michael Cohen to such a standard.

[not guilty]

I'll bite. What "evidence of perjury" do you posit is being blocked?

Please be specific, including facts showing falsity and materiality of the underlying "perjured" testimony.

[Michael P]

Willis and Wade told the court that their romantic relationship began after Wade was appointed as special prosecutor, mitigating the conflict of interest. Terrence Bradley apparently has knowledge to the contrary, but cannot testify to those facts because he represented Wade at the time he learned of the affair.

[not guilty]

What facts indicate the falsity of Ms. Willis's and Mr. Wade's testimonies? You speculate that Terrence Bradley "apparently" has knowledge to the contrary, but you provide no supporting facts.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

[Michael P]

Oh, you’re back on your insufferably lame shtick. I can’t point to facts that support you having a brain, so I better assume you don’t.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/witness-says-da-fani-willis-and-nathan-wade-started-a-relationship-years-earlier-than-claimed

[not guilty]

Okay. Did you watch Robin Yeartie's testimony? She plainly has an ax to grind with Fani Willis -- she was given the options of resigning or being fired from her employment in the District Attorney's office. She gave no supporting details regarding the timing of the personal relationship, and based on her demeanor while testifying, she is no one's paragon of credibility.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you thought Fanny's NWA demeanor was credible?

[not guilty]

Calling a black person by the first name without permission is racist, or at best insensitive and boorish.

Ms. Willis's displays of anger did not help her, but they were entirely consistent with having been falsely accused. Miss DDD's examination didn't shake her in any respect, and her testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.

Judge McAfee will make credibility determinations, but even if the testimony is considered in the light most favorable to the defendants, there is no ground for disqualification here. An amicus brief filed on behalf of 17 ethics experts and state and federal prosecutors from Georgia contains an excellent discussion of the applicable law. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24410261/ethicsamicusfulton_2624.pdf

[Michael P]

Lawyer who calls an attorney "Miss DDD" claims that calling someone by their first name without permission is racist.

Remove that log from your own eye first, champ.

[not guilty]

Ashleigh Merchant was noticeably bustier in court last week than when she was photographed wearing a Nathan Wade for Judge t shirt. Fake tits are attractive, but they indicate deception.

[Sarcastr0]

ng, quit with the fake tits thing; it's not provable and it's a bad look.

Michael P, choosing to engage solely via tone policing shows how little interest you have to get into the actual substance required to pack up your accusation of perjury.
Such accusations would probably go farther if you made them on 4chan or something.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The 17 purported experts merely confirm that the whole system is corrupt. It either needs a dramatic reform or outright replacement.

Rapists & murderers go free, stores have to lock up toothpaste and yet we have political showtrials like this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG, for all you know, she had breast cancer and these are replacements.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’ll bite. What “evidence of perjury” do you posit is being blocked?"

As you surmised, Wade had told his former lawyer that the affair began when he was a municipal court judge, in contradiction to what they both testified in this trial. Bradely texted this information to Merchant, but the judge disallowed it due to attorney client privilege.

So the judge isn't allowed to use the texts to infer that Wade and Willis lied to the court, but the rest of us are under no such compunction.

[David Nieporent]

Not clear why you would believe unsworn text messages from an unethical lawyer¹ (who had been fired after being accused of sexual assault) over sworn testimony.
​
​
¹Either Bradley is lying about Willis/Wade — which even Trumpkins should understand is bad — or Bradley is divulging privileged information, which is even less ethical.

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee was following the law. O.C.G.A. § 24-9-25 states in relevant part:

No attorney shall be competent or compellable to testify for or against his client to any matter or thing, the knowledge of which he may have acquired from his client by virtue of his employment as attorney or by reason of the anticipated employment of him as attorney.

Moreover, Mr. Bradley's out of court statements to Ms. Merchant, if offered for the truth of the matter asserted, are inadmissible hearsay. Mr. Bradley had not testified as to the content of what he had said to Ms. Merchant, so the texts do not qualify as the witness's prior inconsistent statement. Even if they did, a prior inconsistent statement is not admitted to show that the prior statement is true, but only as bearing on the credibility of the witness's courtroom testimony.

It was the defense's burden to show, by admissible evidence, factual grounds for the relief sought by the defense motions. Ms. Merchant should have anticipated that what Mr. Wade allegedly told Mr. Bradley is privileged and confidential. The motions to dismiss/disqualify the prosecutors were never anything other than a sideshow to distract from the actual issues for trial, that is, the evidence or absence of evidence that the defendants did what they are accused of.

Defense counsel's pursuit of the motions violates professional ethics. Rule 3.1 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct states:

In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

(a) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another;

(b) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

[tylertusta]

… and dismissal of the indictment was always a nonstarter

Correct. Her statements to the public in response to the filings by defense attorneys are why the indictment should be dismissed.

Ashley DDD Merchant

Well NG, you got her all figured out. All of her lawyering and getting her motion to disqualify to where it is right now is nothing compared to her cup size.

Are you going to make fun of her kids, too?

How about her car?

Judge McAfee seemed to disagree with that reading

“Seems to” is an understatement. He said that 1.6 flat out doesn’t apply here and he ordered Bradley to answer without consideration to 1.6.

Bradley’s fallback position is actual attorney-client privilege, but he’s on thin ice there as well. Judge McAfee is going to hear Bradley in camera and will decide whether its privileged or not.

but then crawfished away from that after being reminded that Mr. Wade had not waived the attorney-client privilege.

I’ve heard that it’s not uncommon for these state prosecution offices to be run like little autocratic kingdoms. Bradley’s statements might not even be privileged, but he’d rather risk contempt rather than risk Fani Willis’s wrath.

And while Willis can’t go after him explicitly for his testimony, Willis’s boytoy Wade knows where the skeletons are in Bradley’s closet.

[not guilty]

Ashleigh Merchant's legal skills are wholly unimpressive. Last week's hearing showed that her witness examination skills and prehearing preparation are sorely deficient. In Mr. Roman's original motion, she wrongly accused Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade of theft of honest services based on a legal theory that SCOTUS had expressly repudiated in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 408-411 (2010). If Ms. Merchant was unaware of Skilling, that is rank incompetence. If she was aware of it but failed to disclose it to the Court, that is quite an ethical lapse.

Nothing about Ms. Willis's statements to the public in response to the filings by defense attorneys warrants any relief whatsoever. Judge McAfee recognized that in advance of the hearing, and he rightly refused to entertain testimony about such statements.

[tylertusta]

And what does her cup size have to do with it?

[not guilty]

As I said upthread, she was noticeably bustier in court than she was when photographed wearing a Nathan Wade t shirt in 2016. Fake tits are a marker of deception.

[tylertusta]

I googled "Fake tits are a marker of deception in law" and came up empty.

I'm only left to conclude that you're making this argument with your own personal experiences.

Tell me, how many lawyers with fake breasts have lied to you? Does it happen often?

[mulched]

I want to see how often he's filed bar ethics complaints based on fake tits.

[not guilty]

Uh, nothing I said about fake tits is specific to lawyers. But the very purpose of breast implants is to create the false impression that a woman, who is not naturally well endowed, is well endowed. That qualifies as deception.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Or perhaps they aren't happy with the shape, or perhaps they had a mastectomy.

Either way, attacking her over her breast size, natural or otherwise, is sexist and should be beneath you. You've certainly lived long enough to where you should know better.

[Magister]

"I've looked at tits from both sides now
From small and large, and still somehow
It's tits' illusions that I recall
I really don't know tits at all"

Sorry to both-sides the issue.

[Kazinski]

No they are not. Having worked in the fake fits business for years I'm not going to sit here and listen to you denigrate them.

While I was a low level employee, I knew giants in the industry, I knew the guy who worked on the custom forms used for Dolly Parton's implants, but that was in the 70's so she's probably had them replaced a few times since then.

I myself worked on a pair of 1600cc beauties reputably for a stripper in Las Vegas.

But actually I doubt Ashley Merchant has fake breasts, you are just jealous.

[grb]

Dude, I always suspected you were an authority on something. Through all your missteps and bungled arguments, there was some underlying expertise I coud sense but never see.

Finally it's there and clear! For all my breast augmentation questions and quandaries, you're now my go-to source!

[Kazinski]

Well I was actually casting sanding plastic mandrels they used in the molds for the Silicon rubber shells. But I got a promotion to shipping and receiving.

But it was a small company, and I got to know the marketing director who claimed to be able to tell whether the Playboy centerfolds had implants based on a profile view. I also was charged to get the mail, so I got first crack at the plastic surgery journals with before and after pictures.

And of course I had a few interesting conversations in bars with young women who had lots of questions when they found out I worked for an implant company. Of course back in the 70’s 3 of the 4 implant manufacturers in the US were based in Santa Barbara.

[grb]

Beats the hell out of any of my early jobs. You get points both on & off for not spicing-up the tale (honesty being all well & good, but a little exaggeration wouldn’t have hurt either). As for Playboy centerfolds, I’m convinced I could tell - with sufficent practice.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I could have done worse, 2 years working at a pool hall, because i spent all my time there anyway. Then a stint as a postal rural route carrier in southern Napa Valley, part time, then the breast implant factory, then a computer programmer starting when I was 28. Then i went back to school and got my degree at 31. Then worked 30 more years programming.

[grb]

Geez, I worked every job imaginable at some point or another. Hod carrier, furniture mover, road crew, construction work, warehouse gofer, roofer, a bunch of different jobs at a concrete plant (including helping move railroad cars about) and - of course - combat draftsman for the United States Army National Guard.

For the latter, I barely did any drafting, opening up my box of tools only to make endless charts. The Army likes charts. This was back in the glorious day when we did'em by hand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Fake tits are a marker of deception.”

Holy shit. This is MRA grade bullshit.

How about billing your clients for work and not performing it? Is that a marker of deception?

Not to mention that it's likely that her tits got bigger as she got older and put on some weight, as many of us do?

Tell us, NG, are your tits bigger than they used to be? Is that a marker of deception?

[Nige]

The anti-ng crowd are completely in the right in this case. And it's not the first time he's pulled shit like this.

[not guilty]

I have my opinions, some of which are controversial, which I am not bashful about expressing. (With the caveat here that opinions are like assholes -- everyone has them, and neither one's opinions nor one's asshole should be offered casually.)

I also bring to these comment threads the chops of a litigator who practiced for decades. I ordinarily support what I say with relevant legal authorities and, where available, original source materials. Can my critics say the same?

When other commenters make unsupported assertions, I am quick to challenge them to provide supporting facts and/or authorities. This leads some commenters to run away like Usain Bolt and others to engage is ad hominem attacks. As Southern folk wisdom teaches, the hit dog hollers.

[Nige]

Your chops as a litigator are admirable. The rest not so much.

[not guilty]

Ashleigh Merchant's conduct in the Fulton County case richly deserves ridicule. For the reasons I have identified elsewhere on this thread, her legal skills are sorely lacking, and her ethics are atrocious. In addition, she did not disclose in her motion to dismiss/ disqualify counsel that she is herself (presumably) playing hide-the-salami with her own co-counsel, whose name does not appear on the signature block.

Is her cup size germane? Probably not, but that augments (pun intended) my general impression that she is a showboat and a phony. Of course, my critics go nowhere near any substantive discussion of her misconduct, preferring to express faux outrage at my DDD mention. (That is one reason I included it -- to draw out the critics' fainting couch phoniness.)

[not guilty]

See what I mean? No one here deigns to defend Ms. Merchant's misconduct.

Ad hominem now!
Ad hominem tomorrow!!
Ad hominem FO'EVAH!!!

[Nige]

'Is her cup size germane? Probably not'

It absolutely is not, and it's misogynistic to refer to it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Ashleigh Madison was wholly unimpressive and I felt like Fani Willis pretty well ate her lunch.

It is absolutely misogynistic to go ad hominem regarding her possible breast augmentation (but women do sometimes develop much larger breasts later in life, I have known several).

It's possible to agree with your substantive point and find your juvenile obsession with a woman's body to be repulsive. You have demonstrated you are far better than that. Don't sink to the level of the usual suspects around here.

[Kazinski]

Willis hardly helped herself with her absurd assertion that she reimbursed Wade with cash and neither could show any sort of paper trail.

But say we accept that, it certainly does raise eyebrows when a public official routinely pays personal expenses with large amounts of cash, especially a prosecutor.

There is an article on the Reason front page linking to the Fulton County budget showing Wilson's office benefited from 322k in asset forfeitures in 2023. Here you have a prosecutors office busy seizing cash that can't be readily explained from citizens, and she's got her own undocumented cash hoard at home from unexplained sources.

But of course the more charitable explanation was she was just lying about reimbursing Wade with cash, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt and not believe she is actually corrupt rather than just subject to ethical lapses.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, what facts suggest that Ms. Willis was lying about reimbursing Mr. Wade with cash? Each one's testimony corroborated the other's, and Mr. Floyd's testimony corroborated that, as he trained her to do, Ms. Willis regularly kept cash on hand.

Speculation and ipse dixit assertions are not facts.

[Kazinski]

Well, I refuse to believe she is accepting cash payoffs, or diverting campaign funds, so am choosing to believe she is merely lying.

Its a well known feature of both federal, state, and local law that large amounts of unexplained cash are markers of suspected criminal activity, and such cash can be seized summarily, as Willis and her office well know.

As JD Tucille points out:
"After years of authorities treating mere possession of physical money as sketchy and grounds for seizure, this week a law enforcement official claimed there's nothing to see in her alleged cash reimbursements to her boyfriend for an enviable lifestyle arguably funded by the taxpayers. Either Fani Willis and company were right in the past and she should be subject to scrutiny for anonymous transactions..."
https://reason.com/2024/02/19/prosecutor-fani-willis-touts-the-value-of-cash-but-what-about-the-rest-of-us/

I don't know about you, but I'm going to take the high road and assume she was lying rather than get down in the gutter and start speculating how many felonies she committed getting the cash, as her own office routinely does.

[not guilty]

IOW, you have no facts whatsoever, only speculation and conjecture.

[Kazinski]

Yes. Just like the prosecutors office themselves when they seize cash from law abiding citizens.

Why should the standard be different for her?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone care to speculate on the source/sources of Fanny's six month stash of cash?

[Nige]

Maybe she listened to some of the conspiracy theories about the pandemic being part of a plot to usher in the cashless society?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not responsive. Source/sources.

[Nige]

Duh.

[Michael P]

Didn't she say that at least some of it came from her election campaign?

[not guilty]

No, she didn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENlsA9mg2aA

[tylertusta]

Well, that's not what she said. She denied making bank withdrawals. When followed-up on where it came from, she said:

"When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that."

Link to relevant testimony

[not guilty]

She was talking about her previous campaign for a municipal court judgeship. She testified that she put about $50,000 of her own money into that campaign. If not all of her own funds that she withdrew was spent, there is nothing irregular about keeping the balance at her house. (If it were contributions from others, that might be a different matter.)

[Life of Brian]

She testified that she put about $50,000 of her own money into that campaign.

Her campaign contribution reports show a total of $39k across two loans, but do not disclose their source (in fact the "Loan Reporting" page on both forms is completely blank).

The forms for her 2020 campaign provide a striking comparison, where she apparently loaned her campaign an exceedingly precise $3,674.20 and filled out the "Loan Reporting" page showing herself as the source.

So as it stands, all we appear to know for certain is that $39k reached her campaign coffers from an undisclosed source, and she later paid herself $8,545.69 as a "loan repayment." If that was indeed her money and she ended up taking a ~$30k bath at the end of the campaign, she certainly didn't paper it up properly.

[Longtobefree]

According to every asset forfeiture action anywhere, if she has a box of cash, she is a drug dealer.

[Nige]

And everybody here absolutely supports the cops calling anyone with cash a drug dealer.

[Jerry B.]

Fulton County does a lot of cash civil asset forfeiture.

[Moderation4ever]

Last week the Wisconsin Legislature, controlled by Republicans, passed the Democratic Governors legislative voting maps. The new maps will provide more fair representation for the citizens and replace hyper-gerrymandered maps that have been in place for years. The reason this was able to pass was because the Wisconsin Supreme Court is now controlled by the liberal justices who would no longer accept hyper-gerrymandered maps. What is important is that the Republican controlled legislature recognized that Gov. Ever only wanted fair maps and offered the best deal they would get. If they allowed other more liberal generated maps to be considered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they risked losing control of the legislature completely. The new maps are not a win for Republicans or Democrats but rather the citizens of Wisconsin. The selection of the maps was an example of I was taught government works. Parties put forth divergent positions but move to a reasonable middle to get laws and maps passed.

[SimonP]

Just imagine what our politics could look like if the Supreme Court had taken a similar approach!

[Kazinski]

That's the approach the Supreme Court did take, they left it up to the political process.

[SimonP]

When you lead with such obvious bad faith, Ted, you do not inspire much interest in debating the point.

[Kazinski]

Well I can't see any bad faith, isn't that literally what the Supreme Court ruled:
"In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts"
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court

And in this case the governor and the legislature came to a political compromise.

[SimonP]

Because they were convinced that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would set a limit on what they could get away with, which SCOTUS has declared it will not do. Obviously.

Fuck off, Ted.

[Jumaira]

The only fair map takes into account the income of the voters.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039

[Nige]

I wonder what he thinks got censored?

Did Tucker as Putin about censorship in Russia, which he think is better than the US?

[Moderation4ever]

Ozempic is an expensive drug and has shown some value in diabetes treatment. It is also popular for weight loss. The expense and the fact that many health insurance plans private and public limit it use or don't pay for it at all will drive for demand down. The interesting question for me is will the public demand for the drug force it to be included in coverage before the market forces the cost down to meet the demand if the consumer must pay for the drug directly. This will be a good chance to observe if the public demand bends government to meet its desire for a product or if limited government ideas win out. I don't think there is a case for Ozempic's inclusion in health plans, but don't rule out that politicians may be bent to the publics will for a product. Can libertarianism win out here?

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't using drugs "off label" dangerous and irresponsible?

[Moderation4ever]

It certainly can be dangerous and irresponsible. I think there are a lot better ways to achieve weight loss than using a medication. But there are a lot of people looking for an easy out.

[Krayt]

There are no better ways to achieve weight loss. This is why it's so prone to failure in the long run.

As a medical treatment, "You should lose weight" has a 98% failure rate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not so sure in this case -- diabetes and obesity are related.

[Bwaaah]

"Isn’t using drugs “off label” dangerous and irresponsible?"

No. Not at all necessarily so. FDA labeling/approval implies safety and efficacy for specified purposes. But it does not imply danger or irresponsibility for other purposes (unless explicitly stated in the label).

There are numerous effective off label uses of medications, and it would be irresponsible for a doctor to ignore those options in consideration of his/her patient's health. (I've never heard of a doctor who won't consider off label uses.)

[David Nieporent]

Isn’t using drugs “off label” dangerous and irresponsible?

Not inherently, no. Using them as such on one’s own may be, but many many many drugs are prescribed — entirely legally — by doctors for off-label use.

[Mr. Bumble]

I didn't think it was necessary to add /sarc to my comment, but I guess I was mistaken.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Incredibly annoying Ozempic TV commercials bring to mind another issue—about TV pharmaceutical commercials more generally. I wish it were required that actors depicting the results of taking a drug were required to do it forthrightly. By all means, let them continue to depict happy, unnaturally healthy-looking, youthful, and vigorous people, mysteriously in need of medication, while the script extols the virtues of the drug.

But then—while the required side effects narrative details painful rashes, involuntary muscle movements (sometimes permanent), breathing difficulties, keeling over, and death—to be properly forthright those same actors must suddenly become afflicted, and depict those enumerated consequences at least realistically.

But of course, honor free commercial speech. No need to go overboard and require for the deleterious side effects the same degree of dramatic exaggeration used to suggest the drug's virtues.

Oh yeah, and if it turns out that the drug is contra-indicated, "in areas where certain parasitic infections are common," please be sure to mention if one of those areas is in fact, the Ohio River Valley. In a case like that, I am certain a pharmaceutical company would not want to mislead folks into concluding it was a warning to avoid tropical hellholes.

[Josh R]

Reminds me of this classic from the late 1990s.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!!

[John F. Carr]

I haven't been watching TV recently. Under the rules from my TV-watching days, if a commercial said both the name of a drug and its purpose the commercial also had to warn you of side effects.

"Ask your doctor if chocolate is right for you" – no problem
"Chocolate is a cure for dysphoria" – problem
"Chocolate can help treat dysphoria. Side effects include weight gain, heart problems ... [so on for 30 minutes] .. and death." – no problem

Actually, one big problem in the precise hypothetical. The ads promote chocolate as a drug rather than a dietary supplement. The FDA has not approved marketing chocolate as a cure for dysphoria. If chocolate was widely used for this purpose before the late 20th century a 510(k) submission may be sufficient. Otherwise you need a new drug application.

[Magister]

The natural progression from those ads would be late night ads from lawyers asking "Were you or a loved one injured by chocolate for dysphoria between 2003 and 2018?" But maybe that's more spam calls than ads now; I don't watch much TV.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Viagra was a good example.

[Nige]

Hope everyone gotTrumpsneakers.

[Moderation4ever]

The inner snake oil salesman never dies, it just moves to new products. I would also like to point out that you can help the struggling Trump family directly at the Go Fund Me page and soon by contributing to the RNC which will be merging with the family.

[Mr. Bumble]

He say's as he sips his morning coffee from a Dark Brandon mug.

[Moderation4ever]

Trust me I will not be buying a Dark Brandon mug , the only mugs I drink my coffee from are freebee's giving out to advertise. BTW - I don't buy pens either.

[grb]

Confession Time : I drink my coffee from a genuine Halsey U.S. Army tumbler cup of honest brown Melamine, pilfered from some mess hall thirty year ago in my National Guard days. I’m betting the statute of limitations has expired since and I probably didn’t set-back the country’s defense posture much even then.

It’s actually a very spare and elegant item, though the insides need to be sandblasted by this point. The brown color might be offputting to some, but I’m a fanatical fan of Picasso & Braque’s Analytical Cubism, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/165261503271

https://smarthistory.org/georges-braque-pablo-picasso-two-cubist-musicians/

[Mr. Bumble]

Cleaning tip.
Use Oxi-clean and hot water. Allow to soak and scrub with a stiff bristled brush. Rinse and repeat if necessary. I've done this with several items that otherwise defied cleaning an it worked very well.

[grb]

I'll give it a shot.....

[Krayt]

I seem to remember a bankruptcy from many years ago, where the judge allowed him $30,000 a month for yacht upkeep.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looking forward to Martinned weighing in on the "mostly peaceful" demonstrations in the Netherlands.

[Kazinski]

I wonder if the rioters will be charged with illegal support Wilders anti immigration platform, not only in the coalition talks but if further elections are needed.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in the Red Sea the Houthi's continue their attacks on shipping:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13100067/US-owned-ship-reports-missile-attack-Yemen-Ambrey-says.html

[Mr. Bumble]

A positive use for AI (as opposed to drafting legal briefs).

Using AI to read ancient scrolls without destroying them in the process.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/unlocking-antiquity

[grb]

From the article : "Beyond that may lay a far greater prize: the main library of the villa"

People forget we possess a tiny fraction of litertature from the ancient Greeks. Aeschylus wrote over 80 plays, but only seven survived. Sophocles wrote 123, with seven extant. And Euripides wrote 92 plays, of which we still have nineteen. By this point everyone has assumed all those dramas were hopelessly lost to time. What a wonder it would be if we could recover just a handful more.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Most of the earliest gospels have been lost (that is, if you believe Luke’s own words at 1:1) and we don’t know what they said. If we could only find those!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’d rather have Euripides. Or Menander. Or the rest of Livy. Or…

[Nige]

Great. Still not AI.

[Bwaaah]

[Bwaaah]

A real estate developer who built thousands of housing units in New York City was convicted of a crime. What was his crime?

Was it that he didn’t complete the buildings? No. He did. Was it that he didn’t pay the people who built the buildings? No. He did. Was it that he didn’t pay the banks who lent him the money to build the buildings? No. He did. Was it that the buildings aren’t safe and in compliance with building laws? No. They are. Was it that the occupants of the buildings aren’t satisfied with the buildings? No. They are.

So what was the real estate developer’s crime? He lied about the valuations of his properties. (Yes. A real estate developer lied about the valuations of his properties.)

Before our laws stands a real estate developer who built many thousands of housing units, and lied about property valuations as he did so.

If you judge the real estate developer to be guilty, he will be stripped of his wealth, and prohibited from building any more homes in New York. His development business will immediately be placed under administrative control of the State of New York, and will be choked to death.

The line here…the question here…is this: will you judge the real estate developer for the thousands of housing units that he built, or for the lies he told? (Or must it be something else?)

Will you value what he DID, or strike vengeance against what he SAID (or WHO he is)?

There’s a church somewhere in New England that has a message inscribed across its roofline that says something like, “THE SMALLEST OF DEEDS IS GREATER THAN THE GREATEST OF INTENTIONS.” I did not forget that message because it struck me as an important one.

As we look toward a future in which we hope to see more homes for more people, and all kinds of other things for all kinds of people, each of us now has a chance to judge this real estate developer thusly:

   Choice #1: Let him go; he built thousands of homes    Choice #2: Destroy him; he lied    Choice #3: Destroy him for reasons beyond this case

Would you destroy a real estate developer SOLELY for having lied about the valuations of his properties?

This isn’t a law enforcement action against a real estate developer. This is a very personal vendetta being executed by the State of New York’s government, in its courts, for reasons unrelated to real estate development or property valuation.

Housing? What about housing? Housing is unimportant here.

Destroy Trump, and ANYTHING that gets in THEIR way. This is THEIR vision of justice, THEIR vision of fairness. This is THEIR ethics.

[Sarcastr0]

will you judge the real estate developer for the thousands of housing units that he built, or for the lies he told?

This reads like satire. 'What about all the women he didn't rape?'

[Bwaaah]

Destroy Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is saying that dude, you're just projecting.

You drunkposting?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does it need to be said to be true?

[Nige]

If you keep saying it over and over again it becomes Holy Doctrine and not to be questioned.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nige, I think these guys may be way ahead of us. They may be working on a premise that if they shit-post lies, and get them to go viral, pretty soon nobody will be able to get any kind of related LLM AI return without the lie in it.

[Moderation4ever]

"Was it that he didn’t pay the people who built the buildings? No. He did."
"Was it that he didn’t pay the banks who lent him the money to build the buildings? No. He did."

Are these statements true? I remember a number of contractors complaining that Trump is no pay/slow pay. He has also defaulted on building projects.

See;
https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=48064a51-a9ad-48e0-a229-995f6a9d9578

[Bwaaah]

Those are all, I believe, generally true statements. In operations of that scale, there would reasonably be instances of people not being paid for various reasons, some perhaps contestable, others less so. As for the banks, I'm not aware of any of them making claims regarding their loans, although even there, at that scale, the particulars are so numerous there are probably disputes between the Trump Organization and one or probably more banks.

Also, I'd be surprised if ANY of the actors who did business with the real estate developer EVER relied on his valuations. They were all professional business people with professional level due diligence practices.

This really is the State going after a real estate developer who, by all normal standards, performed business successfully and in accordance with normal, good practices (and some normal, not-good, but probably immaterial practices).

[grb]

Bwaaah : “As for the banks, I’m not aware of any of them making claims regarding their loans, although even there, at that scale, the particulars are so numerous there are probably disputes between the Trump Organization and one or probably more banks”

I guess ignorance is preferable if you’re a Trump cultist. Here’s one very Trumpian tale :

“Nonetheless, Deutsche Bank agreed in 2005 to lend Mr. Trump more than $500 million for the project. He personally guaranteed $40 million of it, meaning the bank could come after his personal assets if he defaulted. By 2008, the riverside skyscraper, one of the tallest in America, was mostly built. But with the economy sagging, Mr. Trump struggled to sell hundreds of condominium units. The bulk of the loan was due that November.

Then the financial crisis hit, and Mr. Trump’s lawyers sensed an opportunity. A provision in the loan let Mr. Trump partially off the hook in the event of a “force majeure,” essentially an act of God, like a natural disaster. The former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan had called the financial crisis a tsunami. And what was a tsunami if not a natural disaster? One of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Steven Schlesinger, told him the provision could be used against Deutsche Bank.

“It’s brilliant!” Mr. Schlesinger recalled Mr. Trump responding.

Days before the loan was due, Mr. Trump sued Deutsche Bank, citing the force majeure language and seeking $3 billion in damages. Deutsche Bank countersued and demanded payment of the $40 million that Mr. Trump had personally guaranteed.”

That led to senior investment-banking executives severing all ties with Trump. But that was on the bank’s commercial side. The private-banking division apparently didn’t care DJT was trying to cheat their brother-bankers over in the other divison. They continued to lend. Trump continued his systematic fraud.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This seems like an apt point at which to reminisce concerning Fred Trump buying casino chips worth millions of dollars -- with no intention of using them for anything other than attempting to bail out his son with an interest-free loan to cover Donald's business failures at that casino (a loan later adjudged to have violated the law, as I recall).

Reading that New York Times examination of Trump business practices -- Fred's and Donald's -- might be illuminative in this context, too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A real estate developer who built thousands of housing units in New York City was convicted of a crime.

Can’t even get through the first sentence without a lie. No wonder you’re a Trump fan!

[Bwaaah]

I despise the man. I'm not an attorney. What did I get wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

academic papers that are so brilliantly and so accessibly written and so universal in scope that they transcend disciplines and stand as timeless testaments to both great thinking and great writing.

Frank Westheimer on why nature chose phosphates: phosphates are ubiquitous in DNA, RNA and other biomolecules. Why these and not sulfates, acetates or any other "ates"? What really jumps out from this paper are Westheimer's brilliantly simple explanations https://archives.evergreen.edu/webpages/curricular/2006-2007/m2o2006/seminar/westheimer.pdf

[1987, 7 pages. I have not the biochemistry nor the O-Chem to follow. I am not comprehending enough to give an opinion on anything but the tone seems readable to someone with a better background than I.
Still 'transcend disciplines and stand as timeless testaments to both great thinking and great writing' is stretching it on this one.]

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s interesting to go to Twitter these days, under Musk’s content moderation policies, and think about this paragraph from Oldham’s opinion rejecting First Amendment challenges to Texas’s social media law:

“Instead, their primary contention—beginning on page 1 of their brief and repeated throughout and at oral argument—is that we should declare HB 20 facially invalid because it prohibits the Platforms from censoring “pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, [and] Holocaust denial[s].” Red Br. at 1. Far from justifying pre-enforcement facial invalidation, the Platforms’ obsession with terrorists and Nazis proves the opposite. The Supreme Court has instructed that “[i]n determining whether a law is facially invalid,” we should avoid “speculat[ing] about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’ cases.” Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 449–50. Overbreadth doctrine has a “tendency . . . to summon forth an endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals,” and this case is no exception. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 301 (2008). But it’s improper to exercise the Article III judicial power based on “hypothetical cases thus imagined.” Raines, 362 U.S. at 22; cf. Sineneng- Smith, 140 S. Ct. at 1585–86 (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining the tension between overbreadth adjudication and the constitutional limits on judicial power).”

This was dumb and wrong at the time. Wasn’t very hard to find this content pre-Musk even when they were trying to do content moderation. This content wasn’t fanciful or imaginary.

But wow does this passage look even dumber post-Musk.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Chief Justice of Alabama is raising the interesting question: can a judicial opinion violate the establishment clause. If so, what is the remedy?

[Sarcastr0]

It was a concurrence, so I don't think it'll be an issue.

But it is a truly awful way for a judge to be. This collateral reliance on Christian doctrine is way more out there than the usual theories of interpretation that originalists call illegitimate.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's also a good example of the awful trend in conservative judging: the smug, tedious, pseudointellectual concurrence nobody asked for. Starts off with fake judicial humility, goes into dictionary pedantry (classic), slides into college seminar paper (since the time of Aquinas...), then finishes up with an unbelievably grandiose proclamation declaring that this all proves that the People of Alabama are unified in promoting the HIS will.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm a bit more sanguine about the trend, because I think it when taken in time, such writing seriously undercuts the opinions that take such a tone.

Unserious, entitled judges who feel their opinions to be unassailable do show that the right no longer has a lot of interest in intellectual projects. It's going to be painful for a bit, but I think that's going to bite them in the ass.

[LawTalkingGuy]

We can only hope. But man it has got to be annoying for the actual litigants in the meantime. Or when lawyers are looking for something to help their case and then run into this shit. I guess we should be grateful it’s not the absolute lunacy of concurring to your own majority like they do on the circuit courts.

[ThePublius]

It's "Presidents Day." I was always disappointed that they watered down Washington's Birthday by adding Lincoln, and now, according to some, honoring all presidents on this day.

Oh, well. I also wish they would have kept the observance to the actual day, February 22. And, when it falls on a weekend day, too bad! 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

What a day for you to backhandedly shit on Lincoln.

[ThePublius]

Oh, please, give me a break. I didn't say anything negative about Lincoln. ('Though I could, if I cared to.) I'm just saying that adding Lincoln dilutes the tribute to Washington. Adding anyone would dilute the tribute to Washington! BTW, Lincoln's B-day was 2/12. Did you celebrate or recognize it then? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

"Though I could, if I cared to"

Yes, we can tell.

[ThePublius]

Why do you care so much what I say, and harass me for saying it? Do you think not being a fan of Lincoln makes me a racist or something? I mean, really, just give it a rest.

[grb]

Well, you could give us your Lost Cause screed on Lincoln and remove all doubt.
(why not? You know you want to!)

[hobie]

Lord, is even Lincoln now on the vast Republican cancel culture list? Why?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The federal holiday being celebrated today is and always has been called Washington’s Birthday. 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a).

[Frank Drackman]

That slave owning dead white guy who was on the seal of the Confederate States?? Good thing the (redacted) think history started when Martin Lucifer got shot.

[David Nieporent]

I was always disappointed that they watered down Washington’s Birthday by adding Lincoln, and now, according to some, honoring all presidents on this day.

You know that "they" didn't do any such thing, right? The federal holiday remains Washington's Birthday. It's really car dealers and department stores that started calling it something else. (Some states do, but who pays attention to state holidays?)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing blog
with a receding, misappropriated
academic veneer has operated
for no more than

ZERO

days without publishing
at least one racial slur;
it has published vile
racial slurs on at least

TEN (10)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least ten discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just ten racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs,)

This blog is exceeding its
deplorable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published disgusting, vile
racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
this blog regularly publishes;
it would be unreasonable to
expect to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
Islamophobic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile, offered as a salve to those who dream of civil war and an alternative to the reality-based world.

This is a good one, too, along a similar line. Enjoy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones rare bits, by request:

First, a favorite among the Stones' unheralded works.

Second, another one.

[Theendoftheleft]

Think of all the times you've posted iterations of this. THIS is how you dedicate your time. You are an extreme loser. The world will be a much better place when you are gone. Face reality, AIDS: you're losing the global culture war.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which bothers you more . . .

(1) this blog's habitual publication of racial slurs (part of a daily stream of bigotry)

or

(2) my mentions of this blog's record with respect to publication of vile racial slurs?

Your answer might be a clue concerning which side of the American culture war -- winning or losing; modern mainstream or stale conservative; inclusive or bigoted -- you have chosen.

[Theendoftheleft]

You're not deflecting from this, AIDS. Your time dedicated to this is pathetic, and so are you. (Is you list even accurate? Why would I take anything you say at face value?)

I'm also not on a side in your country's culture war, AIDS. Your country is falling apart. While your idiotic, inferior, totalitarian value system is a large part of the cause, so too is your global imperialist overreach. Indeed, your OWN espoused value system is so DUMB that you yourself don't believe its implications.

And if I did answer, picking one side over the other, why would I give a damn what YOUR impression would be of that? A person who dedicated innumerable hours of its life to troll this site, to promote values it doesn't itself really believe, a sanctimonious ass who repeatedly betrays its American parochialism. A mindless hypocrite who doesn't even understand basic logic, and who favours totalitarian tactics and policies at institutional and governmental levels. Your LABELS about yourself and your American rivals are junk, and you judgment about my view and anything else is worthless.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the defender this blog deserves.

It takes longer to find the tunes (usually about two minutes) than to post the quantification of this blog's racial slurs. Some readers might notice the Conspirators' academic affiliations and mistake the Conspiracy for a legitimate, academic blog. If quantifying one element of this blog's incessant stream of bigoted content enables some readers to assess this blog accurately the effort is worthwhile.

Knowledge is good. People who object to obfuscating bigotry and bigots are bad.

[Theendoftheleft]

You find ALL such slurs in under two minutes? You lie. Lying is bad. People who lie for no good reason like this are bad.

More than that, you’re, again, a person dedicated to such efforts (howsoever sloppily and incredibly). You’re a loser who wastes his life.

Knowledge IS good, Yankee Doodle. You should try gaining some — especially of the scientific and social scientific variety. It’s also why you should abandon your superficial disingenuous ethico-political ideology in the face of both first-order logic and empirical evidence that you yourself don’t believe its implications.

Choose reason, AIDS. Learn why, since you cannot already recognise, it is not only the case that what you often call ‘bigotry’ ISN’T that at all, but also that you’re yourself a bigot — albeit for very good reasons! Framing your prejudices in epistemic terms (woke, awareness, ignorance, bigotry, etc), moreover, doesn’t make them any less superficial, contingent, ideological commitments.

Further, your open adoption of totalitarian tactics to advance your inclusive social re-engineering agenda (in institutions, in government, etc) is now apparent to all. You’re evil. You’re not merely ruthless in the name of making a better world. You’re not doing tough things to advance social justice. You’re evil. There’s no difference between you and Marxist-totalitarian efforts to reshape forms of consciousness by policing thoughts and words, save for the lack of focus on class.

The world can see through your bullshit, AIDS. Your ideology is dying. No one wants to be like you, and you can point to NO empirical evidence that they shall become so nonetheless.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I find the racial slurs when reading comments. I likely miss some, because there are so many racial slurs at this blog, because that is what the white, right-wing law professors who operate this blog want.

Posting the periodical quantification of one segment of this conservative blog's incessant bigotry takes a few minutes, mostly because I try to find songs people will enjoy.

You seem to resent your betters, the culture war's winners. That seems to qualify you to become a Volokh Conspirator.

[F.D. Wolf]

Twitter posts from the late Alexey Navalny, dated January 9, 2021, regarding the old Twitter regime's banning of Donald Trump, even predicting the Democrat's attempts to remove Trump from the ballot:

If you replace "Trump" with "Navalny" in today's discussion, you will get an 80% accurate Kremlin's answer as to why my name can't be mentioned on Russian TV and I shouldn't be allowed to participate in any elections.

This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'.

Though I imagine not even Navalny could have predicted that the Democrats would soon thereafter cavalierly throw away the moral authority of the United States forever by trying to bankrupt and imprison the chief opposition leader.

https://twitter.com/navalny/status/134797031730259149

[SimonP]

Considering that Navalny got himself into trouble by relentlessly pursuing and exposing Putin's corruption, one might pause before portraying him as a Trump supporter (which he was not).

I am sure that Navalny would have been more than happy to see Putin deposed and put on trial for his corruption. Trump for his part has seen only a small fraction of what he's deserved.

[Life of Brian]

His entire thread I just posted below makes it even clearer that "Trump supporter" is a red herring. Navalny's crystal-clear point was that cheering on an arbitrary and unaccountable censorship regime because Trump Bad creates an ugly precedent going forward that nobody whose intentions are pure should truly want.

[SimonP]

I understand what Navalny was saying. The point I was making, to FDW, is that Navalny's defense of Trump vis-a-vis Twitter "censorship" shouldn't be extrapolated to extend to similar concerns about the Trump trials. Because obviously Navalny would distinguish clearly between political prosecutions and legitimate prosecutions of corrupt leaders.

I would be inclined to agree with Navalny, too, if we hadn't just witnessed Trump using Twitter to organize a coup.

[Nige]

Who, exactly, censored Trump? Also, I love the idea that everyone else's intentions *must* be pure. Not Trump's, that's a given. But everypne else's sure as hell better be.

[Life of Brian]

Somehow the last digit on your URL was dropped. The entire thread containing that post starts here.

[Nige]

He was president at the time, wasn't he? A private company dared to reject the leader of the most powerful country in the world? I thought anti-statists would be all over that.

[SRG2]

Just unearthed this old strip of mine from when Jeff Sessions was AG:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/43674813_10215030493253782_9140724548113530880_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7f8c78&_nc_ohc=1e1ZymC-PhkAX_7SEPZ&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfDAXlzIt76IEvGQizZzFM7DW551Zg1x6SzHD6aGjCF5ow&oe=65FB008A

[Noscitur a sociis]

Comedy’s hard. If you don’t know what you’re doing it’s usually best to leave it to the pros, otherwise you just end up embarrassing yourself.

[SRG2]

Fortunately that's not a problem for me. And I find that people like you, who resort to passive-aggressive responses, may usefully be ignored, often enough either because their sense of humour evaporates with some subject matter - e.g., any criticism of Trump, direct or indirect - or because as they themselves are unable to be funny - intentionally, that is, they resent that other people can be.

[rloquitur]

What ever happened with this case:

https://reason.com/2021/02/11/this-d-a-is-trying-to-prosecute-a-doctor-for-vaccinating-unauthorized-people-instead-of-letting-supplies-expire/?comments=true#comments

[John F. Carr]

The criminal charges were thrown out by a judge and a grand jury refused to indict. Doctor Gokal's lawsuit against Harris County was still pending as of last September.

[Brett Bellmore]

And here it is, the buried proof that Biden knew he has classified documents, and, no, did NOT fess up as soon as he knew:

"Here’s the single most important piece of evidence in Hur’s report: In a recording made by the ghostwriter in February 2017 — a month after Biden left the vice-presidency — Biden says he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.”

...

Timing is key here. Think back to that February 2017 recording, when Biden said he “found all the classified stuff downstairs.” What did Biden do back then? Did he have his people get right on the phone with the Archives or the FBI to turn the documents back in? Nope. He kept those sensitive documents and said nothing for five more years. Not until 2022 — after the FBI executed its search warrant on Trump at Mar-a-Lago — did Biden’s people alert the authorities."

[Sarcastr0]

Here's the full quote, Brett:

"So this was—I, early on, in ’09—I just found all the classified stuff downstairs—I wrote the President a handwritten 40-page memorandum arguing against deploying additional troops to Iraq—I mean, to Afghanistan—on the grounds that it wouldn’t matter, that the day we left would be like the day before we arrived."

The obvious reading is that Biden had just found his copy of the memo he wrote to Obama. Hurr works very hard to go in another direction.

And no, Brett it's not "buried proof." Hurr repeats 'I just found all the classified stuff downstairs 23 times.'
He is a hack who did all he could to disingenuously damage Biden, and you're swallowing it as intended.

Thinking you've cleverly uncovered it just now is another sign you've stopped reading primary sources.
To be fair, I didn't read this one myself. Credit for the above analysis:
https://jabberwocking.com/robert-hurs-final-report-is-worse-than-i-thought/

[Bwaaah]

Joe Biden, recorded, in 2017: “So this was—I, early on, in ’09—I just found all the classified stuff downstairs—I wrote the President a handwritten 40-page memorandum arguing against deploying additional troops to Iraq—I mean, to Afghanistan—on the grounds that it wouldn’t matter, that the day we left would be like the day before we arrived.”

Those classifieds documents were still in his possession in 2017 when he said that. He knew they were classified in 2017, as that conversation indicated. And he did nothing about it until he got caught, after Trump got called out.

This raises no question in Sarc's mind as to Joe Biden's genuine intent to be in compliance with laws regarding handling of classified materials, unlike Donald Trump.

Destroy Trump.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Those classifieds documents were still in his possession in 2017 when he said that. He knew they were classified in 2017, as that conversation indicated. And he did nothing about it until he got caught, after Trump got called out."

Naturally you'd have to show that he knew he possessed them in 2017, which you didn't, because you're a partisan idiot and immediately jump to conclusions unsupported by facts, but that you desperately want to be true.

Yawn.

[Bwaaah]

"Naturally you’d have to show that he knew he possessed them in 2017"

Yes. I missed that point. I stand corrected. That remains unproven.

"You’re a partisan idiot"

I admit to strongly leaning against recent Democrat-advocated political ideologies. But in the long term I'm pretty unfriendly to Republican politics, and not party-inclined either way. If I'm a partisan, I'd say both parties are losers for that.

But I don't think I'm an idiot, nor do I try to act like one.

You speak to me as if I am a Republican. You treat me with disgust, like I'm a dumb nigger. The only people who usually do that are hate-filled left-leaning partisans. Might you be one?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Higher up on this page you were screaming "DESTROY TRUMP" in response to other posters calling you out. Now you're using racial slurs.

Seems pretty on-par for "Republicans" these days.

At least you're not a Brett Bellmore. I'll give you that much.

[Bwaaah]

There you go, demeaning me further. You didn’t have to demean Bellmore too, but hey…haters gonna hate.

Just for the record, and certainly with no pride: I’m a registered Democrat. You probably are too. It doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

But, yeah, there’s a lot of “Destroy Trump” sentiments out there. I’m not sure how that offends you. (You get stuck on hot words, do you?)

[Sarcastr0]

How is what you're registered as material to any criticism of your comments?

[Bwaaah]

I thought it was somewhat responsive to JC having called me a “Republican.” I’m not a Republican. (I suspect there’s an inference rule at play here that says that if I oppose some Democrat supported ideologies, I am a Republican.)

But I’m just sucking on being the piece of shit that Jason says I am. You too talk to me like like I’m a lying, drugged, worthless sack of shit. Both of you enjoy nurturing your presumptuous notions of lesser classes of people, your nigger classes, your Republican classes. I’m just festering at the bottom of your hate-filled bucket.

Do I disappoint you? I don’t think I do.

[Sarcastr0]

You come in hot as fuck, with a racial chip on your shoulder that reaches to space, and now you complain people don't treat you nice?!

You're entitled to be treated as you're treating everyone else. You want a better tone from people that engage with you, come in with a better tone yourself.

Sheesh.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I felt it necessary to mention Bellmore, because he's the one who started this thread with his bullshit source feeding directly into his own stupidity (like he's been doing for years) and shows no signs of being smart enough to ever start checking primary sources and realizing what a damn fool he is.

I put quotes around "Republicans" because the MAGA crowd who think they identify that way are actually the cesspool of America and destroying the Republican party with their worship of a man who cares nothing for anyone other than himself and his own criminality. They are typically bigoted morons who are immune to facts and reason.

I never have been and never will be registered to any political party, and yet I am capable of acknowledging that, despite policy differences, actual Republicans were at least capable of some semblance of governing.

To the extent that "DESTROY TRUMP" offended me, it is because that is precisely the highest level of argument that the MAGA crowd is capable of whenever their dear leader's despicable behavior is brought up.

Trump is destroying this country, and risking the security of the free world. The MAGA crowd supports this mindlessly, because he says so and they're all too stupid to recognize the damage he and they are doing.

They're all enemies of America, and as an American, that fucking offends me.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Trump is destroying this country, and risking the security of the free world’.

Do you ever talk to people in other countries, including in the rest of the West?

From the real left to the hard right, it’s almost universally agreed that your current president is undeniably destroying your country, that your executive branch, media, and academic institutions have adopted and utilised totalitarian tactics, and that your needless meddling in Ukraine might get us all killed.

From any civilized Western country’s perspective, you’re also flooding the country with millions of unskilled illiterate labour. Whilst from your economic perspective that’s no sweat, ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE in the West believes that that puts downward pressure on wages, makes the poor poorer, hurts the middle class, and increases the gap between the rich and poor. In a country that doesn’t meet replacement rate like yours, you’re ‘replacing’ educated middle class people with unskilled poor ones—in a post-industrial economy to boot!

Y’all keep thumping your chest about being the leader of the free world. But free people vote for their leaders; and we never voted for you. There was never even a fucking vote. We don’t even like most of the things that you do. People are in the streets of Germany protesting that theirs is a mere puppet government.

And all your lot does is falsely label me a Russian troll. This, so you can bury your head in the sand to avoid the reality of your country’s situation and the REAL REASONS for its international reputation.

Wake up.

[David Nieporent]

From the real left to the hard right,

Running the whole gamut from the crazy to the dishonest! Yes, the loons hate the U.S. The bulk of the West do not.

[Nige]

'it’s almost universally agreed that your current president is undeniably destroying your country,*'

*It is, in fact, not remotely 'universally' agreed.

'you’re also flooding the country with millions of unskilled illiterate labour.'

Hang on, is this guy claiming to be on the left?

[David Nieporent]

Whilst from your economic perspective that’s no sweat, ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE in the West believes that that puts downward pressure on wages, makes the poor poorer, hurts the middle class, and increases the gap between the rich and poor. In a country that doesn’t meet replacement rate like yours, you’re ‘replacing’ educated middle class people with unskilled poor ones—in a post-industrial economy to boot!

It's hard to overstate how dumb this is.

1) The U.S. is not "post-industrial"; industrial output is at all time highs.
2) "ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE in the West" — once again, you pretend to speak for people you don't even know or understand — is economically illiterate if they believe those things, which are both theoretically and empirically wrong.
3) If the U.S. — like other developed countries — has sub-replacement rate fertility rates, then allowing more labor to enter the country is by definition a good thing. We're not Europe; we don't have trouble assimilating immigrants.
4) The U.S. reputation is perfectly fine, among the sane people of the world — who do in fact look to the U.S. for leadership — rather than the 'real left' and 'hard right.'

[Bwaaah]

[Bwaaah]

"flooding the country with millions of unskilled illiterate labour"

Just to clarify that while you'd be correct in saying that they don't speak [much] English (and that that is a big problem) they are not "illiterate." Overwhelmingly, they read and write, and grew up in a culture of literacy. They value their children going to school, and indeed, those children overwhelmingly learn and adopt the English language. (I base this on observations of recent Latino immigrants to NYC.)

[David Nieporent]

Just to clarify that while you’d be correct in saying that they don’t speak [much] English (and that that is a big problem) they are not “illiterate.” Overwhelmingly, they read and write, and grew up in a culture of literacy.

There are actually a significant number who are not only not literate (which is not the same thing as stupid!) in English, but also are not literate in Spanish either; their native tongues are — for lack of a better word — indigenous languages. They can communicate in Spanish, but they are not fluent in it; they speak enough Spanish to communicate with employers and co-workers. A pitfall a lot of inexperienced lawyers fall into when dealing with them is to simply assume they speak Spanish and arrange, without checking, for a Spanish interpreter for depositions and hearings.

[Theendoftheleft]

'Hang on, is this guy claiming to be on the left?'

And that's why you don't understand contemporary politics, Nige.

Go talk to Farage. Learn about the Perot-Buchanan-Trump linkage.

Your ideology is losing ground, particularly amongst the young.

[Nige]

No, it’s more down to your ideological incoherence. You have to abhor the imperialism of the US (especially the way it inconveniences Putin) while mindlessly parroting embarrasingly bad talking points for Trump (who you also abhor, naturally.) You’ll also join in with the anti-migrant hate, but for the RIGHT reasons, of course. Dirtbag left.

Yes, I’ll go talk to Farage. I have his number here somewhere.

[Theendoftheleft]

I’m not an ideologue, Ingsoc. That’s where your assumptions about me go awry. I loathe your ideologies-–including the ones you claim to position yourself against.

[Bwaaah]

JC: I actually agree with a lot of what you say there. But I lack the wholesale contempt that you seem to hold. (I like to think my contempt is individualized and held one person at a time.)

It is impossible for me to dismiss so many people, as are Trump supporters, as morons or some similarly disparaging term. (That is completely aside from my distaste for Trump himself.) Especially, I can’t see them as “enemies of America.” I’d be much closer to “supporters of a trash-talking narcissist whose policies range from unhelpful to helpful.” (And even that says very little to me about each one of those supporters.)

Anyway, I appreciate the absence of needless insult in your latter remarks. Per further discussion below, I’ll probably be moderating my own voice more here than I have in the past.

[myself]

You speak to me as if I am a Republican. You treat me with disgust, like I’m a dumb nigger. The only people who usually do that are hate-filled left-leaning partisans. Might you be one?

I'm genuinely shocked and baffled that you just casually threw the n-word in there.

Are you playing some weird kind of trolling game? Or are the circles you hang out in so incredibly racist that the phrase "dumb n*****" is something you throw around without much thought.

[Bwaaah]

The n-word, to me, has special meaning. It's wrongly, simplistically, thought to refer to black people. But to understand the word correctly, you have to understand it in the context of the people who created and used the word, and what they meant by it.

It is the dehumanization of the person to whom it refers, in the eyes of the speaker who utters it. It is to say that nothing about the person to whom it refers matters. It is said only with contempt, and with total denial of the individual humanity of the person to whom it refers. It is as if to say, "Nothing about you matters to me. You are less than. You deserve less than. You are not of us. All this, the shit that you are, is an unalienable fact that precedes you."

For a lot of the American left, people who voice any agreement with the right have gone too far, and the implications of that are sweeping. They are categorically immoral, woman hating, black hating, MAGA sympathetic, fascist, modern forms of Neanderthal.

That categorical presumption is a widely present, contemporary form of bigotry. I get it all the time, not in response to what I've actually said, but in response to the presumed team I am on. They, who are partisans, call me a "partisan," which I am not. I just happen to hold some beliefs right now that align with the Republican party.

Their presumptions precede my position. I am, here, judged accordingly, according to their lore. Those people already know me, just like the racists know the n*g**rs. They speak not to me, but to the low-life, predetermined n*g**r that I am, in their nastily bigoted minds.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’re a worthless, whining, right-wing bigot. People like me consider you a stain and a write-off, but people like Eugene Volokh and his fans adore you.

As a former elected and appointed official of the Democratic Party, I assure you the Democratic Party wants nothing to do with you. If you are telling the truth about your registration, you should change it. The Democratic Party deserves better than to be associated with a useless, un-American bigot such as you.

[Theendoftheleft]

What you mean to say is that the American people deserve better than your garbage, corrupt, totalitarian blue team (and red team).

Your values are dog shit, AIDS. Fortunately, they’re dying now. You call people and their values a ‘stain’ and a ‘write-off’, but won’t publicly admit that that's true of a great many of the world’s cultures and value systems. (It’s also exactly the way most people in the West view American culture.) You DON’T really want tolerance and inclusivity; the evidence for that is overwhelming. Nor should you, mind you. If you weren’t such a mindless hypocritical fuckwit, you’d be able to see the fundamental contradictions in your OWN stated dogmas. Educated young people CANNOT believe your bullshit because it’s self-contradictory crap; this is the end of your ideology, AIDS. You aren’t progress. You are doomed.

And stop telling people to watch your low-grade American infotainment propaganda television programs!

[5.56]

How's the enlargement going for you, old Fartur?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I await it much as gullible people look forward to heaven . . . except Court enlargement seems likely to occur and heaven is (like the rapture, judgement day, and other features of childish superstition and fairy tales) illusory.

If you are in the market for prophecy, watch John Oliver address Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court ethics, and Supreme Court credibility in this week's Last Week Tonight.

[Theendoftheleft]

A better prophesy concerns what will happen when your domestic culture war turns hot, AIDS.

Curiously, you never respond to that ever-likely possibility. Do you busy yourself with mindless trolling here to distract yourself from the reality of your value system's morbidity, globally?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Trump supporters are not the n***s of the world.

Put down your cross; your melodramatic self pity is embarrassing us all by proxy.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You must be a Patti Smith fan.
Can you link to any outtakes from the Easter sessions?
Thanks!

[Bwaaah]

No, I am not a Patti Smith fan. Her music is grungy to me.

But I don't get the reference. Look at that: you've made a reference that I don't even understand. How small must I be?

Good one, I think, for you, and for those in the know.

I'm stupid. I'm stupid. I'm stupid.

[myself]

The n-word, to me, has special meaning. It’s wrongly, simplistically, thought to refer to black people. But to understand the word correctly, you have to understand it in the context of the people who created and used the word, and what they meant by it.

That’s not how words work. The whole point is to clearly communicate concepts and ideas, not to blather out offensive things then backtrack and claim the words have a different when you’re called on it.

As for the rest, you’re not some iconoclast defying categorization, you’re an contrarian who lacks the coherence to say much of anything.

If you think you have something interesting to say then say it, don’t imagine you’re some great essayist who will gift us with his florid prose as you dump a word salad on our heads. I’m sorry but you’re not that gifted as a writer.

[Bwaaah]

All I did was make an invalid argument about Biden. And I was disputed, by JC, with needless insult. I corrected my position, and criticized his insulting manner. You questioned what I meant in my criticism. I explained it.

And your conclusion is that I’m not a gifted writer? Did I miss part of the argument? Or are you just affirming that I’m a dumb nigger? (Of course, you’d never say it that way. But I’m pretty sure you mean it like I defined it.)

[myself]

And your conclusion is that I’m not a gifted writer? Did I miss part of the argument? Or are you just affirming that I’m a dumb nigger? (Of course, you’d never say it that way. But I’m pretty sure you mean it like I defined it.)

I meant to quote the rest of your post but the VC forum code is broken that way.

What I mean is in your writing your reach exceeds your grasp. Take this bit:

" They, who are partisans, call me a “partisan,” which I am not. I just happen to hold some beliefs right now that align with the Republican party.

Their presumptions precede my position. I am, here, judged accordingly, according to their lore."

Who is the they in "Their"? Is it Democratic partisans you were talking about earlier or partisans in general? If you're focusing on Democratic partisans your own claims of not being a partisan fall apart. And general partisans doesn't really fit with the complaints.

And then you say you're not partisan even though "some" beliefs align with Republicans. Ok, so what beliefs? And what presumptions and lore are inaccurate when applied to you?

My advice? Be more direct and use fewer words.

As for your continued claim that "dumb derogatory term for black person" isn't racist, you're either full of s**t or severely naive and in for a very rude awakening at some point

[Bwaaah]

Despite your suspicions of me, you do not exhibit the a priori contempt that many others do. Thanks for that.

I understand the disconnect between my use of the n-word, and how it's understood by most. My usage is manipulative, but quite on my point about needless, unsubstantiated nastiness. I rarely use the word in "real life," and even here, I wouldn't be using it if I weren't already old, retired, and not at substantial risk of harmful punishment.

Tangentially, I'm trying to liberalize language and expression through my own desensitizing usage. (I know: it can feel sensitizing instead of desensitizing.) The borders of propriety have closed in on language of late. Warnings like yours serve as enforcement of the more illiberal recent aspects of social order. Only two years ago, the New York Times fired a science writer for having merely discussed the n-word years earlier. It's still not safe to use various words, even for people who may actually be trying to illuminate understanding. That's not good, in my view.

[myself]

I'm not sure I see the reason for your "desensitizing" of the n-word.

Regardless of whether you normalize the term or not it will always be a derogatory term for black people. Your case in point, 'dumb n*****r' is still a racist insult because you're not just saying the person is dumb, but they're a dumb person who is black with the suggestion that that state is much worse than being a simple dumb person. My calling you out isn't being illiberal, it's enforcing the most basic of community standards.

I agree that there's cases where reporters have gotten in trouble for discussing the n-word in the context of a story, and to me that goes too far. But if your aim is to help those folks then your efforts are counterproductive. By using the word in an offensive context you're just reinforcing the idea that people still use it to cause offense, as you say "sensitizing instead of desensitizing".

Btw, I still encourage you to simplify your prose. Hemingway wrote between a 4th and 6th grade level of readability, I wish I had the talent to write so cleanly.

[Bwaaah]

"it will always be a derogatory term for black people."

No. It already has numerous non-derogatory uses, some of which do not imply the race of anybody. You may not like that, but you shouldn't ignore it.

The New York Times writer who was fired, Donald McNeil, did not use the term in a story. He used it in an interpersonal conversation. I am not aware of the Times having since acknowledged the wrongfulness of its treatment of him. They, like you, stick to a very narrow view that is based more on a balancing of power, and of rules, than a pursuit of understanding.

[Bwaaah]

Myself: Consider that the n-word is used widely today, notably in spoken colloquial usage and in lyrics, most commonly by a diversity of younger people in the U.S.

As I think about how it's used, it's rarely in the way that you seem to emphasize. It is used as a pronoun to denote many aspects of personhood, ranging from friend to foe, from victim to victor, and all kinds of other ways. It's like an emotionally supercharged universal pronoun (although used to denote males much more than females).

Only occasionally is it uttered as "a vile racial slur," i.e. like it would be used by a KKK adherent talking about, or talking to, a black person. Your choice to coax my words to be considered under your definition is pretty arbitrary and unhelpful to understanding each other.

Is rap music vile to you? (If so, that's a shame.)

I would make more sense to you if you would try to understand me in the way that I am speaking, allowing for the wide range of word usage that is typical in conversation. I now see how my use of the n-word was not unusual, but as a pronoun meaning "a vile piece of garbage." (As in speaking of somebody as if he's a vile piece of garbage...that use of the n-word.)

But I think I do make sense to you, and you may be uncomfortable with the ugly color of my words. I am speaking of an ugly thing: bigotry. Viewed clearly, it's as bad as you have suggested I look.

I hope you'll reconsider my point in the spirit in which I said it, and not let it get stuck in a propriety filter.

[myself]

As I think about how it’s used, it’s rarely in the way that you seem to emphasize. It is used as a pronoun to denote many aspects of personhood, ranging from friend to foe, from victim to victor, and all kinds of other ways. It’s like an emotionally supercharged universal pronoun (although used to denote males much more than females).

No, it's still used as a derogatory term for black people.

When that derogatory term is used by a black person, particularly for an audience of black people, the threat of racial animus is greatly diminished. And in that case they can use that derogatory term as a way to disarm it, in other words "this most vile insult is meant to describe both of us, and we should not be ashamed". What's changed is not the definition of the term but the meaning in context.

It's almost impossible for a white person to use the word with the same context. Most definitely the definition of "a vile piece of garbage" with no racial connotations doesn't exist outside of your head.

[Don Nico]

Actually words work in many ways, not always to the best wishes of dictionary nazis.

[Sarcastr0]

In real life, of course, a word having a special meaning to you doesn't mean anything, since you'll be using the word to convey meanings to other people.

[Bwaaah]

See, for example, some usual suspects responding to my remark as they do.

What's their response to my assertion that they speak to me like I am an a priori piece of shit? That I am an a priori piece of shit.

If it were just the usual suspects, that wouldn't be a problem. But the needless, unsupported, bigoted insults come from a lot of more measured voices. (I admit to responding lazily sometimes in nasty kind.)

But do I think there's any likeness between Sarcastro and Resentful Arthur, just because they both sort of represent left leaning perspectives? No. In fact, that mere idea comes off like a smear to me. And it's pretty easy for me to see important differences in anybody who takes more than a moment to express themselves.

But what am I to them? It doesn't really matter. It's *their* hateful baggage, not mine. But it's ugly, and unfortunate. They are not substantive remarks.

[MoreCurious]

If you think that Sarcastro and Kirkland are the only followers of this blog who think you're a moronic, bigoted POS, let me assure you that you're wrong. Your twisted thinking, offensive language, and inability to express yourself in anything other that vulgar, sophomoric writing reveal to us exactly who you are. There's no reason for you to try to explain yourself -- your insipid current and past comments on VC speak for you.

[Bwaaah]

Just out of interest: do you consider your political sentiments to be left-leaning, right-leaning, or neither?

[MoreCurious]

Definitely left-leaning. But I'm sure it's obvious to you that decent, intelligent people all along the political spectrum condemn your bigotry and hate. Politics has nothing to do with the conclusions that VC followers draw about how you choose to express yourself.

[Bwaaah]

I think you mistake my use of "hateful words" for me having the sentiments you associate with those words.

I worked for most of my life in "blue collar" workplaces, and have always had vulgar friends. Especially in humor, there are no limits to vulgarity, and that's normative for me. By the time I graduated high school, I was already desensitized to pretty much any kind of language usage. That's where much of my vulgarity comes from. I regret the coarseness it suggests to some people who have a greater sense of propriety.

I have no illusions about how I look here. And that's not a point of pride either.

[MoreCurious]

Seems like you're at a fork in the road. You can continue down the path you say you've been on all your life. Or you can take the other path and see if there might be other, more thoughtful ways to express your beliefs -- regardless of where you are on the political spectrum -- without being vulgar and racist. Your choice.

[Bwaaah]

I appreciate your remarks.

The choice you present is an interesting one. I suspect I'd do much better around here, if I were less vulgar, among the mainly educated class of people that frequent VC. But there's a much bigger world outside that's not well-represented by this subset.

I also suspect that most of the people in the U.S. are "racist" by your definition. And in some ways, that's probably quite true. But that's just one type of bigotry among infinite forms of bigotry held, overtly or covertly, by pretty much everybody.

I don't like bigotry.

Your better world rejects vulgarity? My definition of "inclusive" is probably much broader than yours, and certainly couldn't be drawn that narrowly. It necessarily includes most people, and that necessarily includes vulgar people in addition to ones who were brought up to speak "correctly." And even the bigots are allowed under my inclusive tent, because inclusive doesn't mean "all the good people." Not to me, it doesn't. (I'm not a believer, but the phrase "all God's children" comes to mind.)

Remember the word "tolerance?" I was taught during my upbringing that it's important to be tolerant. You don't hear that word much these days, especially from the people who emphasize "inclusion." Quite the opposite, intolerance is encouraged (for the right reasons, of course). But given our bigotries, tolerance remains a helpful and attainable measure.

I ask myself whether I would rather caucus with the educated class than the vulgar class. That's not an easy one to answer, strategically speaking. (I do know, however, which one is more fun to be with.)

Per your remarks, I'm seriously considering reducing my vulgarity. Maybe you'll consider expanding your range of inclusiveness? Tolerance? (Dare I suggest, love?)

[5.56]

Holy fucking shit, MoreCurious is a faggot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You, 5.56, are precisely the type of bigot the Volokh Conspiracy aims to attract -- with great success -- as its target audience.

Right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties, regardless of whether they teach (for a bit longer, at least, in some cases) at law schools or are fans of blogs operated by white, male, disaffected law professors.

[Nige]

'What’s their response to my assertion that they speak to me like I am an a priori piece of shit? '

The response should be, stop being a baby, you treat everyone who disagrees with you the same way, it's not even particularly remarkable here on the VC, except when one of you suddenly acts as if butter never melted in their mouths.

[EscherEnigma]

What’s their response to my assertion that they speak to me like I am an a priori piece of shit? That I am an a priori piece of shit.

I mean, when someone goes to such lengths to defend their use of the n-word, saying they’re a piece of shit (or at least act like one on the internet) isn’t an a prior claim, it’s an observation-based claim.

[Bwaaah]

It was not my use of the n-word that triggered the a priori accusations. It was prior to that, for having simply made a mistaken statement that was interpreted as having been against the left. That mistake triggered the accusation, "you’re a partisan idiot and immediately jump to conclusions unsupported by facts, but that you desperately want to be true."

I understand the meaning of "a priori." You misunderstood how it was used.

But now, you too seize on the n-word, pick a baseless middle point in the discussion, and do the you-ARE-a-vile-piece-of-garbage shtick.

Again: message received. (No new information here.)

[EscherEnigma]

You misunderstood how it was used.

No, I got you just fine. I was just making a comment about how you're doing yourself no favors.

Take it or leave it dude.

That said? I didn't call you vile anything. Hell, even "piece of shit" was literally using the words you used yourself.

[Nige]

'You treat me with disgust, like I’m a dumb - '

Oh MY.

[Nige]

'until he got caught,'

Well, no, he returned them himself.

[Mr. Bumble]

VC's fiction writer speaks.

[Nige]

Yes, but *that's* a fact.

[SRG2]

Brett: is what Trump did no worse than what Biden did?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Buried?

[grb]

Imagine you’re Tucker Carlson. You travel to Moscow and put on a shameless performance of abject whoring to a loathsome dictator. Wouldn’t you expect a little gratitude from the man you just serviced? One brief kind word or a condescending pat on the head?

But Putin mocked Carlson during the interview and has continued to laugh at him since :

“Russian President Vladimir Putin says he was surprised by a lack of sharp questions from U.S. television host Tucker Carlson in an interview that made headlines around the world last week. Putin told a Russian TV interviewer, Pavel Zarubin, that he had wanted Carlson to behave more aggressively, which would have given him the right to reply just as pointedly.

“To be honest, I thought that he would behave aggressively and ask so-called sharp questions. I was not just prepared for this, I wanted it, because it would give me the opportunity to respond in the same way,” Putin said in comments broadcast on Wednesday.”

I guess an idiot is still an idiot, no matter how useful.

https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-complains-about-lack-piercing-questions-tucker-carlson-2024-02-14/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

John Oliver ripped Clarence and Virginia Thomas enough new assholes during this week’s show that it might be enough to give Steven Calabresi another stroke or two.

I encourage every decent person to watch and enjoy the newest Last Week Tonight.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You didn't find Crow's Nazi memorabilia room quaint?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ah yes . . . Zyklon B gas has such a “quaint” scent!

[Frank Drackman]

It's the same gas that was used in Amurican Gas Chambers until they decided to go with the more "humane" Nitrogen. Both Cyanide and Nitrogen Asphyxiate at the cellular level (not drowned, there's a difference) but 50mg of residual Nitrogen won't kill the screws tasked with removing the dead prisoner like Cyanide will.

[grb]

BrotherMovesOn : “You didn’t find Crow’s Nazi memorabilia room quaint?”

“It’s an interesting, good question,” Crow told The Dallas Morning News when asked if he would be friends with Thomas if he weren’t a Supreme Court justice. “I don’t know how to answer that. Maybe not. Maybe yes. I don’t know.”

He doesn’t, but we do. The more interesting question about this transactional relationship is whether Thomas would have a spare minute for Crow if the latter didn’t constantly pony-up. While I would never suggest Thomas isn’t a very smart man, there are serious questions about Crow. What kind of person hangs a mediocre painting on his wall merely because it was painted by someone who committed genocide? And then there’s that grotesque sculpture garden of famous despots to consider. All in all, you get the impression of more money than taste or common sense.

So what exactly do they talk about – as each cashes-in on his side of this transaction?
Per Crow, they talk about dogs…..

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks Arthur.

I like the ending when Oliver offers Thomas not only $1 million annual to quit the Court but also a luxury RV and makes the point that if these billionaires who lavished gifts on him are really his “friends” — they will certainly continue to shower those gifts after he’s no longer on the Court.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't usually hope for peoples to get the big Casino, but if one of J-hey's Lightning bolts happens to hit John Oliver I won't shed a tear. His swarmy ass-hol-olic English Accent just reminds me why we kicked the English's asses in 2 wars.

Frank

[not guilty]

Actually the United States has won only one war against Great Britain. The War of 1812 ended in essentially a draw. The two nations have since been allies.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's in a name?

[John F. Carr]

Ending in a draw reminds me of this scene from A Fish Called Wanda:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920#t=16

Later in the scene you see why the movie had some difficulty making it to TV in later years. One character mocks another's stutter.

[Theendoftheleft]

Again, AIDS, why are you promoting infotainment? Such comedians’ programs are properly, and classically, classified as propaganda.

Large parts of the American left understand this now, at least.

[not guilty]

Politico reports that "Christian nationalists" are making plans to take control in the event that Donald Trump wins another term as President. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/donald-trump-allies-christian-nationalism-00142086

I have long wished that that crowd would find a deity Who is not such a weenie that He needs help from Caesar. Jesus was well aware of the distinction between the two.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Trump will be the new Constantine?

[Nige]

Did he not see a cross shining over Four Seasons Gardening?

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “So Trump will be the new Constantine?”

Kinda missing the big picture. The world is swarming with Trumps these days. One of the most odious is Modi of India, but there’s also Erdoğan of Turkey, Orbán of Hungary, and Bolsonaro of Brazil. Putin, of course, is the granddaddy of them all. The countries of Europe are replete with minor parties full of Trump-types up&down the fascist spectrum.

All are busy undermining their country’s democratic foundations; all sell some kind of Other to mobs eager to rage; all peddle murky conspiracies of us vs Them. A thread of criminality runs through many of them since they’re huckster conmen at heart.

So Trump is far from some grand historical figure. His only distinction lies in being the most buffoonish and moronic of all the Trumps worldwide.

[apedad]

100000++++++++++++++++ YES!

[Mr. Bumble]

It was a question in response to ng's comment, not a statement of fact or belief.
Also, non of the leaders (with the possible exception of Putin) nor the counties are comparable to the US or the President of the US.

[Nige]

Not until Trump gets his way.

[Nige]

So, they want the US out of NATO
They want military intervention at the border
They're obviously anti-abortion, but they seem pretty anti-contraception, too.
Anti LGTBQ
Anti single mothers.
Want to end no fault divorce
Want to end sex education in schools
Want to end surrogacy
Want the Insurrection Act used to quash protests (called that one).
Hey ho.

[not guilty]

The mandate of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has now issued in the civil damages actions against Donald Trump arising out of his January 6, 2021 conduct. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510.1208596900.0.pdf The Court of Appeals there affirmed the District Court's ruling that Trump is not entitled to absolute immunity at the pleading stage.

Some are reporting that Trump's time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with SCOTUS has now lapsed. I don't think that is the case. Under Supreme Court Rule 13, a litigant has 90 days from the lower court judgment to seek cert. In this case the Court of Appeals ruled on December 1, 2023. Day 90 is February 29, 2024. For good cause that deadline can be extended for up to another 60 days.

Yogi Berra famously said it ain't over til it's over. As much as I would like for it to be, this one ain't over yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I've said numerous times:
...to be continued.

[apedad]

Trump agreed to a 15 Feb deadline - and missed it.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-misses-supreme-court-deadline-to-fight-civil-immunity-from-jan-6-lawsuits/

This link has a link to the agreement.

[not guilty]

Thank you. That agreed motion, however, was in the Court of Appeals regarding issuance of that Court's mandate. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24434045/agreed-motion-blassingame.pdf I don't know whether Trump can still petition for a writ of certiorari despite the mandate having issued. I doubt that an agreement in the lower court could bind SCOTUS. That seems counter-intuitive.

[EscherEnigma]

Trump agreeing to things and then either abandoning his obligations or being exposed to have never intended to meet them in the first place is kind of Trump's thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The queen articulates why Shakespeare was right....

[Bwaaah]

Not fraud. Fraud requires a party to have suffered a loss as a result of a misrepresentation. The State does not assert there was any loss.

He lied. That's all. DESTROY HIM.

[Krayt]

I don't defend his behavior. I will attack, however, why they went after him.

Speaking of lies.

[Bwaaah]

Destroy Trump. These are your ethics.

[Krayt]

The state seizes the estate of irritating opponents, like tyrant kings of old, which would not have happened but for the irritating part.

[defaultdotxbe]

Bad news for anyone who's ever exaggerated their resume to get a job.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t defend his behavior. I will attack, however, why they went after him.

LOL.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He actually wrote: " ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

[Dr. Ed 2]

As the Queen may remember (or likely not) the cops who beat up Rodney King were NOT incarcerated for using him as a punching bag but for violating his civil rights.

Taking Trump's real estate empire away from him is the same thing as murdering him -- at his age, he ain't gonna build it back.

[SRG2]

Ah but that's different because "Trump can do no wrong"

[Nige]

Twitter had an entire database devoted to Trump's demands for people to be silenced and banned.

[hobie]

In NY damages in a fraud claim are typically the difference between the value of the thing as represented and the value of the thing as it actually exists. Are you confusing actual/statutory vs punitive damages?

[Bwaaah]

OK. He's been found in violation of the law for having overstated the valuation of properties. No crime. Destroy him.

[David Nieporent]

That's the French Revolution of 1789 that the framers were watching in 1787, as per Dr. Ed.

[David Nieporent]

No, he fucking didn’t, you uneducated halfwit moron. He was arguing against that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, which they were watching in 1786 in the hallways of the palace.

And I will enjoy NYC dealing with a trucker's strike.

[Nige]

And the crime.

[Nige]

Bear in mind that Trump wants shoplifters shot on sight. Speaking of actually destroying people for alleged crimes that are relatively harmless without due process of any kind.

[Bwaaah]

I am not aware of there being "fraud" or "damages" in this case. I believe that he simply violated civil law that effectively bars false valuations. For having made false valuations, he is now being punished under the laws. The laws provide for various types of sanctions and various ways to determine appropriate magnitudes for those sanctions.

In this case, Trump broke New York State law, solely in having lied about the valuations of real estate properties. The appropriate penalty, in this case, in New York, is to fine him in an amount roughly equal to his net worth, and to destroy his real estate development business.

[Kazinski]

“an anti-intellectual villain hero.”

But seriously, Shakespeare wrote the line because he knew it would resonate, but of course not because it was his personal opinion. He probably ran a lot in the same circles as lawyers, educated commoners in the capital.

[Michael P]

Shoplifters have shot innocent bystanders and security guards. And it figures that you're the kind of person who thinks organized retail theft on mass scale is "relatively harmless". People like you are why drug stores in Northeast DC only have pictures of products on their shelves instead of the actual products.

[Nige]

No, hugely overhyped lies about the scale of shoplifting is why those are there - they literally admitted it a month or so ago. But that's not the point - Trump got fined for his fraudulent behaviour and it's the worst miscarriage of justice since the Dreyfuss Affair. Trump also promises to have alleged shoplifters shot on sight with, one suppose no due process, and you are going to vote for him. Also, the mass deportations are going to be a civil rights shitshow, and you are going to vote for him. He has promised to go after his political enemies and you are going to vote for him.

[EscherEnigma]

... what do you think "murdered" means, that "not being as rich as he was last week, but still quite rich and enjoying the highest standards of living the US can provide" is anywhere close to "the same thing"?

Trump being the topic seems to be an open invitation to absurd analogies, but this is more absurd then most by a few degrees of magnitude.