Careful there.
Such an insult has previously been treated
by mods as a rule violation. Let's not give
them more work.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump ordered to pay nearly 355 million in NY fraud case.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Such an insult has previously been treated
by mods as a rule violation. Let's not give
them more work.
Irrelevant.It's called excommunication. A strategy for losers.
Truckers are gonna start refusing loads for NYC - Easton Spectator
Truckers will refuse NYC deliverieswww.eastonspectator.com
Feel free to start a discussion about dumb Trump supporters who are about to get fired for also supporting fraud and opposing justice.
It’s amazing how clever some people aren’t.
Asking for Trump to be tried by a jury of crooks was intended to be a joke. I didn't mean to waste your time. Sorry.
It was not intended to be confusing. I am sorry.
Sorry for the confusion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Black's Law Dictionary is the Bible of the sovereign citizens. When it is brought up in a debate it rings an alarm bell for me, and evokes sounds of window smashing.
McBell
Unbound
Under New York law, the five elements of a fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff. Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1997); Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276 (2011). Fraud may also be based on a “material omission of fact.” Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 178 (2011).The question for summary judgment is whether the evidence on the record could support a reasonable jury finding that the plaintiff has shown each element by clear and convincing evidence. Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 888 F.Supp.2d 478, 484 (2012).
Fraud / Fraud In The Inducement – Lanin Law P.C.
laninlaw.com
Clearly answering a question is not your strong suit.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It's relevant because democracy without the rule of law is simple mob rule and NY is of course a Democrat state. Since you seem to be having trouble with all this, I should also point out that Trump is a Republican and there's a fair amount of polarisation between these two factions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I skipped over a bunch of posts today. I had to go back and read it. It merited a funny frubal. I gave it one. Perhaps people took you seriously.
Oh well, it was a joke but in case any Trump supporters are wondering why he didn't get a jury the answer is: Because he did not want one.
For this sort of case the defendant can request a jury trial. There is a deadline of course and it passed without the request for one. I think that they realized that all of the evidence would have to be openly presented for a jury trial, and they did no want that. That also enabled both side to request a verdict based upon the evidence given to the judge before the trial began, and the judge agreed to give that decision. He ruled that Trump and family were guilty. The strategy of not having a jury failed because even though Trump was guilty the prosecution wisely wanted all of the evidence to be part of the public record.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Oh don't be sorry! Sometimes jokes and especially sarcasm don't translate the best over text. It's all good
It is majority democrat. And there is rule of law there.
Is it illegal to be a democrat?
Notice republicans and democrats get along fine in life. So Trump being charged with crimes, and being defended, and being judged is how the process works.
You have yet to point out any actual injustice or corruption. Your personal feelings are irrelevant.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to defend a claim that I didn't make.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You don't get to define what the rule of law is.
The legal system does. I’m accepting the outcomes in Trump’s legal cases. You’re not.
So you’re the one that wants the law to be different.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, the rule of law goes back to common law.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Continuing Law-Equity Distinction
: Analysis and Interpretation of the of the US Constitution
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, he has me on ignore. Can someone tell him that Trump had a right to a jury trial. He would have been given one if he had asked for a jury. His attorneys never asked.No, the rule of law goes back to common law.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Continuing Law-Equity Distinction
: Analysis and Interpretation of the of the US Constitutionlaw.justia.com
I agree with most of you post, however the MAGA people are probably not all that interested in politics and have little faith in government, which is a big part of Trump's appeal. Also he is running as the anti-abortion candidate, and there is a very strong anti-abortion movement. Lastly his anti-abortion stance lends him religious credentials in evangelical circles and possibly catholic ones, too. These three things are I think the three legs under his table. What's happening, now, is that he is being exposed as corrupt through this long and very standard legal process. This takes away his anti-government image, leaving his table with only two legs.
He has other supporters besides his 'Maga' supporters though. For example there are those who are pro Republican regardless of who runs.
I don't see how being corrupt would affect any of those legs. These are, after all, the same 'pious' people that fully accept him as a sex offender. Further, his legal problems just confirm for his supporters that he's just being persecuted for his anti-government stance.
His small-government pro-public-people stance gets harder to believe as his corruption is made more well known. A lot of the excitement about him was that people believed he couldn't be bought, that the big corporations couldn't control him or tempt him.