comp_atkins' forum posts

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

You said he played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law? Did the court violate state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal?

seems you're being a little pedantic here...

i doubt the judge violated the law when he gave trump extra time to hand in his homework and lowered the bar for a passing grade. i'm sure the law allows for the court to make decisions like these. the whole argument of a tiered justice system is not that there's literally a second set of laws on the books that you can look up. it's the application of laws.

you know if it was some clown that got hit with a $50K judgement and wasn't able to secure a bond in time that 98% of the time the judge's response would be "sorry about that, but the law is the law, lets empty those bank accounts and sell your property to cover the appeal bond, oh, and you also owe an extra $8K in interest!"

Bernie Madoff bilked millions of people out of several billion dollars and his bond was ten million dollars. Trump cheated no one, no one lost money and his bond was four hunderd and seventy-five million. There is only one explaination it was political. Also the bond amount violates the eight ammendment of the constitution, of course whe do the Democrats ever abide by the constitution.

Madoff's was charged in criminal court, not a civil suit. It's not the same thing at all. His bond wasn't money held after a judgement was rendered while the case made its way through appeal. Entirely different circumstances.

bond amount is entirely constitutional given trump's net worth.

The same law was used. It doesn't matter what court it was in except in Trump's case he should have been tried in criminal court. The problem was there was no victim so no crime. It was a political case or should I say election interference.

the same law was no used.

madoff was charged with felony securities fraud at the federal level.

trump was accused and tried in a civil suit under new york executive law.

the differences do matter.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

on my beard, year.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

If I have to tell you how the law works then I'm disappointed dude.

You said he played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law? Did the court violate state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal?

seems you're being a little pedantic here...

i doubt the judge violated the law when he gave trump extra time to hand in his homework and lowered the bar for a passing grade. i'm sure the law allows for the court to make decisions like these. the whole argument of a tiered justice system is not that there's literally a second set of laws on the books that you can look up. it's the application of laws.

you know if it was some clown that got hit with a $50K judgement and wasn't able to secure a bond in time that 98% of the time the judge's response would be "sorry about that, but the law is the law, lets empty those bank accounts and sell your property to cover the appeal bond, oh, and you also owe an extra $8K in interest!"

Bernie Madoff bilked millions of people out of several billion dollars and his bond was ten million dollars. Trump cheated no one, no one lost money and his bond was four hunderd and seventy-five million. There is only one explaination it was political. Also the bond amount violates the eight ammendment of the constitution, of course whe do the Democrats ever abide by the constitution.

Madoff's was charged in criminal court, not a civil suit. It's not the same thing at all. His bond wasn't money held after a judgement was rendered while the case made its way through appeal. Entirely different circumstances.

bond amount is entirely constitutional given trump's net worth.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

@uninspiredcup: haven't made it very far through the whittaker episodes yet. maybe watched 1 or 2, can't recall. need to try to catch back up

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

@Planeforger said:

@comp_atkins: For what it's worth, there are a few big practical differences between securing $50K for a bond and securing $450 million for a bond. The latter might actually be impossible for Trunp to do - especially when he has been found guilty of fraud, he probably doesn't own much property, he is infamous for never paying his bills, and his prospects of a successful appeal are extremely low.

You have to give him a realistic chance to appeal it, and it's bad form to say "your crimes are too big so you can't afford to appeal" - that just gives Trump more ammunition to pretend the courts are corrupt.

So hey, *maybe* that's the reason the courts modified the standard civil procedure rules this time. I can't see any actual reasons posted, so it's basically either an access to justice argument, or it's simple favouritism by the courts.

I still think it's the wrong decision. Trump was begging for mercy on paper, but he was mocking the courts online, and I think that should have tanked any chance of a good outcome for him.

On the bright side, his track record suggests he'll lose the appeal, and the judgement still stands at $450+ million, so these delays could simply mean that he can lose the next election and then have all of his properties sold off at roughly the same time.

can he post DJT stock as collateral? don't know.


iirc his argument against a fire sale to satisfy the bond was that he'd would suffer "irreparable damage" if forced to liquidate a property potentially at a steep discount. Should the amount be reduced on appeal, it's not like the property would simply be returned. Which I get as a valid argument, but again, if a "regular joe" had their investment property ( using investment property here because iirc the law is different for trying to seize a primary residence ) seized by the court and the judgement is reversed on appeal, that person is also out of luck.

I mean, there's always the possibility of not committing fraud in the first place?

but sounds like fraud is a feature, not a bug with these people....

Loading Video...

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

If I have to tell you how the law works then I'm disappointed dude.

You said he played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law? Did the court violate state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal?

seems you're being a little pedantic here...

i doubt the judge violated the law when he gave trump extra time to hand in his homework and lowered the bar for a passing grade. i'm sure the law allows for the court to make decisions like these. the whole argument of a tiered justice system is not that there's literally a second set of laws on the books that you can look up. it's the application of laws.

you know if it was some clown that got hit with a $50K judgement and wasn't able to secure a bond in time that 98% of the time the judge's response would be "sorry about that, but the law is the law, lets empty those bank accounts and sell your property to cover the appeal bond, oh, and you also owe an extra $8K in interest!"

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts
@horgen said:
@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: I recently trained most of my feeds to consist primarily of Calvin and Hobbes comics and NFL off-season news, haha.

#Winning

It does nothing but trying to push people away from the common middle ground.

pissed off people are more engaged

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

For some it is difficult for them to see that others fighting for equal treatment does not mean TAKING AWAY something THEY currently enjoy.

We see similar backlashes in the "all lives matter" people, or the people against marriage equality, etc...

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38683 Posts

me:

everyone else: