@bulk-vh correct. I’m so glad I listened to snarl and leveled up on Bitcoin. It’s been a great investment. Having Boogerballer and snarl as my financial advisors has simply reinforced my belief that you really don’t need people in your corner with any finance training.
And unlike Edward Jones advisors you only have to send us a gift card occasionally to the Cheesecake Factory for our services.
@bulk-vh correct. I’m so glad I listened to snarl and leveled up on Bitcoin. It’s been a great investment. Having Boogerballer and snarl as my financial advisors has simply reinforced my belief that you really don’t need people in your corner with any finance training.
And unlike Edward Jones advisors you only have to send us a gift card occasionally to the Cheesecake Factory for our services.
Oh for Pete’s sake. This has nothing to do with being a republican. It has only to do with Trump who often advances GOP principles and sometimes doesn’t come close. You’ll never convince me that this fund has any meaningful substance or has anything to do with being a Republican. Whether it would be corrupt is total speculation depends on a number of things you have no way of knowing. Not everything Trump does has anything to do with the GOP platform.
Oh for Pete’s sake. This has nothing to do with being a republican. It has only to do with Trump who often advances GOP principles and sometimes doesn’t come close. You’ll never convince me that this fund has any meaningful substance or has anything to do with being a Republican. Whether it would be corrupt is total speculation depends on a number of things you have no way of knowing. Not everything Trump does has anything to do with the GOP platform.
GOP Platform? We don’t have one. Trump insisted on not having one in 2016. Longtime Republican principles are a different matter. They don’t seem to be held by many so called Republicans today.
You familiar with the "case or controversy" requirement? I assume so since you claim to be a lawyer.
WTF are you talking about? and you're asking coh if he was a lawyer? physician heal thyself. case or controversy has absolutely zero to do with this shitty deal. the parties dismissed. there's no pending action. they are free to do anything, including settle. that's why teh ONLY germane question was if this type of case operated like a true tax case where in the tax court settlments have to be approved by a judge. my guess is that trump's peeps were smart initiated in the dist ct and could dump it and settle. there were no dispositive motions filed or heard apparently before the parties dismissed and settled. but case or controversy has nothing to do with parties settling outside of court
No. You’re ignoring or not understanding key considerations.
Litigation requires adversaries. Here there were none. Trump sued the government he leads. There was no one to push back.
The matter is a sham as there is no case or controversy, no adversaries (the “adversity requirement,” part and parcel of the case or controversy principle, wasn’t met), and there were no arms-length negotiations to resolve it. The purported “settlement” was not legally justified. Blanche wrongfully invoked the AG's authorities to award judgments and compromise settlements when he created the so-called anti-weaponization fund. Both of those authorities require the existence of legitimate litigation and not, as here, a lawsuit that is collusive, feigned, and/or fraudulent.
The parties, including Trump, perpetrated a fraud on the court. This is a collusive suit that is unlawful, as is any “settlement” that flows from it. The slush fund is illegal and will ultimately be struck down. It’s already been temporarily halted by a federal judge.
Trump’s people know this is doomed. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that top Trump aides have discussed whether he should kill the fund in exchange for getting immigration-enforcement funding passed next month.
@big-ryan you have no understanding of courts and litigation. Zero. Litigation isn’t needed for a settlement. A case isn’t needed. You’re talking about things that are of no moment. A dispute was settled out of court. No case or controversy is required because no case is required. 99.99999999999999 percent of disputes are settled outside of court. So what you took a swipe at coh about evinces someone who reads law articles but doesn’t know the first thing about litigation. Parties signed a 41 stip and then can do whatever they want unless specific stat says otherwise.
now. Is there a conflict. I’m sure. Conflicts. Self dealing. Dirty pool. How THAT is initiated by way of an action to block the fund and the irs is something different. But your paragraphs on case and controversy are inapposite to this matter. Art III dictates what fed cts can hear and resolve. It’s an out of court settlement. They aren’t hearing or deciding anything
This post was modified 2 hours ago 2 times by C Probert
@big-ryan you have no understanding of courts and litigation. Zero. Litigation isn’t needed for a settlement. A case isn’t needed. You’re talking about things that are of no moment. A dispute was settled out of court. No case or controversy is required because no case is required. 99.99999999999999 percent of disputes are settled outside of court. So what you took a swipe at coh about evinces someone who reads law articles but doesn’t know the first thing about litigation. Parties signed a 41 stip and then can do whatever they want unless specific stat says otherwise.
now. Is there a conflict. I’m sure. Conflicts. Self dealing. Dirty pool. How THAT is initiated by way of an action to block the fund and the irs is something different. But your paragraphs on case and controversy are inapposite to this matter. Art III dictates what fed cts can hear and resolve. It’s an out of court settlement. They aren’t hearing or deciding anything
Hey, straw man. I never argued that litigation is typically necessary to settle a dispute. It is axiomatic that most disputes are settled out of court.
Now, back to the matter at hand.
My understanding is consistent with that of 35 former federal judges:
"Movants submit that this “settlement” is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court. But the Court need not decide that ultimate issue now. At this juncture, Movants request only that the Court exercise its powers under Rule 60 to set aside its order ending the case based upon Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal. That will allow the Court to commence an inquiry into whether the Court was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy and any purported arms-length negotiations undertaken to resolve it. As set forth below, this Court has the power under Rule 60 to determine whether there has been a “corruption of the judicial process itself,” 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2870 (3d ed.), and may set aside a judgment and reopen a case under Rule 60(d)(3), as well as other subsections of Rule 60, whether by this motion or sua sponte. Doing so will allow judicial review of the extraordinary—and historically unprecedented—circumstances presented by this litigation and by the collusive “settlement” that invokes this litigation as the legal justification for its terms."
You are woefully uninformed with respect to this matter. But keep arguing, keep insulting, keep throwing out fallacies, keep repeating yourself. Maybe someone else will be impressed. I'm out.
@big-ryan my guess is libs judges. and yes i am uninformed with this case but i am informed about litigation practices. let me break it down very simply for you::
trump took a 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal. once that is filed the ct is stripped of jurisdiction. the court ordered the case close but it is unnecessary bc the second you file that it is self executing and effective immediately. trump doesn't need the court or defense to stip. he can then settle as he pleases.
now if there's a local rule to the contrary show me.
This post was modified 1 hour ago 2 times by C Probert
This post was modified 31 minutes ago by C Probert
