|
Trump Legal Troubles: hardly a smart risk to take
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
It seems some people itt want rich people to get preferential treatment from the court? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:It seems some people itt want rich people to get preferential treatment from the court? Did you post in the wrong thread maybe? Nobody's advocated that here. If Trump lied to the court about either his ability to post the full undertaking, or submitted an inadequate bond, I hope he's wrecked. Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Did you post in the wrong thread maybe? Nobody's advocated that here. The previous page has at least one person all but saying a certain rich person shouldn't be allowed to make appeals. Either everyone is allowed to do this, or nobody is allowed to do this. Not allowing rich people to do this is giving them preferential treatment, just not the good kind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The previous page has at least one person all but saying a certain rich person shouldn't be allowed to make appeals. Either everyone is allowed to do this, or nobody is allowed to do this. Not allowing rich people to do this is giving them preferential treatment, just not the good kind. That's not what "preferential" means. Hence the confusion on my part. Ed: haha x2 vvvvvv
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The previous page has at least one person all but saying a certain rich person shouldn't be allowed to make appeals. Either everyone is allowed to do this, or nobody is allowed to do this. Not allowing rich people to do this is giving them preferential treatment, just not the good kind. “preferential” specifically means “the good kind”
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The previous page has at least one person all but saying a certain rich person shouldn't be allowed to make appeals. Either everyone is allowed to do this, or nobody is allowed to do this. Not allowing rich people to do this is giving them preferential treatment, just not the good kind. psst preferential isn't a synonym for special, it actually means "advantageous". Preferential treatment IS the good kind efb
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Okay, so what is it called when everyone else is allowed to appeal except for certain people? Everyone else has preferential treatment then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
Discrimination? Unfair treatment? I’m not sure where you’re headed with this, but I hope it’s excellent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
Everyone is "allowed" to appeal, but our system is set up to where only those with enough money can afford to appeal. Thats the problem
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Backcountry posted:Everyone is "allowed" to appeal, but our system is set up to where only those with enough money can afford to appeal. It seems like the court accommodating Trump's appeal, regardless of whether he can afford the $475M bond, then would be a step in the right direction? Allow the appeals process to play out regardless of the appellant's financial state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Backcountry posted:Everyone is "allowed" to appeal, but our system is set up to where only those with enough money can afford to appeal. *capitalism enters the chat* Let's set bail equal to ten times the maximum amount of money we can extract so we get kickbacks from bail bondsmen. What's that, the incentive for showing up is removed if they're hosed out of that money and subsequently a place to live no matter what? Private bounty hunters yo, why fix a problem with anything else when violence becomes legal The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It seems like the court accommodating Trump's appeal, regardless of whether he can afford the $475M bond, then would be a step in the right direction? Allow the appeals process to play out regardless of the appellant's financial state? He can appeal without a bond. The bond is to freeze collection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The previous page has at least one person all but saying a certain rich person shouldn't be allowed to make appeals. Alright, I didn't consider that. My mistake, I stand corrected. Clearly that isn't right. But neither is this: Cimber posted:Its not just Trump that abuses the court system to stall for time. Everyone who has money enough to afford good lawyers has this option and they often do so. I guess I just feel like justice shouldn't be paywalled behind expensive lawyers, and I'm a little surprised at how controversial this view seems here. Not everyone has the money to afford good lawyers, so do they just not deserve fair treatment like the rich get from the courts? Yeah, you can get a court-appointed lawyer who is badly overloaded and not guaranteed to be very invested in doing their best for you, but we both know that's not nearly the same as an expensive lawyer who can spend all his time on just your case. I guess the idea that the right to a fair trial being basically DLC just doesn't sit well with me. The Bible fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
I'm not really sure what your proposed solution to this is. Should the government just allow you to hire a lawyer at public expense with no cap on what the lawyer's hourly cost is or how many hours they bill? Like, it's not that people think rich people are more deserving of lawyers but they're just acknowledging that being rich inherently means it's easier to buy services which cost money. The solution to that would be to not have a capitalist society, but that's the solution to all kinds of problems and getting there is a somewhat intractable problem in itself. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I'm not really sure what your proposed solution to this is. Should the government just allow you to hire a lawyer at public expense with no cap on what the lawyer's hourly cost is or how many hours they bill? I'm not a legal expert, so I really can't suggest a solution, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize a problem. My probably flawed suggestion would be perhaps be capping the amount lawyers can charge, but there's probably a million problems with that. Maybe something to deal with people intentionally stalling the system, but again, probably a ton I don't know about that can go wrong there, too. I'd love to be able to propose something meaningful but I'm not a legal expert. I'm just a citizen who is concerned with the idea that you really only get a chance at a fair trial if you can afford one. I get that money buys more services, but when those services are tied to what are supposed to be inalienable rights, it seems that it leads to some serious inequality. The Bible fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:19
|
|
|
The solution would/should probably involve making the legal system more equitable, not just fair. If the issue is that the lawyers appointed to people who can't afford to hire better lawyers is that the court appointed lawyers are overworked, then something ought to be done about that. If it's because there aren't enough court appointed lawyers, then either offer more incentives for lawyers to take up those appointments who otherwise wouldn't, or make it a condition of practicing law in that locality that they must spend provide their services (although, that would potentially cause more issues if you're forcing people to work for clients they don't want to work with).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Alright, I didn't consider that. My mistake, I stand corrected. Clearly that isn't right. But neither is this: It's not controversial, not a single person here has even hinted that justice should only be for the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
IANAL but as far as I know the general concept of "right to a fair trial" comes from the Sixth Amendment, which begins with the clause "In all criminal prosecutions". This all has to do with a civil case, so I am not even sure if there is anything comparable that applies - I am pretty sure you can't get a public defender even for the initial trial there, let alone appeals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
The Bible posted:I'm not a legal expert, so I really can't suggest a solution, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize a problem. I don't see how we can readily and fairly make this determination without having all of the same problems and issues of fairness the system already has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
Universal law care? A tax-supported program that provides representation for any citizen for no cost at point of service?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
i would think a better way to solve this would be to loving fund and populate the courts. Trials take so loving long because there are so few judges and clerks. There is a long running problem with far too many cases and far too few judges both local, state and federal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The solution would/should probably involve making the legal system more equitable, not just fair. If the issue is that the lawyers appointed to people who can't afford to hire better lawyers is that the court appointed lawyers are overworked, then something ought to be done about that. If it's because there aren't enough court appointed lawyers, then either offer more incentives for lawyers to take up those appointments who otherwise wouldn't, or make it a condition of practicing law in that locality that they must spend provide their services (although, that would potentially cause more issues if you're forcing people to work for clients they don't want to work with). I guess this is what I'd like to see. I don't know, I guess I'm just too out of my depth here. Maybe I just have to accept that equal rights are just never going to be a thing and try to ignore it. I'm not even really affected by it, I don't know why it bothers me so much when there's literally poo poo-all I can do about it. socialsecurity posted:It's not controversial, not a single person here has even hinted that justice should only be for the rich. Alright, that was specious of me. I meant to say that there's a very casual acceptance of it as something that is immutable. Although maybe that's because it is. The Bible fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
So have we heard on what grounds trump is appealing yet? I assume this would of had to of been submitted to the court to start the bond process otherwise they would of just taken the money stright away. The case seems pretty open and shut and the judge intentionally seemed to give them a lot of leeway so they wouldn't have grounds for apeal. Trump lawyers seem to always go for throw everything at the wall and sees what sticks apporch, but if what they threw was all garabage you'd think a lot of it would be able to cleared up pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:So have we heard on what grounds trump is appealing yet? I assume this would of had to of been submitted to the court to start the bond process otherwise they would of just taken the money stright away. He doesn't have to give a reason for his appeal yet. The bond just guarantees that he'll actually be able to pay the fine while he appeals. I'm not sure when the appeal deadline is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:30
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:So have we heard on what grounds trump is appealing yet? I assume this would of had to of been submitted to the court to start the bond process otherwise they would of just taken the money stright away. I think he has until September to actually submit the appeal? My understanding is you get one shot at it so you just throw in the kitchen sink. Expect to see a lot about how Engoron’s law clerk actually ran the trial and made the decisions and whatever. Edit: Maybe he has to submit the appeal earlier than that so the Govt can rebut it by September? Anyway nothing really happens until September. Murgos fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
Honestly, I think it's pretty dumb to make you put up a bond or have the judgement amount seized before the appeal is ruled in in the first place. It's funny that it's bed for Trump, and having him commit more fraud to appeal a fraud case is hilarious. However as long as the interest keeps accruing and he has to pay after is ridiculous appeal fails I honestly don't care if he manages to pointlessly delays paying in a way that actually just cost more money via interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:36
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, I think it's pretty dumb to make you put up a bond or have the judgement amount seized before the appeal is ruled in in the first place. It's funny that it's bed for Trump, and having him commit more fraud to appeal a fraud case is hilarious. However as long as the interest keeps accruing and he has to pay after is ridiculous appeal fails I honestly don't care if he manages to pointlessly delays paying in a way that actually just cost more money via interest. I don't know the exact history, but what I've heard is that NY has had an issue with people pissing away or hiding their money during the appeal, and given that New York is home to a lot of financial shenanigans it makes sense. This is only for civil suits and only after you've been found liable, so it isn't unjust, but I'm glad it isn't the standard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:46
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, I think it's pretty dumb to make you put up a bond or have the judgement amount seized before the appeal is ruled in in the first place. It's funny that it's bed for Trump, and having him commit more fraud to appeal a fraud case is hilarious. However as long as the interest keeps accruing and he has to pay after is ridiculous appeal fails I honestly don't care if he manages to pointlessly delays paying in a way that actually just cost more money via interest. My fear is that he manages to do it up to election time and all this just immediately stops because you apparently can't have a presidential candidate in court for whatever reason. The courts MUST know this is his goal, but there doesn't seem to be anything they can do about it, despite his clear bad faith in doing it. He's clearly angling to hold it off long enough to possibly win the election, then just abuse his power to handwave it all away, if such a thing is even possible. It also scares me that no one seems to know if a president can pardon himself. Less a problem for his civil proceedings, but the same tactics are at play in his more serious cases and they look like they are working pretty well so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
The Bible posted:My fear is that he manages to do it up to election time and all this just immediately stops because you apparently can't have a presidential candidate in court for whatever reason. The only guidance I'm aware of is that they will not bring charges against a candidate close to an election. There is nothing about stopping a trial already in progress. The courts are largely ignoring the election calendar and doing things at the pace they always do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:52
|
|
|
Even if he can’t wave away state charges, he can always die in office before they get a chance to resume proceedings, so it’s win-win for him
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:I don't know the exact history, but what I've heard is that NY has had an issue with people pissing away or hiding their money during the appeal, and given that New York is home to a lot of financial shenanigans it makes sense. He's already got a court monitor for his businesses, so there's no real risk of that. A court monitor to keep you from blowing all your money on hookers and blow seems more reasonable than giving the money up immediately anyway. The Bible posted:My fear is that he manages to do it up to election time and all this just immediately stops because you apparently can't have a presidential candidate in court for whatever reason. This isn't really delaying his ultimate appeal though, it just loving around with whether or not he pays today or in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Even if he can’t wave away state charges, he can always die in office before they get a chance to resume proceedings, so it’s win-win for him trump in office, announces "i'm about to pull what everyone is saying is a 'pro gamer move' its gonna be big folks"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 05:44
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:trump in office, announces "i'm about to pull what everyone is saying is a 'pro gamer move' its gonna be big folks" A move so big, so great, many people are already saying pog. Many many people are saying not just pog, but the most amazing pog ever. Simply incredible pog. Pog like you can't even imagine. And that's how I beat all the witch hunts to reclaim my rightful presidency THAT WAS STOLEN IN 2020. And just like I beat crooked old Joe Biden with an amazing pog, this is gonna be something else. Pog.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 07:15
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:I don't know the exact history, but what I've heard is that NY has had an issue with people pissing away or hiding their money during the appeal So have the forums, it was kinda mind blowing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:10
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Even if he can’t wave away state charges, he can always die in office before they get a chance to resume proceedings, so it’s win-win for him The judgements are mostly against Trump Org which continues on after he’s dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 12:34
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The judgements are mostly against Trump Org which continues on after he’s dead. Yeah but he won’t be around to see and be affected by it
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 12:36
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah but he won’t be around to see and be affected by it Lame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 12:39
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah but he won’t be around to see and be affected by it Eh, as long as I don't have to read about his lovely all caps gaslighting anymore I'm willing to let his utter humiliation be after he's gone. Sooner the better IMO. Deplatforming Trump works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Eh, as long as I don't have to read about his lovely all caps gaslighting anymore I'm willing to let his utter humiliation be after he's gone. Sooner the better IMO. His whiny poo poo being mostly confined to the near void that is truth social has been a very good thing. And the funniest thing about that is it's a self inflected deplatforming. He could go back to twitter at anytime but his out of control ego won't let him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 14:45
|
|