Nougat

Articles must be relevant to US political news.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24233452/colorado-ruling.pdf

https://kbin.social/m/OriginalDocuments/t/713941/The-Supreme-Court-of-the-State-of-Colorado-Order-Affirmed

Defendants persist in arguing that if a loan closes prior to the period during which the statute of limitations allows suit, than [sic] any required follow-up SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] made during that period is somehow sacrosanct. That contention is belied by a plain reading of Executive Law Section [] 63(12), by the law of the case doctrine, and, perhaps most importantly, by common sense. Closing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for future misstatements. All that [] 63(12) requires is a false statement used in business; the subject financial statements fit that definition “to a T.”

This particular doc is a photocopy, and not OCR’ed on the destination.

You may be referring to, in part:

[Eli] Bartov [who was an expert witness for the defendants] is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.

Excellent - thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain for passers-by!

You should search for “OriginalDocuments” on your instance, which should turn it up and enable you to subscribe to it. Your subscription will trigger that content to be federated to your instance.

Original document

And because I’ve gotten smacked down more than once for posting such documents “elsewhere,” I made my own place to post them, with blackjack, and hookers.

So good to know that anyone who wants to can buy our PII and leave it vulnerable to mischief.

We could give them Palestine.

If you don’t think a Trump presidency would result in an invasion of Poland Mexico, you might want to pick up a history book.

I heard Woodward and/or Bernstein saying that because it’s on an expedited track, it actually takes five votes to bring the case before SCOTUS, not four.

Financial vehicles for retirement should be relatively low risk, with that risk becoming even lower as you reach retirement age. Investing in a single stock, no matter what it is, is a high risk. Sure, you can look into the past and say “if you’d just invested in Stock X,” but that’s with the benefit of hindsight.

The only way you should be managing your 401K is into an index fund with low fees. That’s it. Everything else is gambling.

It’s only a “depression” when the ownership class is affected.

Defense motioned to the Court for a stay pending appeal. Judge Chutkan granted such a stay, because she had to; there is no other choice. However, she was very clear that that stay only puts on hold the various deadline dates for pretrial motions and discovery and such. As of right now, all of the protections in place remain (including the gag order in that case), as well as the March 4, 2024, trial date, although that trial date may be adjusted depending on how long the appeal goes.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is moving much faster on this appeal than they did with their almost year-long process which found that Trump can be civilly sued for Jan6 events. SCOTUS has already agreed to expedite the process of considering whether they will take the case (because of Jack Smith’s motion to SCOTUS to do so), and they’re asking for a hasty response from Trump’s defense team.

But based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals moving quickly on this appeal, I suspect SCOTUS will ultimately decline to hear the case, and let stand the appeals court ruling.

I was serious about this Defense immunity/double jeopardy argument being frivolous. There is absolutely no way any court finds in Trump’s favor on either of those points - and Defense knows it. The whole point is to delay, as is made obvious by their motion to delay the appeal proceedings, apparently because Jack Smith is the Grinch? If Defense was serious about these arguments, and thought they had any chance of winning this appeal, they would want that appeals process to go forward as quickly as possible, because winning that appeal means their client becomes not only “unindicted,” but “unibictable.” One might even argue that Defense counsel moving to delay the appeals process is acting in opposition to the interests of the defendant, amounting to legal malpractice.

But I digress.

This could backfire because the Supreme Court is corrupt.

While not impossible, highly unlikely. The repercussions of ruling that a president can never be criminally charged for actions taken while holding office puts the persons who are Supreme Court Justices at direct personal risk, because such a ruling would explicitly enable a sitting president to commit crimes, not the least of which would certainly be to imprison or murder their political enemies - remember, with impunity - and SCOTUS would be on the short list there.

No, SCOTUS justices having a lifelong term means that they have a much longer view of American politics than people who have to run for election every two or four or six years. They will act to protect themselves personally, even if they are not acting to protect a functioning democracy.

With regard to both the stupid “double jeopardy” argument and the “presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office,” here is US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The fact that they’re actually making this argument is frivolous, and those lawyers should receive consequences for doing so.

Which states? Which books? Uhhhh …

I am aware of Hawaii in 1960 (as I am certain Ms. Collins also is). In short, the vote tally had Nixon beating Kennedy in Hawaii by 140 votes. One, Hawaii’s three electoral votes would not have changed the outcome of the election; Kennedy won handily without them. Two, the recount flipped the state in Kennedy’s favor. Three, Hawaii in 1960 is “the only legal precedent for dueling Electoral College slates since the Electoral Count Act passed in 1887.” There have never been any other dueling slates of electors in any other states, nor in any other election years.

Ron Johnson is a liar.

And they’re on track to do it again.

I followed the link to ShitSocial so you didn’t have to:

I wanted to testify on Monday, despite the fact that I already testified successfully, answering all questions having to do with the Fake, No Victims, No Jury lawsuit, thrown at me by the Corrupt Racist A.G., Letitia James, and presided over by a Trump hating judge who suffers from a massive case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and is a puppet for the CROOKED A.G. Anyway, the Judge, Arthur Engoron, put a GAG ORDER on me, even when I testify, totally taking away my constitutional right to defend myself. We are appealing, but how would you like to be a witness and not be allowed free snd honest speech. THE TRIAL IS RIGGED. I DID NOTHING WRONG!!!

Yeah, I was describing the best case scenario.

Except that they can pass the bill, and enforce the bill, and the legislation stays active and in place until someone with standing files suit, goes to court (taking on the time and money expense of doing so), goes through the appeals process (and we know that the State could also appeal, so either way it goes), on and on until it gets to SCOTUS. All of which can take years, during which unconstitutional fuckery is foisted upon the good citizens of Missouri.

This is the standard that’s been set: do whatever the fuck you want, and abuse the judiciary to get away with it as long as possible.