CURRENT EVENTS - April

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 495
  • Views: 10K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
The judge should have the ability to refuse to accept the settlement.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is a type of claim I’m not familiar with, but typically judges only have to approve settlements in class actions or qui tams. There may be some jurisdictions in which a judge has to approve a notice of dismissal, but in the ones I’m familiar with, parties to a civil case can do pretty much whatever they want to settle.
 
nycfan said:


Gotta figure out who has standing to sue if Trump settles with his own IRS here.
Click to expand...

If one cot dam cent of my taxes goes into that fat slob’s pockets as a result of this frivolous sham lawsuit, I’m going to rage the fuck out… and then write a sternly worded letter to my local representative.
 
lawtig02 said:
Maybe this is a type of claim I’m not familiar with, but typically judges only have to approve settlements in class actions or qui tams. There may be some jurisdictions in which a judge has to approve a notice of dismissal, but in the ones I’m familiar with, parties to a civil case can do pretty much whatever they want to settle.
Click to expand...
Didn't Dale Ho refuse to accept the DOJ's motion to drop the charges against Eric Adams?

Here's how I see it. If Trump just has the DOJ transfer $10B out of the Treasury, that is embezzlement and everyone can and will be prosecuted for that.

The only way to make it not embezzlement is to get the judicial stamp of approval. I mean, it still might be but the judicial order insulates it to some extent. But in order for it to be a judicial order, the judge has to approve. The judge doesn't have to sign his or her name.
 
superrific said:
Didn't Dale Ho refuse to accept the DOJ's motion to drop the charges against Eric Adams?

Here's how I see it. If Trump just has the DOJ transfer $10B out of the Treasury, that is embezzlement and everyone can and will be prosecuted for that.

The only way to make it not embezzlement is to get the judicial stamp of approval. I mean, it still might be but the judicial order insulates it to some extent. But in order for it to be a judicial order, the judge has to approve. The judge doesn't have to sign his or her name.
Click to expand...
Judges definitely have more control over the disposition of criminal cases. The issue with the embezzlement point is someone would have to charge them. Trump controls all those people, too.
 
lawtig02 said:
Judges definitely have more control over the disposition of criminal cases. The issue with the embezzlement point is someone would have to charge them. Trump controls all those people, too.
Click to expand...
What's the SOL on embezzlement? Probably more than the remainder of Trump's term. Make him pardon people, and then challenge the pardons as invalid because corrupt. Make the Supreme Court -- which might even be differently constituted by then, but assuming it's still the same -- make them declare that an obviously corrupt pardon resulting in a $10B extraction for the president is unreviewable. I'll bet the popular support for the Supreme Court would crater to almost nothing, and that's when we can get rid of it and start anew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top