The Supreme Court did not say!!

QP! said:
Yes and the judge in Colorado explained why she did that, even though most think she did so she and her family would not have to live with death threats and body guards for kicking Trump off the ballot, and she knew the Colorado SC would do it, and they would get the heat.
Click to expand...

why aren't they arresting trump right now?

oh because it's all fake.
:chuckle:
 
Jarod said:
You are ignorant...

In the United States, to put someone in prison you must prosecute them under a certain set of laws and procedures. Every state differs a bit, but generally not much.

CRIMINAL LAW Is a small section of American law and American Court Cases. There must be a specific law outlining the elements of the crime and the specific punishment allowed. (The court can impose different penalties, but the only thing backing up the requirement of the penalties is the threat of jail. Fines are often the only exception.) Another excepting is that there are often limits on what a convicted felon can do (vote for example) but those are set up based on other statutes and the status of the person as a felon. The court may order, for example, probation with certain terms... Like in a DUI, they will require an ignition interlock device on any car you own. But if you refuse to have the interlock device installed, the only resort the Court can turn to is Jail. Once a convict has maxed out on the prison/jail term set for that crime, he is done with the punishments.

CIVIL LAW In Civil Law (for the most part) one can be sued, by the State or Corporations or Individuals based on COMMON LAW (it can even rarely be English Common law), a Contract can set up a specific framework for how the law can be applied outside of Common Law, but the Common Law surrounding Contract Law still applies. Sometimes the Common Law allows or brings in elements of Criminal Law. Florida for example will allow on to seek punitive damages in tort if you can make a showing that the person you are suing broke a Criminal Law in the process of the Tort. (Example, a Drunk Driver causes an accident that injures you.) An example other than the Florida punitive damages law is what the New York Courts did to Donald Trump in the $550,000,000 judgement against him. That money is not a Criminal Fine... it is a civil fine, but it was able to be imposed (in part) because the Court found that the Trump Organization broke criminal laws.

FAMILY LAW is a subset of Civil Law, but again it does sometimes use criminal statutes, but it is set up in the CIVIL standards and requirements. For example in most States and in most situations there are no juries in Family Law.

Civil law is a MUCH LARGER area of the law and the vast majority of cases are Civil.

In Criminal Law one ALWAYS has a right to a Jury, unless it is waived. In Criminal Law the Defendant has a 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. (sometimes in civil law a witness can plead the 5th, but only because his testimony might be used against him in a Criminal Case.) In a Criminal Case, you can never force the Defendant to testify, but she can chose to testify. In Civil law, unless the Court allows someone to plead the 5th you can almost always require the Defendant to testify. I have called Defendants to the stand many times, against their will. There are separate rules of procedure in Criminal Cases than in Civil Cases. In a Criminal Case, the Government (A sworn prosecutor either brings charges in smaller cases, or gets an indictment in bigger cases. In Florida an indictment is only required in Capital Cases, but a Charging Document signed by a sworn Prosecutor is still required to sign a charging document outlining in specificity what Criminal Statute was violated and the maximum legal punishment can be.

It is very clear to the DEFENDANT when they are being charged CRIMINALLY. In fact usually a bond is required to remain at liberty (out of jail). If Florida a Police Officer can and often does give you a Notice to Appear, but that is not an official criminal charge, it is a notice to go to Court where you will proceeded only if the State Prosecutor has filed any Charges, if they neglect or decline to file charges, you are free. This is different from Civil Court, where you are simply issued a summon to appear in court by a party other than the police, although it might be the Government.


There is more to this, but it is clear in the cases where several states tried to remove Trump from the Ballot Civil Law was used. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT OVERRULE THE LOWER COURTS FINDINGS BECAUSE CRIMINAL LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED, they overruled the case because they determined only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. In fact, they said CONGRESS CAN DO IT, and CONGRESS does not CAN NOT prosecute Criminal Cases. CONGRESS CAN USE CRIMINAL LAW to Impeach someone, but they cannot impose criminal punishments and are not required to use CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Criminal procedure is a part of DUE PROCESS in Criminal Cases, but it is not a required element of DUE PROCESS in Civil Cases.

In Criminal law the defendant has many more protections.
Click to expand...

ask a real lawyer to rewrite this for you.......ask him to make it relevant.....
 
zymurgy said:
of course it is in dispute. a civil court room handles reasonable doubt totally differently.

reasonable doubt = disputed
Click to expand...

False. There is no finding of reasonable doubt and we do not just assume it. That lawyers are not required in this system to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but that does not mean they could not. It means it was not attempted.

Why it is NOT in doubt is because Trump refused to appeal when he had the right to. He accepted the State SC ruling. There is no more question or doubt on this issue and the ruling is FINAL.

TRUMP IS A RAPIST and anyone can say it and he cannot sue because the law finds that TRUTH and FACT are an absolute defense. So when Trump TRIED to sue E Jean, for saying he 'raped her on some news segment' it was instantly thrown out as there is no question or doubt anymore.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Criminal, civil, whatever... You can't just say someone is an insurrectionist and make it stick legally in a court of law. That's Stalin, Kafka, Kangaroo, court, not US courts...
Click to expand...

Right that is why the findings came from a lower court and then were affirmed by SC that Trump is insurrectionist so it would not just be 'someone saying it'.
 
QP! said:
False. There is no finding of reasonable doubt and we do not just assume it.
Click to expand...

that is how a civil trial works dipshit.

in a criminal case, you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, you only have to meet a preponderance of the evidence - hence plenty of doubt can and does exist

so you are wrong dumbass. This is very much in dispute. :laugh:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and then the USSC told them to fuck off and go away......unanimously......
Click to expand...

Not on that issue.


Trump appealed to the SC the FINDING he was an Insurrectionist and the SC said 'sorry you are an Insurrectionist so we are letting that stand'.

The issue they ruled on was that a State could not simply remove an insurrectionist (like Trump) without Congress giving them a path to do so.
 
zymurgy said:
that is how a civil trial works dipshit.

in a criminal case, you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, you only have to meet a preponderance of the evidence - hence plenty of doubt can and does exist

so you are wrong dumbass. This is very much in dispute. :laugh:
Click to expand...
That IS NOT how civil cases work you brain dead gnat.

You cannot assume in every civil case that the evidence presented WOULD NOT have been good enough to sustain a finding of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Maybe it would be enough, maybe it would not. The question was not asked as that is not the purpose.

So i will not claim they found 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and you cannot claim they 'did not', because again, it was not asked.

You simply have NO CLUE how much doubt exists. It could be a lot or NONE. It was not asked so we do not know.

If you think you can simply go to every civil case finding, based on the evidence presented and say EVERY ONE of those cases would fail a higher reasonable doubt standard you are stupid and guessing based on nothing. It would have ot be tested to know that.


It Trump still had doubt then you appeal. That is the way to test doubt. You get the higher court to listen to your doubts and hope they rule with you. Trump did not appeal as he knew he would lose. He had lost faith in his ability to win, meaning he could not see the doubt he could argue.
 
QP! said:
That IS NOT how civil cases work you brain dead gnat.

You cannot assume in every civil case that the evidence presented WOULD NOT have been good enough to sustain a finding of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Click to expand...

JFC you are a fucking idiot. You claim him raping a person is not in dispute

so it is you saying nobody had reasonable doubt - but that is not how a civil trial works retardo.

so you lose this debate and are too fucking stupid to waste time on
 
QP! said:
Not on that issue.


Trump appealed to the SC the FINDING he was an Insurrectionist and the SC said 'sorry you are an Insurrectionist so we are letting that stand'.

The issue they ruled on was that a State could not simply remove an insurrectionist (like Trump) without Congress giving them a path to do so.
Click to expand...

wrong.
 
zymurgy said:
JFC you are a fucking idiot. You claim him raping a person is not in dispute

so it is you saying nobody had reasonable doubt - but that is not how a civil trial works retardo.

so you lose this debate and are too fucking stupid to waste time on
Click to expand...
It is NOT in dispute.

WE have a Judge's finding of FACT and no one choose to dispute it up to the Appeals court, including Trump, who had every right to dispute the finding. So currently there is NO dispute over the finding Trump raped her. I can say Trump raped her and he cannot sue. If you went on TV and said it was still disputable Trump raped her E Jean could sue you and would win

YOu are simple minded moron who needs to stop talking about law as you do not understand what an issue in dispute means.
 
QP! said:
Not on that issue.


Trump appealed to the SC the FINDING he was an Insurrectionist and the SC said 'sorry you are an Insurrectionist so we are letting that stand'.

The issue they ruled on was that a State could not simply remove an insurrectionist (like Trump) without Congress giving them a path to do so.
Click to expand...

the congressional path to do so means impeachment.

that was tried and it failed.
 
trump Share
/trəmp/
/trəmp/
IPA guide
Other forms: trumps; trumped; trumping

To trump is to outrank or defeat someone or something, often in a highly public way. Safety might trump appearance when you're buying a car, or your desires may trump your brother's when it comes to making weekend plans.

In the card game bridge, the trump card is the most powerful card in a particular round and defeats all the others — sort of like when your needs or wishes trump someone else's. Originally trump implied a deceptive form of victory involving cheating, but that sense has been largely lost, though it's still around in the term trumped up, meaning something that's been falsely made up. A politician may face trumped up charges that could ruin his career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top