The Supreme Court did not say!!

SmarterthanYou said:
wrong. wrong. wrong. how did you ever make it as a lawyer?
Click to expand...

What is wrong about it?

Trump himself was found to be a rapist, the proof was never presented at what is required for a criminal court, but it met the standard for Civil Court.

Anyone can call Trump a rapist, and he cannot win a libel cases for it, because as a matter of law he is a rapist.
 
Jarod said:
What is wrong about it?

Trump himself was found to be a rapist, the proof was never presented at what is required for a criminal court, but it met the standard for Civil Court.

Anyone can call Trump a rapist, and he cannot win a libel cases for it, because as a matter of law he is a rapist.
Click to expand...

you're obviously a biased moron. civil court finds financial liability, not a criminal conviction. I can't believe you still claim to be a fucking lawyer. how the hell do you justify using a civil court for criminal cases?
 
Jarod said:
This was not of a criminal nature.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledged that when they said Congress can vote on the issue... Congress does not vote someone guilty of a crime.
Click to expand...

and judges don't just find people guilty of insurrection without due process.


there, i fixed you.

you are healed.

you're welcome.

:nolovejesus:
 
Last edited:
Top Gook said:
and judges don't just find people guilty of insurrection without due process.


there, i fixed you.

you are healed.

you're welcome.

:nolovejesus:
Click to expand...

He had due process and they did not find him guilty of CRIMINAL insurrection.
 
Jarod said:
What is wrong about it?

Trump himself was found to be a rapist, the proof was never presented at what is required for a criminal court, but it met the standard for Civil Court.

Anyone can call Trump a rapist, and he cannot win a libel cases for it, because as a matter of law he is a rapist.
Click to expand...

you are a menace to society dude.
 
Top Gook said:
you are a menace to society dude.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

but insurrection is not in the category of civil.

you're asserting things that make no sense.
 
Top Gook said:
there was an insurrection trial?
Click to expand...

There was a trial to determine if Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof as intended under the 14th Amendment. This was not a criminal Trial as he was not charged with any crime. You see a Court can determine someone did something even if they are not using the criminal statutes.

Trump was given the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, HE DID. He presented the evidence he had, and the Attorney General was given the opportunity to present their evidence, they did. After the evidence and legal argument, the Three Judge Panel found that he engaged in insurrection. They did not find him criminally guilty of doing so. Then The Supreme Court said, it did not matter because only the Federal Government can impose the lack of qualification for the presidency. They did not overrule the finding by the Colorado Court and the did not say anything about a criminal conviction being required, in fact they said CONGRESS could do it... Congress cannot find people Criminally Guilty of anything.
 
Top Gook said:
but insurrection is not in the category of civil.

you're asserting things that make no sense.
Click to expand...

Insurrection can ABSOLUTLY be in the Category of Civil, just like speeding can, just like lying on a loan application can.

WHEN THE 14th AMENDMENT WAS PASSED, INSURRECTION WAS NOT A CRIME AND PEOPLE WERE FOUND INELEGABLE FOR OFFICE WITHOUT A TRIAL.
 
Starting to feel more & more like how Hitler rose to power.

Those in power at the time had multiple chances to stop him - but they felt they could "control" him if he became the leader of the country.

McConnell had a chance to stop this after the 2nd impeachment, and SCOTUS did just now. Now, everyone is gonna have to deal w/ what happens.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're obviously a biased moron. civil court finds financial liability, not a criminal conviction. I can't believe you still claim to be a fucking lawyer. how the hell do you justify using a civil court for criminal cases?
Click to expand...

Except you are the stupid one as he NEVER said he was using the civil case for a criminal conviction. You need to be less stupid.

The civil case provided a Judicial FINDING OF FACT that Trump is RAPIST.

That finding is REAL and COUNTS, so much so that any of us can RIGHTLY call Trump a RAPIST in any venue and he cannot sue us and win as FACT and TRUTH is an absolute defense against being sued.
 
Jarod said:
Insurrection can ABSOLUTLY be in the Category of Civil, just like speeding can, just like lying on a loan application can.

WHEN THE 14th AMENDMENT WAS PASSED, INSURRECTION WAS NOT A CRIME AND PEOPLE WERE FOUND INELEGABLE FOR OFFICE WITHOUT A TRIAL.
Click to expand...

so where's the due process in that?

luckily the supreme court disagrees with your dumb monkey ass.
 
Top Gook said:
there was an insurrection trial?
Click to expand...

Yes.

First a lower court in Colorado (and now other States) found Trump had committed insurrection.


Then the State SC upheld that Trump committed Insurrection.

Then the US Supreme Court, upheld that Trump committed Insurrection.
 
QP! said:
Yes.

First a lower court in Colorado (and now other States) found Trump had committed insurrection.


Then the State SC upheld that Trump committed Insurrection.

Then the US Supreme Court, upheld that Trump committed Insurrection.
Click to expand...

there was no trial for any of this.

there has never been even an insurrection charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top