Trump is not a racist

USFREEDOM911 said:
But unfortunately for you, it wasn't a "decree"; because it was an out of Court settlement.
Click to expand...

Gawd, you're dumb. PAGE ONE.

Accordingly, without adjudication of the merit and without any admission as to the existence or absence of liability, and in
order to resolve this matter without further protracted litigation, the parties hereto are prepared to resolve this case by the
entry of a Consent Decree.

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0034.pdf
 
Amadeus said:
Trump is probably not a racist, he simply has no empathy (the most important and highly evolved attribute of humanity). He thinks like a spoiled toddler, which is why he'll propose nonsensical and inhuman actions like exterminating the families of terrorists, and why he questioned repeatedly to his advisors why he couldn't use nukes. However, Trump does recognize that much of his base is racist or has racist leanings, so he often appeals to them on a racist level.

See? I can give Trump credit. He's not a racist. He's simply a horribly poor excuse for a human being.
Click to expand...

any human that will USE racism for their own gain IS A RACIST
 
Evmetro said:
Your first link that you posted says it all: "The CLAIM of the United States is that..." A claim is not evidence that anything happened. They can claim that Trump did all kinds of bad things, but a claim is just that. He was not found guilty of anything. The case was settled, and the the allegations were dismissed.

Do you deny that the United States made claims and then dismissed them? There could be thousands upon thousands of claims or allegations against somebody, but the number of times this is been done does not imply guilt. It does not matter what kind of hoops somebody has to jump through to defend themselves in court, because this does not mean that a person is guilty. The court decides who is guilty. Not the court of lefty opinion either. This notion that somebody must be guilty because they went through a complicated legal procedure is not how things work in our country.
Click to expand...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree




Consent Decree
A settlement of a lawsuit or criminal case in which a person or company agrees to take specific actions without admitting fault or guilt for the situation that led to the lawsuit.
A consent decree is a settlement that is contained in a court order. The court orders injunctive relief against the defendant and agrees to maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the settlement is followed. (Injunctive relief is a remedy imposed by a court in which a party is instructed to do or not do something. Failure to obey the order may lead the court to find the party in Contempt and to impose other penalties.) Plaintiffs in lawsuits generally prefer consent decrees because they have the power of the court behind the agreements; defendants who wish to avoid publicity also tend to prefer such agreements because they limit the exposure of damaging details. Critics of consent decrees argue that federal district courts assert too much power over the defendant. They also contend that federal courts have imposed conditions on state and local governments in Civil Rights Cases that usurp the power of the states.
Most civil lawsuits are settled before going to trial and most settlements are private agreements between the parties. Typically, the plaintiff will file a motion to dismiss the case once the settlement agreement has been signed. The court then issues a dismissal order and the case is closed. However, if the defendant does not live up to the terms of the settlement agreement the plaintiff cannot reactivate the old lawsuit. This means filing a new lawsuit with the court and going to the end of the line in order to process the case.
In more complex civil lawsuits that involve the conduct of business or industry, and in actions by the government against businesses that have allegedly violated regulatory laws, consent decrees are regularly part of the settlement agreement. A court will maintain jurisdiction and oversight to make sure the terms of the agreement are executed. The threat of a contempt order may keep defendants from dragging their feet or seeking to evade the intent of the agreement. In addition, the terms of the settlement are public.
Certain types of lawsuits require a court to issue a consent decree. In Class Action settlements, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure mandates that a federal district court must determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable before approving it. Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C.A. § 16(b)-(h), the court must review proposed consent decrees in antitrust suits filed by the Justice Department. The statute directs the court to review certain items, including whether the decree advances the public interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Local No.93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986), ruled that consent decrees "have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees." The division between contracts and judicial decrees suggests that consent decrees are contracts that resolve some issues through the consent of the parties. However, for some issues, the decree contains judicial acts rendered by the judge, not the parties. Commentators have noted that these dual attributes require a court to determine when it is appropriate to "rubber-stamp" a proposed settlement and when it is more appropriate for the court to treat the proposal as it would any judicial order.
The federal courts have been criticized for using consent decrees to reform prison systems, school systems, and other government agencies. Some courts have maintained oversight of agencies for many years and have imposed conditions that have cost state and local governments substantial amounts of money. Congress intervened in one litigation area when it passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321). The law imposed strict limits on what federal courts could do in the future to improve prison conditions through the use of consent decrees. In addition, it gave government agencies the right to seek the termination of consent decrees, many of which had lasted for decades.
 
christiefan915 said:
The bottom line is that the government action against the trumps resulted in a Consent Decree, not a Case Dismissed. And the trumps' countersuit was dismissed also.
Click to expand...

the bottom line is, the state didn't require anything that every real estate manager in the country is already required to do......which I can state with confidence based on thirty years experience as a professional property manager and forty years experience as a real estate attorney.....claiming this proof of racism is like claiming a confession of jaywalking is proof of murder.....
 
evince said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree




Consent Decree
A settlement of a lawsuit or criminal case in which a person or company agrees to take specific actions without admitting fault or guilt for the situation that led to the lawsuit.
A consent decree is a settlement that is contained in a court order. The court orders injunctive relief against the defendant and agrees to maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the settlement is followed. (Injunctive relief is a remedy imposed by a court in which a party is instructed to do or not do something. Failure to obey the order may lead the court to find the party in Contempt and to impose other penalties.) Plaintiffs in lawsuits generally prefer consent decrees because they have the power of the court behind the agreements; defendants who wish to avoid publicity also tend to prefer such agreements because they limit the exposure of damaging details. Critics of consent decrees argue that federal district courts assert too much power over the defendant. They also contend that federal courts have imposed conditions on state and local governments in Civil Rights Cases that usurp the power of the states.
Most civil lawsuits are settled before going to trial and most settlements are private agreements between the parties. Typically, the plaintiff will file a motion to dismiss the case once the settlement agreement has been signed. The court then issues a dismissal order and the case is closed. However, if the defendant does not live up to the terms of the settlement agreement the plaintiff cannot reactivate the old lawsuit. This means filing a new lawsuit with the court and going to the end of the line in order to process the case.
In more complex civil lawsuits that involve the conduct of business or industry, and in actions by the government against businesses that have allegedly violated regulatory laws, consent decrees are regularly part of the settlement agreement. A court will maintain jurisdiction and oversight to make sure the terms of the agreement are executed. The threat of a contempt order may keep defendants from dragging their feet or seeking to evade the intent of the agreement. In addition, the terms of the settlement are public.
Certain types of lawsuits require a court to issue a consent decree. In Class Action settlements, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure mandates that a federal district court must determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable before approving it. Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C.A. § 16(b)-(h), the court must review proposed consent decrees in antitrust suits filed by the Justice Department. The statute directs the court to review certain items, including whether the decree advances the public interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Local No.93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986), ruled that consent decrees "have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees." The division between contracts and judicial decrees suggests that consent decrees are contracts that resolve some issues through the consent of the parties. However, for some issues, the decree contains judicial acts rendered by the judge, not the parties. Commentators have noted that these dual attributes require a court to determine when it is appropriate to "rubber-stamp" a proposed settlement and when it is more appropriate for the court to treat the proposal as it would any judicial order.
The federal courts have been criticized for using consent decrees to reform prison systems, school systems, and other government agencies. Some courts have maintained oversight of agencies for many years and have imposed conditions that have cost state and local governments substantial amounts of money. Congress intervened in one litigation area when it passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321). The law imposed strict limits on what federal courts could do in the future to improve prison conditions through the use of consent decrees. In addition, it gave government agencies the right to seek the termination of consent decrees, many of which had lasted for decades.
Click to expand...

hmmmmm
an internets lying asshole like PMP or a law dictionary?
 
Amadeus said:
Trump is probably not a racist, he simply has no empathy (the most important and highly evolved attribute of humanity). He thinks like a spoiled toddler, which is why he'll propose nonsensical and inhuman actions like exterminating the families of terrorists, and why he questioned repeatedly to his advisors why he couldn't use nukes. However, Trump does recognize that much of his base is racist or has racist leanings, so he often appeals to them on a racist level.

See? I can give Trump credit. He's not a racist. He's simply a horribly poor excuse for a human being.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. I've yanked these guy's chains for several pages now, but not once claimed he is/was a racist. Obviously, he and his company engaged in blatantly discriminatory practices. Was it racism? Perhaps, perhaps not. It was illegal, for sure. Probably greed more than anything.

More than anything, Trump is a pathologically lying sociopath. A non-selective asswipe.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the bottom line is, the state didn't require anything that every real estate manager in the country is already required to do......which I can state with confidence based on thirty years experience as a professional property manager and forty years experience as a real estate attorney.....claiming this proof of racism is like claiming a confession of jaywalking is proof of murder.....
Click to expand...

Seriously, you wrote the above and ignored this? Why on god's green earth would the feds bring a suit against the trumps if there was no evidence of discrimination?

"The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling."

https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342
 
“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza — black guys counting my money!” O’Donnell’s book quoted Trump as saying. “I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
 
christiefan915 said:
Seriously, you wrote the above and ignored this? Why on god's green earth would the feds bring a suit against the trumps if there was no evidence of discrimination?

"The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling."

https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342
Click to expand...

Thanks.

That's EXACTLY how it went down.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the bottom line is, the state didn't require anything that every real estate manager in the country is already required to do......which I can state with confidence based on thirty years experience as a professional property manager and forty years experience as a real estate attorney.....claiming this proof of racism is like claiming a confession of jaywalking is proof of murder.....
Click to expand...

^

HEAD

UP

ASS
 
christiefan915 said:
“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza — black guys counting my money!” O’Donnell’s book quoted Trump as saying. “I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
Click to expand...

This is low hanging fruit that every lefty has to try. Kinda like moths fly into the flame. The quote above is from a book that somebody else, so it is a secondhand quote. Many lefties try to run this one a little further, and eventually unearth a quote of Trump saying that the comment is probably true. This fails too, after we see that it was not about any specific comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top