***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

331,298 Views | 3131 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by dvldog
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:21a, 9/16/25
Gorilla grip loses to Trump, yet again.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:28a, 9/16/25
That Fani Getz no play in this ride.

She has two options: write a book but no guaranteed fees since no guaranteed US AID money to buy the copies; or go the sex tape route.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:37a, 9/16/25
FTR: that Prosecuting Attorneys Council is headed by a straight shooter. His name escapes me at the moment but this case most likely will not be reassigned to another prosecutor in the state. Who would want to take that train wreck of a case in the first place?

I suppose they might look at doing a superceding indictment and slim that case down but not even sure what that would be at this point. Those fake elector cases in different states are being shot down. Raffensperger and Sterling are essentially gone. (Sterling resigned and Raffy is not running again.)
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:52a, 9/16/25
nortex97 said:
Yes but those are just too complex an analysis. She said initially it was a vacation home to get a loan estimate, then when filing the legal paperwork for the loan it came back at a higher rate when she switched to making it her primary residence, and what do you know, that fraud got her a lower rate.

If this is true, it is a smoking gun as evidence of Bank Fraud. That would just absolutely doom her. Even an 8th grader could see that clear as day.

One important thing to note is that mortgages are not one-off loans between a bank and a home buyer. They are packaged together into bundles, and the principal and interest payments on the collective pool of loans paid to 3rd party investors. This type of fraud, where a borrower lies to the bank about their financial / life situations in order to get a mortgage, is exactly the thing that led to the 2008 financial melt down. It's only one step in the wrong direction of proper due diligence, but, such behavior should be stopped immediately, not ignored until it turns into a recession-causing problem.

Furthermore, if it comes out that the bank that provided the loan encouraged Cook to lie, and then sold the loan for packaging into an MBO or the like, the bank that provided the loan is also likely guilty of fraud to the packagers, and the individuals that worked for that bank are also likely guilty of breaking criminal laws related to bank fraud.
Quote:


About this legal argument, assuming that the assertion is true, that her job is a property right that deserves its day in court, isn't the proper remedy cash, not an injunction to keep her job?

If I say that the government illegally took my personal property away in any other situation, the remedy isn't to make the government give me my property back until my litigation is over, the proper remedy is for me to take the government to the Court of Claims where I can get fair compensation for my property.

Right?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 8:56a, 9/16/25
No, the remedy for a property interest can be to make her whole/protect the interest by giving her the property until she can provide a defense for it being (ostensibly wrongly) taken, it is not simply a cash value. The judicial system can't essentially order her to just be paid, and fired without notice as required, is the position they took.

Remedies is a complex area and here I am not really outraged with the two judges opinion, tbf.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 9:00a, 9/16/25
Quote:
About this legal argument, assuming that the assertion is true, that her job is a property right that deserves its day in court, isn't the proper remedy cash, not an injunction to keep her job?

If I say that the government illegally took my personal property away in any other situation, the remedy isn't to make the government give me my property back until my litigation is over, the proper remedy is for me to take the government to the Court of Claims where I can get fair compensation for my property.

Right?

Correct. But that is leaping to the assumption that these judges actually know the law.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:07a, 9/16/25
nortex97 said:
No, the remedy for a property interest can be to make her whole/protect the interest by giving her the property until she can provide a defense for it being (ostensibly wrongly) taken, it is not simply a cash value.

If this is true, why doesn't the government have to give back property that was taken under eminent domain until all of the litigation about whether or not the property was justly taken is completed?

It seems duplicitous.

Are you entitled to enjoy property that you claim is being unfairly taken until the trial is completed or not?

-Personal property that is physical, no
-Personal property that is a job, yes

Why?

I have worked in lots of cases related to the Federal Court of Claims. In almost no situations is the property returned to the original owner while the claims process works its way out.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
1 edit
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:09a, 9/16/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
About this legal argument, assuming that the assertion is true, that her job is a property right that deserves its day in court, isn't the proper remedy cash, not an injunction to keep her job?

If I say that the government illegally took my personal property away in any other situation, the remedy isn't to make the government give me my property back until my litigation is over, the proper remedy is for me to take the government to the Court of Claims where I can get fair compensation for my property.

Right?

Correct. But that is leaping to the assumption that these judges actually know the law.

I honestly believe that the judges likely do know the law, but that they don't really care, as the law is not as important to them as their own tyranny.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 11:09a, 9/16/25
Remedies is a fairly painful class, is all I can tell you. Court of equity vs. law, all that complex crap going back to mid-evil England etc.

I'd give a longer explanation but I just don't think 'we' can resolve this on a politics message board, respectfully. I don't blame folks for being a little jaded about various remedies not being more commonly found/accessible, when dealing with government takings.

The urgency of the decision/timeline sought by defendants here on appeal played a role, imho.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:13p, 9/16/25
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 12:23p, 9/16/25
The rest:

Quote:
The lead attorney on her brief is Amit Agarwal -- a GOP NeverTrumper who was formerly the Solicitor General of Florida.

He's also a former law clerk for Justice Kavanaugh while he was on the D.C. Circuit, and Justice Alito on the Supreme Court.

But his publications appear most often in places like The Bulwark.

He's now with Protect Democracy Project.

His wife, a former attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, is also with him now at Protect Democracy.

The general vibe of the staffing is a collection of NeverTrumpers and progressive leftists.

Another attorney suffering from TDS.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:28a, 9/17/25
aggiehawg said:
FTR: that Prosecuting Attorneys Council is headed by a straight shooter. His name escapes me at the moment but this case most likely will not be reassigned to another prosecutor in the state. Who would want to take that train wreck of a case in the first place?

I suppose they might look at doing a superceding indictment and slim that case down but not even sure what that would be at this point. Those fake elector cases in different states are being shot down. Raffensperger and Sterling are essentially gone. (Sterling resigned and Raffy is not running again.)

ETA: UPDATE, Raffy is running for Governor instead.

Quote:
Georgia's Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state who rejected Donald Trump's call to help overturn the state's 2020 election results, said Wednesday that he's running for governor in 2026.
The wealthy engineering entrepreneur might appeal most to business-oriented Republicans who once dominated GOP primaries in Georgia, but he is pledging a strongly conservative campaign even while he remains scorned by Trump and his allies. Raffensperger's entry into the field intensifies the primary in a state with an unbroken line of Republican governors since 2002.
"I'm a conservative Republican, and I'm prepared to make the tough decisions. I follow the law and the Constitution, and I'll always do the right thing for Georgia no matter what," Raffensperger said in an announcement video.

LINK

Guess Dominion will make sure he wins the GOP primary? It is an open primary in GA, so Dems can cross over to vote for him.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:35p, 9/17/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 2:53p, 9/17/25
Kemp and Raff are the worst of the worst on the GOP bench. They make Cornyn, Paxton, and Burrows here look like patriotic, principled hero's.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:08p, 9/20/25
Thread...


...


Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:35p, 9/20/25
It's called the Supreme Court.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 9:46p, 9/20/25
techno-ag said:
It's called the Supreme Court.

They are are not infallible because they are final. They are infallible because they are final.
Guess that quote.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:35p, 9/20/25
They should live up to the name or just change it. Maybe the Court of No Standing, the Court of Splitting the Baby, the Court of What is a Woman…
Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:02p, 9/22/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 4:20p, 9/22/25
flown-the-coop said:
They should live up to the name or just change it. Maybe the Court of No Standing, the Court of Splitting the Baby, the Court of What is a Woman…

Whatever you do, don't try to rationalize with the great naming minds of the New York court system.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 4:31p, 9/22/25
You speak truth.

BTW - Always appreciate the information you share.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:52p, 9/22/25
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:10p, 9/22/25
So shipwrecked is thing Supreme Court of Splitting the Baby.

Como se dice "splitting the baby" en fanci Latin?
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:19p, 9/22/25
aggiehawg said:
techno-ag said:
It's called the Supreme Court.

They are are not infallible because they are final. They are infallible because they are final.
Guess that quote.

Isn't it:

We are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final?

Jackson
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:21p, 9/22/25
will25u said:

Boooooo!!!

I guess I will take half measures as a stop gap. At least she's out of a job.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:17p, 9/23/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:07p, 9/24/25


Good.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:11p, 9/24/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:59a, 9/25/25
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:15a, 9/25/25
Dems have a real problem. If drawing districts based on race to favor Dems has resulted in disastrous policies then the answer is not just to quit drawing on race, but to also get Dems to free their voting slaves once and for all.

Can scotus once and for all tell people of all races they can vote something other than Democrat? Maybe strike down Biden's policy that if you don't vote for him then you are no longer black?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 9/25/25
I understand there was a reason for the Voting Rights Act back in the 60s. But now? It has outlived its original purpose, in my view.

Majority minority districts no longer make sense with those district borders becoming ridiculous.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:28a, 9/25/25
I think your take on this is absolutely valued given your legal mind and life experience.

So if SCOTUS makes the right decision, how must the states respond? Or are just a bunch more suits filed trying to push the other way, rogue states defying SCOTUS? Mostly rhetorical questions, just wanted to recognize your take.
Reply Quote
Aggie Jurist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 12:06p, 9/25/25
Quote:
I think your take on this is absolutely valued given your legal mind and life experience.

So if SCOTUS makes the right decision, how must the states respond? Or are just a bunch more suits filed trying to push the other way, rogue states defying SCOTUS? Mostly rhetorical questions, just wanted to recognize your take.

You will see D controlled states attempt to codify their gerrymandering (and likely succeed). Frankly, we need to come up with a way to district that is based on an objective set of rules across the country. While we're at it, repeal the 17th Amendment.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 12:14p, 9/25/25
And the 19th.

Seems like both sides will just be hit with never ending legal challenges. May need to resurrect the gerrymandering thread if we want to further discuss.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 12:34p, 9/25/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Quote:
I think your take on this is absolutely valued given your legal mind and life experience.

So if SCOTUS makes the right decision, how must the states respond? Or are just a bunch more suits filed trying to push the other way, rogue states defying SCOTUS? Mostly rhetorical questions, just wanted to recognize your take.

You will see D controlled states attempt to codify their gerrymandering (and likely succeed). Frankly, we need to come up with a way to district that is based on an objective set of rules across the country. While we're at it, repeal the 17th Amendment.

Depends on how SCOTUS delivers the rationale for the holding, in my view.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.