More Good News From the SCOTUS

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Nothing of consequence. The judge needs to throw DOJ attorneys in jail. On what charge I don't know; I'm not a lawyer.

He didn't throw them in jail, but he did impose sanctions requiring them to attend courses in legal ethics. He also wants Loretta Lynch to submit a plan on how to prevent future unethical conduct by DOJ lawyers. Sorta like the sanctions the DOJ is imposing on police departments in Ferguson and other cities, lol. Sounds like karma to me. Kudos to Judge Hanen!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

He didn't throw them in jail, but he did impose sanctions requiring them to attend courses in legal ethics.

They have to have ethics hours as part of their continuing legal education annual requirements .... 90% of the stuff is "on line"!..... as a follow up the IRS regs were modified so the annual course work had to be taken in the Continental U.S. (unless one was practicing outside in another place ... then it could be taken there) but if there is a court order to do so that reg might not apply, so they could do the old fashion way ..... on a cruise .... but there are still plenty of "junkets" around for CLE course work in "nice places"! All deductible!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Nothing of consequence. The judge needs to throw DOJ attorneys in jail. On what charge I don't know; I'm not a lawyer.

they should be thrown in jail.

charges? It'd have to be "contempt of court" and "Illegal suppression of evidence".

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they should be thrown in jail.

charges? It'd have to be "contempt of court" and "Illegal suppression of evidence".

Clinton got popped for perjury!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

were gonna see in November.

Ive offered a simple bet to any Trump lovers. . . Trump wins and I'm off this forum for a year. . . Hillary wins - ur off the forum for a year. . . . still no takers.

Cowardice.

It isn't cowardice to refuse a longshot who is 3.2-1 against, while you are only offering a one to one payout.

On Bovada, an internet betting site, you must wager 320 currently to get a 100 victory (plus your initial stake is returned to you)

Therefore, a Trump loss should mean a one year banishment against 3.2 years (38 months, 12 days) banishment for you if Hillary loses.

I think Trump is an even further longshot, so I would demand 4-1.

So I'm going to bet $320,000 on Hillary to win an additional $100,000.

I'm willing to lose that much for a Trump Presidency, but I'll take the 100 grand as a consolation prize.

For you liberal faggots out there, this is known as a hedge. I believe the true odds should make me pay 400,000 to win 100,000, so I consider I have equity. If the odds get longer, I can sell the proposition for it's current value at a discount to the exchange price.

I could even go to another exchange with different odds and bet it the other way, thereby having a chance to get a big payout with little downside risk.

For instance, if someone is offering 400,000 to 100,000, then I could bet 100,000 on Trump. If he wins, I net out 80,000 in the green. (400,000 won minus 320,000 bet on Hillary)

If Hillary wins, I get my cash back (320,000 + 100,000) to cover the 100,000 I bet on Trump.


Apologies to the OP for being off topic.
__________________

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they should be thrown in jail.

charges? It'd have to be "contempt of court" and "Illegal suppression of evidence".

What about perjury for them lying to the Judge ? Especially when it was determined that there were applications that had already been granted during the time that the states had filed for relief from odummer's illegal actions. Your choices of charges probably carry more jail time that perjury, but having a perjury charge applied to a prosecutor SHOULD kill their career as an attorney and get them disbarred, like it did for Slick Willy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

What about perjury for them lying to the Judge ? Especially when it was determined that there were applications that had already been granted during the time that the states had filed for relief from odummer's illegal actions. Your choices of charges probably carry more jail time that perjury, but having a perjury charge applied to a prosecutor SHOULD kill their career as an attorney and get them disbarred, like it did for Slick Willy.

The attorneys were probably not under oath .... Bill got "perjury" because he lied under oath while testifying and the Judge turned him in to the bar association in Arkansas .... he resigned in lieu of being disbarred.

Regardless ..... they have "permission" to appear in the Southern District of Texas .... and "permission" can be revoked......the problem with that is injury to the clients in the middle of case and the resulting delays until a substitute attorney takes over the case .... there have already been enough delays .... fighting a spurious appeal.

It's time this "smack down" continue!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they should be thrown in jail.

charges? It'd have to be "contempt of court" and "Illegal suppression of evidence".

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Clinton got popped for perjury!

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

What about perjury for them lying to the Judge ? Especially when it was determined that there were applications that had already been granted during the time that the states had filed for relief from odummer's illegal actions. Your choices of charges probably carry more jail time that perjury, but having a perjury charge applied to a prosecutor SHOULD kill their career as an attorney and get them disbarred, like it did for Slick Willy.

I actually had perjury listed, then took it out when I realized it didn't fit what they were doing. I think the lawyers have to be under oath for a perjury charge.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I actually had perjury listed, then took it out when I realized it didn't fit what they were doing. I think the lawyers have to be under oath for a perjury charge.

There are provisions in the rules that "bind" lawyers to the content of documents they file in the lawsuits and electronic filing rules apply in so far as "implying" THE LAWYER signed the document when the lawyer caused it to be electronically filed. One would have to look at the criminal definition of the "perjury" statute ... and there is a potential for falsification of a government document ... ala forgery ... if they reduced their statements to writing.

There's where our deal little dumbass Hillarious-No-More is flirting with bad news with her pretend to be stupid explanations .... even though she failed the DC bar exam ... she has been an attorney and participated in document investigations within the government so she can be held to a higher standard as an attorney and somewhat who has "handled" those kind of situations ...

... but if she wants to pretend to be ignorant and stupid, that'll work too!

I just hope she does it again soon so she can blame her head injury!