CNN: Judge rules Fanny stays on the case!

For example, in the Carrol case in NY, the state changed their statute of limitations on such cases with a one-year window where such cases would revert to the original law afterwards. E. Jean Carrol's lawyers filed their lawsuit the day after that law changed.

Why would NY state pass a law that so obviously was specifically designed to target one person?

In 2022, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which created a one-year lookback period during which adult victims of alleged sexual offenses could file civil suits against perpetrators regardless of whether the standard statute of limitations had already passed. Prior to its non-retroactive expansion in 2019, New York’s statute of limitations on sexual assault was generally three years for criminal cases, leaving Carroll well past any window for a criminal complaint. Carroll sued Trump once the Adult Survivors Act took effect, and in May 2023, a jury awarded Carroll $5 million after finding Trump was responsible for sexual abuse and defamation.
https://news.yahoo.com/assessing-claims-york-changed-laws-163544798.html

New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act went into effect Thursday, allowing survivors of sexual assault or abuse who were 18 years or older at the time to file a civil lawsuit against their abuser past the state’s statute of limitations. The act was signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul in May and amends the statute of limitations for civil actions related to sexual offenses committed against adults in the State of New York. Under the act, civil actions which were previously barred by the statute of limitations are now revived. Survivors now have a one-year window to file the allowed civil actions for cases of sexual assault for which they previously could not file suit past the time limitation placed on the crime.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/11...of-limitations-in-sexual-assault-civil-cases/

On election fraud, there was some, but it made no difference in the outcome.

this is fucking insane.
 
your scenario lacks verisimilitude.

banks do their own due diligence and they were fine with everything.

you're meddling in the real estate market with your political bullshit.

His question is nothing but a complex question fallacy in the form of a leading question.

A complex question is a fallacy in which the answer to a given question presupposes a prior answer to a prior question. Also known as (or closely related to) a loaded question, a trick question, a leading question, the fallacy of the false question, and the fallacy of many questions.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of the complex question. Ralph Keyes has traced this example back to a 1914 book of legal humor. Since then, he says, it "has . . . become the standard allusion to any question that can't be answered without self-incrimination" (I Love It When You Talk Retro, 2009).

https://www.thoughtco.com/complex-question-fallacy-1689890

A leading question is a type of question that implies or contains its own answer. By contrast, a neutral question is expressed in a way that doesn't suggest its own answer. Leading questions can serve as a form of persuasion. They are rhetorical in the sense that the implied answers can be an attempt to shape or determine a response.
https://www.thoughtco.com/leading-question-persuasion-1691103

A neutral version would be, something like asking if a person puts an unreasonable valuation on a piece of property are they committing fraud? The answer there would be, It depends. It depends on the exact nature of that valuation, as well as whether it is so obvious that valuation is wrong as to make it laughable. Fraud involves the person committing it taking care to make the lie imperceptible to the party to be defrauded otherwise that party will likely see through the scheme.
 
this is fucking insane.

Yes, it is quite clear that the state of New York is out to get Trump by any means possible no matter how corrupt, crooked, or mendacious it may be. Trump may be a lot of negatives, and many people clearly hate him, but that shouldn't be reason to upend our justice system and turn it into one that seeks revenge and destruction over reason and fairness.
 
Yes, it is quite clear that the state of New York is out to get Trump by any means possible no matter how corrupt, crooked, or mendacious it may be. Trump may be a lot of negatives, and many people clearly hate him, but that shouldn't be reason to upend our justice system and turn it into one that seeks revenge and destruction over reason and fairness.

it shows how much "build the wall" and tariffs truly do upset the globalist applecart.

:truestory:
 
Yes, it is quite clear that the state of New York is out to get Trump by any means possible no matter how corrupt, crooked, or mendacious it may be. Trump may be a lot of negatives, and many people clearly hate him, but that shouldn't be reason to upend our justice system and turn it into one that seeks revenge and destruction over reason and fairness.

One case in one state is hardly up ending our judicial system. You’ve been trumped.
 
Fair enough. The reality is that we have ALL turned more to trolling because there is not near enough legitimate discussion on this board. And I know you are one of those posters who would like to see more discussion. With all of the gun threads we have had on this board, it's surprising that I didn't know your position on this. I'm not sure if you haven't expressed it or if I simply missed it. Either way, it's a shame I didn't know that. But I blame general tenor of this board (and frankly all boards like this) not the posters. While I disagree with a lot of your positions, we clearly also agree on some very important ones (the need to protect our European allies for example). I try to fight my urgency to troll, but I certainly have lost that fight on many, many occasions. So I'll commit to a reset, I'll try to be less blunt and frontal, and focus on what you have to say. I consider you a very smart guy. And I would not say that about 90% of the posters here, so I'll proceed in that light. Your post gave me pause to think about how I come off, so I appreciate that. Carry on!!!! In fact, if I can find it, I'll go back and respond seriously to that question about why I might seemingly be voting against my selfish interest. That question actually has some real possibilities for a nuanced discussion. Hell, I'll just flat out start a thread, I hope you'll participate. I know who won't though. Earl. :laugh:
You’d probably be surprised at how much I agree with you about. We only bump heads about the stuff we disagree on.
 
Back
Top