Ilhan Omar’s Shady Castle Starts to Crumble

Jarod said:
ONe court would allow the earlier finding to be introduced as evidence.
Click to expand...

You have no knowledge of law. The proceeding could easily bar tainted and prejudicial evidence. Especially given the highly unethical and illegal acts by Comrade EnGöringin his kangaroo court.
 
Jarod said:
I've been to 2 of them, not a single problem.
Click to expand...

You're a Communist. Political prisoners in New York are those who oppose your party. Openly supporting Trump would likely get a person thrown in the Gulag.

Now, historically the party is known to turn on it's own. You could be purged if the party wills it an you are selected. Without the rule of law, you have no rights.

And what reason did you have to visit North Korea?
 
Jarod said:
Read up on Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.
Click to expand...

ROFL

Googling legal terms won't make you look less ignorant.

Res Judicata deals with criminal law and fits with double jeopardy. But this hypothetical is that Trump sues you for the persistent malicious lies you spread. Examination of the farce in New York is evidentiary to the basis of the defense you claim.

The EnGöring Kangaroo court is not a defense for a third party defaming based on a charge never made, and a verdict never rendered, in a proceeding devoid of fact or evidence, in a civil suit brought by a person not party to the current action.

This isn't like the OJ case where a not guilty verdict blocked the Brown Family from suing OJ for wrongful death due to Res Judicata.

Oh, wait....
 
Last edited:
Uncensored2008 said:
ROFL

Googling legal terms won't make look less ignorant.

Res Judicata deals with criminal law and fits with double jeopardy. But this hypothetical is the Trump sue you for the persistent malicious lies you spread. Examination of the farce in New York is evidentiary to the basis of the defense you claim.

The EnGöring Kangaroo court is not a defense for a third party defaming based on a charge never made, and a verdict never rendered, in a proceeding devoid of fact or evidence, in a civil suit brought by a person not party to the current action.

This isn't like the OJ case where a non guilty verdict blocked the Brown Family from suing OJ for wrongful death due to Res Judicata.

Oh, wait....
Click to expand...
You are mixing different standards of proof when you mix criminal with civil.
 
Yakuda said:
He even said that in civil cases the defendant has to prove their innocence. Hes a dispshit
Click to expand...
Even AI is more knowledgeable than the receptionist:

Civil vs. Criminal: Terms like "innocent" and "guilty" typically apply to criminal law, where the state must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil cases deal with liability and fault rather than criminal guilt.
 
Wow, it must be scary to be a Republican. You have to be scared of literally everything and you will BELIEVE anything. Imagine being so shit-scared of someone just because they have brown skin and a different sounding name and don't agree with you. It must be UNBEARABLE to live like that.
 
Yakuda said:
Francis, you shit eating donkey fuckers have been trying for 12 years to "get trump" and you've failed miserably and you have to nerve or the lack of brains to post that shit.
Click to expand...

1) the ONLY reason Trump hasn't been "gotten" is because the GOP has run interference for him. Remember: he's BEEN CONVICTED 34 TIMES OF A FELONY. He's also had to pay millions in dollars of damages in a rape civil suit. He's been "got" many times over. The only reason he isn't in prison for <insert Jeffrey Epstein stuff here> is because they are slow walking the release of the files.

2) There's nothing to "get" for Ilhan. She was 12 years old when her father filled out the paperwork. There's no basis for prosecution of her. She could NOT have been culpable for any crime. Anything beyond that is just fishing for crimes.

Get your own house in order before coming after the Dems.
 
Earl said:
No, you are too stupid to understand thst there was no charge of rape and no conviction of rape.

Remain ignorant, it’s your natural state.
Click to expand...
Actually it is you who is too stupid as no one claims the thing you are using as strawman to pretend you have rebuttal.

Trump is a rapist and was adjudicated by a jury to get to that finding.

That is not discarded by you pointing out he has not yet been indicted and convicted for it which would only be a second method of confirming he is a rapist
 
QP! said:
Actually it is you who is too stupid as no one claims the thing you are using as strawman to pretend you have rebuttal.

Trump is a rapist and was adjudicated by a jury to get to that finding.

That is not discarded by you pointing out he has not yet been indicted and convicted for it which would only be a second method of confirming he is a rapist
Click to expand...

It's such a THIN defense to note that his conviction came from a CIVIL case. I guess in the GOP mind a civil rape conviction is somehow meaningfully different in terms of hurting innocent women from a criminal rape conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top