RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor

RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 8:49:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy For him, allegations are fact. oic

Phydeaux -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 11:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux When in fact, there was a great deal of harm, as has already been proven in depositions in the class action lawsuit on this matter. Proven in depositions? Has the case been settled? If not then how can anything have been proved? When there is a motion to dismiss, and a judge finds to the contrary that there is evidence (of damage) to proceed. A litigant must have standing (ie., must have been injured) to proceed. There additionally must be evidence of wide spread bias in order to obtain class action suit - as well as a coherent class. The fact that there was class action status allowed, and it is to libertarian / republican groups is evidence. If you think there is any chance that this suit is going to lose - or that millions will be paid to the affected groups - you are delusional. My guess is that damages will reach into the several hundreds of millions of dollars. So, you are correct - that the case isn't proven - it hasn't gone to court, and no verdict has been reached. But enough evidence has been proven to support the suit and class status.

DomKen -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 12:06:33 PM)
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Standing does not mean the plaintiff has been damaged. For a motion to dismiss to succeed the judge must consider the plaintiffs claims as completely true and still not find a tort has occurred. Which BTW I can find no evidence that a motion to dismiss has been filed much less adjudicated. The class action lawsuits have been filed only. I can find nothing saying the court has certified the class which is required before the suits can go forward. BTW the suits will not go forward unless the judge waives sovereign immunity, certifies the class and the appellate courts agree. IOW not a snowballs chance in hell.

Phydeaux -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 12:27:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Standing does not mean the plaintiff has been damaged. For a motion to dismiss to succeed the judge must consider the plaintiffs claims as completely true and still not find a tort has occurred. Which BTW I can find no evidence that a motion to dismiss has been filed much less adjudicated. The class action lawsuits have been filed only. I can find nothing saying the court has certified the class which is required before the suits can go forward. BTW the suits will not go forward unless the judge waives sovereign immunity, certifies the class and the appellate courts agree. IOW not a snowballs chance in hell. I'll try to find the quote. From prior reading I saw that 2-3 motions to dismiss had been filed, and dismissed. I'm less certain on the Class. See what I can find. But the suits can certainly proceed without class status. But I think it makes more sense to certify in this instance. Regarding sovereign immunity - the FTCA act already waives sovereign immunity for tortuous acts, and with Lerners admission seems to fit the standard under which it will be tried. Additionally, I see no legal impediments due to the state standards, although it would argue against class action status.

thompsonx -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 1:39:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux When in fact, there was a great deal of harm, as has already been proven in depositions in the class action lawsuit on this matter. Proven in depositions? Has the case been settled? If not then how can anything have been proved? When there is a motion to dismiss, and a judge finds to the contrary that there is evidence (of damage) to proceed. A litigant must have standing (ie., must have been injured) to proceed. There additionally must be evidence of wide spread bias in order to obtain class action suit - as well as a coherent class. The fact that there was class action status allowed, and it is to libertarian / republican groups is evidence. If you think there is any chance that this suit is going to lose - or that millions will be paid to the affected groups - you are delusional. My guess is that damages will reach into the several hundreds of millions of dollars. So, you are correct - that the case isn't proven - it hasn't gone to court, and no verdict has been reached. But enough evidence has been proven to support the suit and class status. The long and short of it is that you were wrong once again.

Phydeaux -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 1:59:23 PM)
Quite to the contrary. I said that the fact that there were damage was established. I stand by that. Your side of the argument choses to construe that to mean that it must be proved in a legal sense. I reject that argument. Mathemeticians "prove" things. Scientific theories are "proved". Obama's political calculations are "proved" when he wins reelection. Your definition of 'proved' is not the operative, nor even the primary definition. Here is, once again, the definition of the word. prove [proov] Show IPA verb, proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing. verb (used with object) 1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim. One's actions proves one's words. One can prove a mineral field will play out by obtaining a sample. A deposition (sworn evidence) proves that there were damages.

Phydeaux -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 2:02:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Additionally, according to info release August 19, the discrimiinatory policies that were put in place is still in effect, in contradiction of Obamas appointee Danny Werflen? I thought it was Werful that came in, noticed it was still in place, and sent out an immediate cease memo about it. Correct. Werfel testified that he ended the practise. New testimony is however, that he did not.

DomKen -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 2:04:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Regarding sovereign immunity - the FTCA act already waives sovereign immunity for tortuous acts, and with Lerners admission seems to fit the standard under which it will be tried. Additionally, I see no legal impediments due to the state standards, although it would argue against class action status. The FTCA exempts "performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function" So no the FTCA does not apply and the plaintiffs will have to convince a judge to waive immunity which simply is not going to happen in this case. The damages are insignificant, actually imaginary. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680

thompsonx -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 2:53:26 PM)
quote: So, you are correct - that the case isn't proven - it hasn't gone to court, and no verdict has been reached. I am correct when I point out that you are wrong and you admit that I am correct that by definition means that you were wrong once again.duuuuhhh

VideoAdminChi -> RE: IBD calls for a special prosecutor (9/22/2013 7:00:48 PM)
FR, This thread is locked for review.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125