Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

Grandioso

Grandioso 2,592

Posted
Posted

I've settled probably 150+ tort lawsuits and I've never had a client sign the release. No one does this, at least in insurance defense. Anyone I name in the settlement contract can assert it, regardless of who paid the settlement.

I've been too lazy to try and learn what Daniels' lawyer is arguing but this is going to be my project today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,367

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So this morning's distraction from reality is to attack Amazon.

Funny, I thought republicans were all about capitalism.  

I’d argue Amazon is becoming increasingly anti-capitalist and more monopolistic with their vertical integration of delivery and crushing small online competitors along with brick and mortar retailers.

I’m not blaming Amazon for exploiting the marketplace to grow, that’s what they’re supposed to do. However, to remain a capitalistic environment, there needs to be competition and a level playing field.

Just saying, may need a check put on Amazon in the future if we want to be honestly pro-capitalist.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2,501

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

I thought he said not paying taxes made you smart. 

 

i would love it if BUffett, Bezos, Gates, etc bankrolled the Dems in the next two election cycles to a tune that would make Mercer and Koch blush so that we can get rid of this idoit and all of the spineless republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 41,846

Posted
Posted
I’d argue Amazon is becoming increasingly anti-capitalist and more monopolistic with their vertical integration of delivery and crushing small online competitors along with brick and mortar retailers.
I’m not blaming Amazon for exploiting the marketplace to grow, that’s what their supposed to do. However, to remain a capitalistic environment, there needs to be competition and a level playing field.
Just saying, may need a check put on Amazon in the future if we want to be honestly pro-capitalist.

Amazon is just playing by the rules laid down since the late 70s early 80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2,501

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, scottsins said:

I guarantee you that no lawyer is stating that if you know about a contract, you are a party to it.  The concept is known as third party beneficiary.  I learned it in law school.

Avenatti’s main theory is that the contractual language places obligations on Trump personally, meaning that his actual consent to the agreement (signature) would be required in order to manifest a valid enforceable contract.

Cohen’s defense is that the agreement is between himself and Stormy.  The point of contention is not whether or not Trump knew.  It’s whether he needed to know/consent in order for her to be bound.

Thats the main legal issue.  The tweet is asserting a different theory altogether. 

If you can show me other colleagues on a thread somewhere that disagree with that, I’m open to discussion.

FYI, I lean towards the Daniels side of the debate I laid out above.

But he is not just a third party beneficiary, right? He is an actual party to the contract which would require his knowledge and consent. If he did not know about it or consent to it and fails to acknowledge that he intended to enter into the contract and that a deal had been made, then it would mean that all the parties did not reach an agreement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,367

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:


Amazon is just playing by the rules laid down since the late 70s early 80s

I know, I acknowledged as much when I said I’m not blaming Amazon.

Just got to watch out for them reaching a point when they become too big to fail.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Native Horn

Native Horn 3,581

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

i would love it if BUffett, Bezos, Gates, etc bankrolled the Dems in the next two election cycles to a tune that would make Mercer and Koch blush so that we can get rid of this idoit and all of the spineless republicans.

I'm definitely behind you.  Well, not BEHIND you, but this is a fantastic idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2,501

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

I've settled probably 150+ tort lawsuits and I've never had a client sign the release. No one does this, at least in insurance defense. Anyone I name in the settlement contract can assert it, regardless of who paid the settlement.

I've been too lazy to try and learn what Daniels' lawyer is arguing but this is going to be my project today. 

yeah but they would acknowledge that they knew about the settlement, agreed with the terms and intended to settle it. The Donald is denying all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d argue Amazon is becoming increasingly anti-capitalist and more monopolistic with their vertical integration of delivery and crushing small online competitors along with brick and mortar retailers.

I’m not blaming Amazon for exploiting the marketplace to grow, that’s what they’re supposed to do. However, to remain a capitalistic environment, there needs to be competition and a level playing field.

Just saying, may need a check put on Amazon in the future if we want to be honestly pro-capitalist.

lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 2,047

Posted
Posted
I've settled probably 150+ tort lawsuits and I've never had a client sign the release. No one does this, at least in insurance defense. Anyone I name in the settlement contract can assert it, regardless of who paid the settlement.

I've been too lazy to try and learn what Daniels' lawyer is arguing but this is going to be my project today. 

 

Correct. However, the client is still bound by the release, right? They are not a 3rd party beneficiary, but an actual party to the agreement, IIRC.

 

I think the issue is whether or not the language requiring signatures of the parties in order to be valid applies to trump.

 

There is “and/or” language in that clause and I do not know how California law interprets that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,871

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d argue Amazon is becoming increasingly anti-capitalist and more monopolistic with their vertical integration of delivery and crushing small online competitors along with brick and mortar retailers.

I’m not blaming Amazon for exploiting the marketplace to grow, that’s what they’re supposed to do. However, to remain a capitalistic environment, there needs to be competition and a level playing field.

Just saying, may need a check put on Amazon in the future if we want to be honestly pro-capitalist.

I think there might be some antitrust stuff in there as well, but that’s not what Trump is bitching about.  It’s them not paying their “fair share” of taxes, a hilariously retarded position for someone like Trump to take.  

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES

V

AMAZON

CAUSES OF ACTION

1. IT’S NOT FAIR

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2,592

Posted
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Correct. However, the client is still bound by the release, right? They are not a 3rd party beneficiary, but an actual party to the agreement, IIRC.

 

I think the issue is whether or not the language requiring signatures of the parties in order to be valid applies to trump.

 

There is “and/or” language in that clause and I do not know how California law interprets that.

Daniels' lawyer seems to be contending that (A) the lack of a signature, plus (B) Trump's public representations of is not a party to the contract = sufficient evidence to demonstrate Trump was/is not a party to the contract. Then he seems to argue if Trump is not a party to the contract, it is invalid.  This is just my knee-jerk reaction here, but I say not so fast. You still have Trump's LLCs or whatever in there. They can still bring the shitstorm and seek all those $1M/breach liquidated damages from Daniels if she breaches the NDA. 

I think Daniels' lawyer might have an argument Trump doesn't have standing to bring a claim against her because he didn't sign it and didn't know about it, but he's not the only entity in that contract. Daniels' lawyer isn't saying Trump can't enforce it or that portions of the contract or invalid or that there is an ambiguity that should be resolved in his client's favor. He's saying no contract exists. He's got an uphill battle IMO, especially when his client signed it and took the money. 

Sidebar: Cohen probably has a "David Dennison Hush Money" shortcut on his PC desktop with like 200 word documents in it. If Daniels' lawyer wins on this issue, imagine how many ladies might step forward. 

Edited by Grandioso
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2,501

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

Daniels' lawyer seems to be contending that (A) the lack of a signature, plus (B) Trump's public representations of is not a party to the contract = sufficient evidence to demonstrate Trump was/is not a party to the contract. Then he seems to argue if Trump is not a party to the contract, it is invalid.  This is just my knee-jerk reaction here, but I say not so fast. You still have Trump's LLCs or whatever in there. They can still bring the shitstorm and seek all those $1M/breach liquidated damages from Daniels if she breaches the NDA. 

I think Daniels' lawyer might have an argument Trump doesn't have standing to bring a claim against her because he didn't sign it and didn't know about it, but he's not the only entity in that contract. Daniels' lawyer isn't saying Trump can't enforce it or that portions of the contract or invalid or that there is an ambiguity that should be resolved in his client's favor. He's saying no contract exists. He's got an uphill battle IMO, especially when his client signed it and took the money. 

Sidebar: Cohen probably has a "David Dennison Hush Money" shortcut on his PC desktop with like 200 word documents in it. If Daniels' lawyer wins on this issue, imagine how many ladies might step forward. 

I think Daniels' lawyer is claiming at least two things:

1. Daniels expressly entered into the Agreement for the purposes of receiving the following consideration (a) $130k and (b) Trump (DD), not the LLC or MC, releasing her from all claims. If Trump did not know about the Agreement, Daniels did not receive the consideration she bargained for.

2. Trump, not the LLC or MC, is the only one who can enforce the remedies against Daniels. If he did not enter into the agreement, he can't enforce the remedies.

 

I think Daniels' attorney is way out in front of these guys.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10,496

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Grandioso said:

I've settled probably 150+ tort lawsuits and I've never had a client sign the release. No one does this, at least in insurance defense. Anyone I name in the settlement contract can assert it, regardless of who paid the settlement.

I've been too lazy to try and learn what Daniels' lawyer is arguing but this is going to be my project today. 

I said this early on, but basic contract law dictates that the operative signature is the one who is to be bound by the terms of the agreement. That is, for the agreement to be binding as to Stormy, her signature is the only one required. 

However, based on the recent line of conversation, it appears they are making an argument that there were reciprocal provisions in the agreement. And therefore, the failure of Trump to sign negates Stormy's reciprocal obligations. FTR - I haven't read all the pleadings. I'm just making that statement off the tweets and other commentary.

 

Edit to add: I'm not making a general statement as to every COA alleged. There seem to be a lot of potential avenues for her. One being the alternative to my above comment ... "There's no contract because there was no 'meeting of the minds' if Trump's statements are true that he never knew about it while he is identified as a party (not a third party beneficiary).

Edited by SquishMitten
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2,592

Posted
Posted (edited)

Re: that Susan Simpson tweet

^^^ Yeah, that's the achilles heel for sure if there is one. It wasn't just: I give you money and you stay quiet. Trump had an obligation to release Daniels from claims and the lack of signature is evidence that he did not. On the contrary, he is saying he didn't know anything about it. I am seeing it now.

Attempting a simplified illustration here...

In exchange for that candy bar, Donald and Company will give you (A) $1.00 and (2) Donald 's promise to not sue you for anything that you did before this contract. Stormy accepts $1.00 from third party associated with Donald and assumes she has Donald's promise. Stormy goes back and says, can I get a copy of that promise? "Sorry, there isn't anything in writing." Stormy then asks, well can he at least acknowledge that he made the promise and will continue to honor it? "No, Donald says he doesn't know anything about any promise or candy bars. Also, you're a whore." Stormy lawyers up. "Hey, you promised us two things for that candy bar and you only gave us one."

Edited by Grandioso
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 2,047

Posted
Posted
Haha.  That’s great.  


That’s a very interesting theory I hadn’t really thought of. His citation is badass, IMO.

I also heard early on that Daniels might assert that the agreement is unconscionable, because of the relative liquidated damages clauses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 29,199

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So this morning's distraction from reality is to attack Amazon.

Funny, I thought republicans were all about capitalism.  

He hates Bezos for being a successful businessman. #PenisEnvy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15,698

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Don't know why this didn't work last time. In addition to the obligations that were personal to Trump in the agreement, this seems like a killer.

That's interesting.  I've never had to research the issue, but that seems pretty damned on-point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 2,047

Posted
Posted
keep in mind it's a secondary source and not authoritative, but still...given that it's Restatement...it's pretty strong.


I would think that this would be a strong indicator that there will be some case law on point citing this same reasoning too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13,255

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Grandioso said:

I've settled probably 150+ tort lawsuits and I've never had a client sign the release. No one does this, at least in insurance defense. Anyone I name in the settlement contract can assert it, regardless of who paid the settlement.

I've been too lazy to try and learn what Daniels' lawyer is arguing but this is going to be my project today. 

Don't forget to bill the hours to someone

😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...