Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Fudge Nuggets 19169]

7 hours ago, 'stache said:

Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge.

I really don’t give a shit. He can be the best judge since Judge Reinhold, he can still get fucked. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2819]

[WhatTheBuck 28764]

1 hour ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Kamala had better replace Garland.

Biden would’ve replaced him. 

[G650 14212]

23 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8710]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

Cannon has a lifetime appointment and is already set being incompetent and essentially unfireable. Why would she give that up for an at most 4 year appointment? Seems a better quid pro quo request would be a promotion to the 11th Circuit (after she’s done saving him at the trial court). I think Garland took the chance expecting 8 years under Biden but even if Kamala replaces him I can see her reappointing him to the bench. Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge. Cannon doesn’t have that.

Because money. If you were attorney general of the US, you could immediately get a job as a partner with profit sharing at a major firm where you make between $2-8M a year, plus undisclosed fees for speaking engagements at Fed Soc events and the like as a private individual. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2662]

So what's the timeline --if any-- for the 11th circuit to rule on her dismissal of the docs case?  Do they need several more months on this

[Fudge Nuggets 19169]

The Stormy case judge should make the dotard show up for sentencing on Nov 5.  Everyone else has to work on election day, might as well make the courts work too.

[TwiceHorn 31412]

3 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

So what's the timeline --if any-- for the 11th circuit to rule on her dismissal of the docs case?  Do they need several more months on this

They had it on an expedited basis, with Trump's brief due in September.  Trump moved to extend that a month, and Smith did not oppose.

Appellee's brief due October 25, 2025.  Government's reply due 21 days later. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68955302/united-states-v-donald-trump/

I'd imagine they have oral argument in December and a ruling by January.  Educated guesses only.

EDIT TO ADD:  I said it was expedited because the appeal was noticed on July 8, and the briefing schedule putting the government's brief due August 27 is pretty fucking swift.  HOWEVER, the briefing dates stem from ordering and receiving the record from the trial court, as you probably know.  On July 24, the government certified that all documents were on file.

Because this is an appeal of a discrete order, I guess there isn't much record on appeal and the transcript of the hearing is mostly irrelevant because it was non-evidentiary.  So maybe just going fairly fast on that alone.

Edited October 25 by TwiceHorn

[Bullneck 19070]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31412]

16 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

That's a great piece of evidence, right there.  And demonstrates the kind of digging you have to do to prove a case like this beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Thrawn 538]

 

Phone call from Egypt? With the POTUS on the other end of the line? WTF?!?!

[Brisketexan 104918]

 
Phone call from Egypt? With the POTUS on the other end of the line? WTF?!?!

See, he got a whole package from Egypt. $10 million. A burner phone. And some delicious shawarma…which was totally wasted on him because it’s not a hamberder.

[Captainant 27578]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a great piece of evidence, right there.  And demonstrates the kind of digging you have to do to prove a case like this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure am glad we waited FOUR FUCKING YEARS for this information to reach the public. Wow the gears of justice are really fucking saving us from fascism! Maybe they'll have a fucking court case for his shit by 2030 and can try his corpse. 

Fucks sake. Justice delayed is justice denied. I don't know why you're so happy about this shit not being used to put the man behind bars. 

[jimmyjazz 45827]

The strange thing about the burner phone routed thru Egypt is that the call happened will before Trump's infamous call to Raffensperger in Georgia, which was presumably on an official line.

[Your Mom 4805]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See, he got a whole package from Egypt…

Hopefully the same can be said about his time in prison one day. 

[Nivek 16913]

Totally normal for the President of the United States to use burner phones and fake electors to try to rig an election.  I guess after he was sending shit to Putin he figured it was all good.  

[TwiceHorn 31412]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Sure am glad we waited FOUR FUCKING YEARS for this information to reach the public. Wow the gears of justice are really fucking saving us from fascism! Maybe they'll have a fucking court case for his shit by 2030 and can try his corpse. 

Fucks sake. Justice delayed is justice denied. I don't know why you're so happy about this shit not being used to put the man behind bars. 

Fucking stop.

I am fairly sure that is grand jury testimony.  It is therefore secret and also probably a couple of years old, at least.  The criminal process proceeds largely out of public view until the trial.

Clearly, they have this evidence, they've had it, and they are using it against him.  They just didn't show it to you before and a bizarre procedural oddity under which the prosecution has to go on record with its evidence before trial is the only reason you're seeing this.

[Captainant 27578]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They just didn't show it to you before and a bizarre procedural oddity under which the prosecution has to go on record with its evidence before trial is the only reason you're seeing this.

Lol you think there's actually gonna be a trial and things won't just be indefinitely delayed

My complaint is that we're two weeks away from the election and the delay of the trial has delayed the public receipt and accountability for his crimes. It's a failure and embarrassment to lawyers and the legal system

Edited October 27 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31412]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

My complaint is that we're two weeks away from the election and the delay of the trial has delayed the public receipt and accountability for his crimes. It's a failure and embarrassment to lawyers and the legal system

Well, as usual, you want to waive whatever protections we offer defendants in our criminal system because you don't like the defendant.

One of those protections is we don't air incriminating evidence until trial when the defendant has the opportunity to defend him or herself. Other than what's legally necessary to support an indictment and for the government to respond to pretrial motions, such as this.

These rules are concocted for YOUR benefit, and mine, should we ever run a foul of the criminal justice system.

No prosecutor anywhere has a duty or obligation, quite the contrary, to publicly air evidence prior to trial.  If not for the immunity ruling, you would never have seen this evidence, until trial.

The trials have been delayed, and that sucks, but that's not an automatic excuse to start airing grand jury testimony.

Addendum:  "Justice delayed is justice denied" is such a useless phrase.  The very nature of due process of law is delay.  Once you introduce the concept of due process, delay is inevitable.  Then you get into unanswerable questions like how much is too much?  Is the 21 year delay in executing Robert Roberson too much due process?

Edited October 27 by TwiceHorn

[Macanudo 12971]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The trials have been delayed, and that sucks, but that's not an automatic excuse to start airing grand jury testimony.

The trials have been delayed nearly 3.5 years.  There is no sane reason this shouldn't have gone to trial already.  And spare me "due process."   This has been criminally slow.  

[TwiceHorn 31412]

3 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

The trials have been delayed nearly 3.5 years.  There is no sane reason this shouldn't have gone to trial already.  And spare me "due process."   This has been criminally slow.  

Slow is the nature of criminal trials, if you are a defendant that has the means and desire to enforce your rights.  The "means" part is a different discussion, though.

[jimmyjazz 45827]

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

[Macanudo 12971]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

My issue is not with the grand jury evidence.   It that this has taken over 3 fucking years.  

[Captainant 27578]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying these trials should have happened fucking years ago. It's outrageous that the public is just now learning these facts that should have been driving this URGENTLY to trial. 

 

Y'all's okey-doke with the legal system taking it's sweet ass time is infuriating. It's not acceptable, and the delay for years is going to be an indelible stain on our democracy and judiciary 

[TwiceHorn 31412]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

They are two separate problems, yes.

But they're not necessarily wrong.  Just "wrong" as applied here.

[jimmyjazz 45827]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Y'all's okey-doke with the legal system taking it's sweet ass time is infuriating. 

I'm not okey-doke with it at all.  Why would you suggest that?

[TwiceHorn 31412]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying these trials should have happened fucking years ago. It's outrageous that the public is just now learning these facts that should have been driving this URGENTLY to trial. 

 

Y'all's okey-doke with the legal system taking it's sweet ass time is infuriating. It's not acceptable, and the delay for years is going to be an indelible stain on our democracy and judiciary 

Well, again, the reason the trials have taken so long is first, the nature of the crimes is such that exhaustive investigation was required (1/6 anyway, not so much the documents case brought with all deliberate speed).  Second, prosecuting a former president raises questions that have never been answered before.  Even had we had a more favorable Supreme Court, these questions would still have had to be answered and delay inheres to that process.

And, even had we somehow reached trial verdicts in very short order, the outcome would remain uncertain pending appeals of these very same issues.

So, yeah the delay sucks. but more broadly speaking, I don't think the opposite proposition would be very appealing outside of these cases.

In retrospect, even had the cases been brought in 2021, there was ZERO chance of final convictions before the election.  And more people could have and should have predicted that so you could have collectively prepared your anus.

Edited October 27 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27578]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not okey-doke with it at all.  Why would you suggest that?

Because whenever anyone expresses frustration with the multi-year delay before starting fucking justice actions, the only response the surly lawyers have is "criminal trials are always slow, we can't violate the sanctity of the process!" Which conveniently ignores the CHOICE by a bunch of dickless lawyers to WAIT TWO FUCKING YEARS to start prosecuting a fascist for attempting his fascist coup. 

The constant misrepresenting of "well you're just as bad as THEM if you want things to move faster" feels like the legal community just doesn't give a fuck and thinks waiting years to open a file is acceptable. 

[Captainant 27578]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In retrospect, even had the cases been brought in 2021, there was ZERO chance of final convictions before the election.  And more people could have and should have predicted that so you could have collectively prepared your anus.

Oh so since things will take a while, we just shouldn't fucking do a thing? I don't care if the trial would have still been in motion without yet reaching a verdict. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUCKING HAPPENING AT ALL! The public accountability and visibility and paper trail into his traitorous actions would have been out there years ago. 

I don't understand why you think that doesn't matter and isn't a historic low water mark for our """justice""" system. 

[jimmyjazz 45827]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Because whenever anyone expresses frustration with the multi-year delay before starting fucking justice actions, the only response the surly lawyers have is "criminal trials are always slow, we can't violate the sanctity of the process!" Which conveniently ignores the CHOICE by a bunch of dickless lawyers to WAIT TWO FUCKING YEARS to start prosecuting a fascist for attempting his fascist coup. 

The constant misrepresenting of "well you're just as bad as THEM if you want things to move faster" feels like the legal community just doesn't give a fuck and thinks waiting years to open a file is acceptable. 

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52461]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

As stated, this is not an average defendant. He can, will, and has spent lots of billable hours to delay in every way possible. And because of who he is, the court has to proceed deliberately because a hint of skipping a step to convict a former POTUS is how we get legitimate shouts about political persecution.  Add in a sympathetic judge in one case and every motion will be given the longest of leashes. 

[jimmyjazz 45827]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

As stated, this is not an average defendant. He can, will, and has spent lots of billable hours to delay in every way possible. And because of who he is, the court has to proceed deliberately because a hint of skipping a step to convict a former POTUS is how we get legitimate shouts about political persecution.  Add in a sympathetic judge in one case and every motion will be given the longest of leashes. 

As if I don't understand this?  It doesn't change the perception that there is something besides "proceeding deliberately" afoot (aka your "sympathetic judge" comment).

[TwiceHorn 31412]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

Yeah, it's a problem inherent to the system.  One, we don't have enough courts and trial dates to dole out.  Two, due process takes some time.  Three, a defendant can exploit one and two to compound the delays.

So, delay is often to be expected, particularly in complex, high-profile, or significant cases, like death-penalty or former presidents.

Can call it "okey dokeing" if you want I guess, but it should be the expectation rather than a surprise.  Lawdogs have that expectation, others don't.

Also, that study is of mostly state cases.  States have many more courts than the federal system, and most of the criminal courts are dedicated to criminal cases, unlike the federal system.  They also handle more cases than the federal system.

Which brings up another factor.  Federal judges have a mixed criminal and civil docket.  A whole lot of them come from civil backgrounds and are somewhat unprepared to manage criminal cases.  And, civil cases are largely "self-paced" and tend to require less management than a criminal case that is heavy on motions and dilatory tactics.  Finally, being a civil judge that "puts up with no bullshit" has fewer due process limitations than the same trait in a criminal case, so I think federal judges are less likely to be sticklers in a criminal case.

Edited October 27 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31412]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

Also, you need to extract pleas from that nine months.  If you looked at jury trials, it would be considerably longer.

[Captainant 27578]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

As stated, this is not an average defendant. He can, will, and has spent lots of billable hours to delay in every way possible. And because of who he is, the court has to proceed deliberately because a hint of skipping a step to convict a former POTUS is how we get legitimate shouts about political persecution.  Add in a sympathetic judge in one case and every motion will be given the longest of leashes. 

And suddenly..... He never actually has to face any consequences. He's fucking running for president and driving republican policy. STILL! 

 

Honestly from my perspective, people have been so afraid of appearing political in their decision making, that they're just making political decisions in prosecuting. Everyone is so scared of tarnishing their prosecutorial record that they're letting him skate and not even bothering to press the question and force the courts to address it. 

That weakness and uncertainty is the fault line that trumpco has exploited to make a mockery of our justice system. Our body politic has a cancer, and has let that cancer metastasize and grow while seeking your 2nd/3rd/4th/..../84662nd opinion on how to best proceed. 

Choosing to NOT prosecute someone simply because they're running for office is chicken shit and sets up a mile wide loophole for future abuse by future fascists. 

[TwiceHorn 31412]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And suddenly..... He never actually has to face any consequences. He's fucking running for president and driving republican policy. STILL! 

 

Honestly from my perspective, people have been so afraid of appearing political in their decision making, that they're just making political decisions in prosecuting. Everyone is so scared of tarnishing their prosecutorial record that they're letting him skate and not even bothering to press the question and force the courts to address it. 

That weakness and uncertainty is the fault line that trumpco has exploited to make a mockery of our justice system. Our body politic has a cancer, and has let that cancer metastasize and grow while seeking your 2nd/3rd/4th/..../84662nd opinion on how to best proceed. 

Choosing to NOT prosecute someone simply because they're running for office is chicken shit and sets up a mile wide loophole for future abuse by future fascists. 

To put this in perspective, all of the crimes except the NY hush money case occurred right around January 2021, and a bit thereafter.

The January 6 case was brought August 1, 2023.  The documents case June 8, 2023.  The Georgia case August 21, 2023.  The NY hush money case in April 2023.  For all intents and purposes, they were filed at the same time.

At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election.

The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case, some with the hush money case, which ironically was brought first, but also the most remote from the date of the crimes. 

Let's say that political dithering delayed the January 6 indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level/scope of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time.  So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction.  And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump.  The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution.  And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS.

No dithering has been alleged with regard to the classified documents case, but a case involving more than 100 classified documents was always going to be a slow-go, Aileen Cannon or not.  She just made it that much worse.

Whatever dithering occurred didn't actually affect the outcome much.

Edited October 27 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27578]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election.

Conviction and final verdict or not, it fucking matters that the justice system has sat on its evidence on trumps treason and kneeled on first down. It's a failure that trump has not been inside a court room to answer for attempting to steal an election, doubly so when he's currently running the same playbook and rhetoric that he did last time that resulted in the worst stochastic terrorist attack in our nations history. 

He should have been put under oath and made to face trial prior to running for president again. The dickless dithering and fear from those charged with protecting the public is what has empowered fascism's rise in America. 

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case.  Let's say that delayed the indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time.  So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction.  And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump.  The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution.  And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS.

You know when there's a cancer, it's really really bad to just wait it out? Yeah. Waiting it out isn't going great for us. 

Edited October 27 by Captainant

[Red Five 40777]

Just as a general idea of how long it's been, January 6th happened four days after Tom Herman was fired here. Over a year before Quinn Ewers stepped foot on campus. That we couldn't squeeze in the trial of a president who tried to overturn an election he lost means the system is broken.

[TwiceHorn 31412]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Conviction and final verdict or not, it fucking matters that the justice system has sat on its evidence on trumps treason and kneeled on first down. It's a failure that trump has not been inside a court room to answer for attempting to steal an election, doubly so when he's currently running the same playbook and rhetoric that he did last time that resulted in the worst stochastic terrorist attack in our nations history. 

He should have been put under oath and made to face trial prior to running for president again. The dickless dithering and fear from those charged with protecting the public is what has empowered fascism's rise in America. 

You know when there's a cancer, it's really really bad to just wait it out? Yeah. Waiting it out isn't going great for us. 

Well, again, you seem to revert to wanting to change the rules for a given defendant.

Having to rely on the justice system to cure us of Donald Trump was never going to be an efficient or expeditious way of doing so.  I think it ultimately will result in trials and convictions that are affirmed on appeal and become final.  It just won't happen on a timeline that meets current wants or expectations.

[Captainant 27578]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, you seem to revert to wanting to change the rules for a given defendant.

WTAF are you talking about? Wanting someone to face a trial for their crimes within a four year time interval is unreasonable and a new rule based on a defendant? I'm not expecting resolution and a final verdict by then, but for fucks sake, the hand I've been hoping in still isn't full.

It's precicely of who this defendant is that he's gotten such special treatment and non-legally mandated extended delaying actions.

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Having to rely on the justice system to cure us of Donald Trump was never going to be an efficient or expeditious way of doing so.  I think it ultimately will result in trials and convictions that are affirmed on appeal and become final.  It just won't happen on a timeline that meets current wants or expectations.

TIL we should not expect the justice system to act on crimes committed. What a strange and through the looking glass sentiment. 

[Satchel 6912]

6 hours ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

As ignorant as Trump is, he operates with the mind and heart of a criminal…almost like an idiot savant.

[Bullneck 19070]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

To put this in perspective, all of the crimes except the NY hush money case occurred right around January 2021, and a bit thereafter.

The January 6 case was brought August 1, 2023.  The documents case June 8, 2023.  The Georgia case August 21, 2023.  The NY hush money case in April 2023.  For all intents and purposes, they were filed at the same time.

At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election.

The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case, some with the hush money case, which ironically was brought first, but also the most remote from the date of the crimes. 

Let's say that political dithering delayed the January 6 indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level/scope of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time.  So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction.  And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump.  The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution.  And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS.

No dithering has been alleged with regard to the classified documents case, but a case involving more than 100 classified documents was always going to be a slow-go, Aileen Cannon or not.  She just made it that much worse.

Whatever dithering occurred didn't actually affect the outcome much.

@captainant & @redfive -- Yes, we know.  Our government relies on people of all political affiliations following a code of conduct as well as the rule of law.  That the Republicans don't do this is an indictment of them but also a lot of intellectually lazy Americans.  A lot of our brethren have taken the easy way out and trusted the easiest lies to believe.  

It's hard for the average working stiff to know who to believe or figure out what information is important.  Hopefully this election will put our education system and media back on track.  

 

Edited October 27 by Bullneck

[G650 14212]

12 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Hopefully this election will put our education system and media back on track

[Captainant 27578]

14 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

@captainant & @redfive -- Yes, we know.  Our government relies on people of all political affiliations following a code of conduct as well as the rule of law.  That the Republicans don't do this is an indictment of them but also a lot of intellectually lazy Americans.  A lot of our brethren have taken the easy way out and trusted the easiest lies to believe.  

It's hard for the average working stiff to know who to believe or figure out what information is important.  Hopefully this election will put our education system and media back on track.  

 

Why would republicans change their behavior? There's objectively no legal consequences for any of it. It's a big question up in the air if it's actually even allowed to go to fucking trial. 

[TwiceHorn 31412]

Fun little factoid, Eddy Grant wins summary judgment for copyright infringement against Trump for use of Electric Avenue. https://copyrightlately.com/eddy-grant-prevails-in-copyright-lawsuit-against-trump-campaign/

Also Isaac Hayes III wins preliminary injunction against Trump's further use of Hold On, I'm Coming.

Edited October 29 by TwiceHorn

[miguelito 11231]

So even *that* lawsuit took 4 years.

[Bullneck 19070]

[jimmyjazz 45827]

More Eddy Grant:  "I'm not getting any money out of this, am I?"

[F250 28757]

We should end court cases and just use trial by combat but no one can defer to a champion.

 

[BamaATL 16592]

42 minutes ago, F250 said:

We should end court cases and just use trial by combat but no one can defer to a champion.

 

Trial by combat odds Eddy Grant vs Trump, I've got Grant at 2 to 1 odds.