Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[acbytesla]

We have good reason to suspect that Trump/Cohen inundated people they worked with with similar settlements and NDAs. If the deal with Clifford is deemed void, it can and probably will open the floodgates.

Good. I don't want people to think THEY HAVE TO keep their bosses dirty secrets or else.

 

[acbytesla]

He is? I think he’s asking you to post the relevant law, yours is simply opinion.

Yes he is. There is no relevant case law that I am aware of. This is one of those cases where I am convinced that there is a public policy consideration for a judge to create law.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes he is. There is no relevant case law that I am aware of. This is one of those cases where I am convinced that there is a public policy consideration for a judge to create law.

I could see that, though in this case that not the question before the judge at this time.

 

[logger]

Yes he is. There is no relevant case law that I am aware of. This is one of those cases where I am convinced that there is a public policy consideration for a judge to create law.

A judge to create law? You don’t see the obvious problem with that?

 

[theprestige]

Yes he is. There is no relevant case law that I am aware of. This is one of those cases where I am convinced that there is a public policy consideration for a judge to create law.

There is never a public policy consideration for a judge to make law. If you don't have a law for the judge to interpret.

 

[Thermal]

That is not true. You don't get to weasel out of your bills to a contractor who said they would do X work for Y amount after you get the work because you never signed a contract for example.

You absolutely do in many cases, especially when exactly what X and Y were agreed to represent comes in dispute, as in a contractor doing less than the customer expected. But not the point. If your contractor tried to enforce term Z (which you may not have even been aware of), without a contract agreeing to and disclosing terms, including X, Y, and Z, the contractor legally cannot.

 

[acbytesla]

There is never a public policy consideration for a judge to make law. If you don't have a law for the judge to interpret.

In this case, it amounts to an illegal campaign contribution. But I think it's more about the coercive nature of NDAs preventing the electorate from knowing something they should know. This was a bribe. Pure and simple, it should not be legal. Neither should Trump requiring employees to sign NDAs should be legal. It's coercive.

 

[theprestige]

In this case, it amounts to an illegal campaign contribution. But I think it's more about the coercive nature of NDAs preventing the electorate from knowing something they should know. This was a bribe. Pure and simple, it should not be legal. Neither should Trump requiring employees to sign NDAs should be legal. It's coercive.

It sounds like you believe there are applicable laws for the judge to apply. In that case, there's no need to have the judge create a new law. Which he can't. And which would be a terrible idea anyway.

 

[The Big Dog]

How?

If Trump wasn't DD, what possible standing would he have regarding the settlement?

Because he is a named defendant

 

[The Big Dog]

In this case, it amounts to an illegal campaign contribution. But I think it's more about the coercive nature of NDAs preventing the electorate from knowing something they should know. This was a bribe. Pure and simple, it should not be legal. Neither should Trump requiring employees to sign NDAs should be legal. It's coercive.

Campaign contributions are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FEC as explained to you repeatedly, and reasonable people would no doubt be extraordinarily alarmed that you wish to overturn the entire jurisprudence relating to confidentiality agreements.

It wasn't a bribe, if anything the porn star was likely extorting him

 

[acbytesla]

Campaign contributions are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FEC as explained to you repeatedly, and reasonable people would no doubt be extraordinarily alarmed that you wish to overturn the entire jurisprudence relating to confidentiality agreements.

It wasn't a bribe, if anything the porn star was likely extorting him

It was a bribe! Or it was blackmail! Either way, the court has no business enforcing that kind of a transaction.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was a bribe! Or it was blackmail! Either way, the court has no business enforcing that kind of a transaction.

It was not a bribe.
If it was blackmail that might make the agreement voidable (not void) at the election of the aggrieved party (here allegedly Donald trump).

You are correct, however, that the Court has no business enforcing it, that is the job of the arbitrator.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A third woman is suing the Trump camp, claiming that it prevented her from speaking about discrimination she suffered as part of the Trump campaign

 

[acbytesla]

It sounds like you believe there are applicable laws for the judge to apply. In that case, there's no need to have the judge create a new law. Which he can't. And which would be a terrible idea anyway.

I think it's an awful idea to allow political candidates to procure a positive image simply by payment or threat. If a candidate is a sleaze, his privilege and our laws should not protect him. Now, here is the legal problem with the payoff.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), a campaign contribution includes “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”

 

[theprestige]

It was a bribe! Or it was blackmail! Either way, the court has no business enforcing that kind of a transaction.

Contract enforcement is one of the few necessary and legitimate duties of government.

Unless one of the parties to the suit can convince the court that the contract in question legally amounts to a crime (bribery, blackmail, etc.), then the court must necessarily uphold the contract and enforce it. It doesn't matter what it looks like, or what you think it really is. In this context, it only matters what you can show the court in legal terms.

You're calling for the court to arrogate to itself things that are the proper authority of the legislature and the voting citizens.

 

[acbytesla]

Contract enforcement is one of the few necessary and legitimate duties of government.

Unless one of the parties to the suit can convince the court that the contract in question legally amounts to a crime (bribery, blackmail, etc.), then the court must necessarily uphold the contract and enforce it. It doesn't matter what it looks like, or what you think it really is. In this context, it only matters what you can show the court in legal terms.

You're calling for the court to arrogate to itself things that are the proper authority of the legislature and the voting citizens.

I disagree. I dont think contracts that threaten the transparency of our elections should ever be enforceable. Otherwise we have a system of laws that only serve those with money and not the public as a whole.

 

[WilliamSeger]

There is never a public policy consideration for a judge to make law. If you don't have a law for the judge to interpret.

Case law.

Case law is a set of past rulings by tribunals that meet their respective jurisdictions' rules to be cited as precedent. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law, which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law, which are regulations established by executive agencies based on statutes. The term "case law" is applied to any set of previous rulings by an adjudicatory tribunal that guides future rulings; for example, patent office case law.

 

[CapelDodger]

I disagree. I dont think contracts that threaten the transparency of our elections should ever be enforceable. Otherwise we have a system of laws that only serve those with money and not the public as a whole.

And Heaven forbid that should ever come to pass ...

 

[d4m10n]

Contract enforcement is one of the few necessary and legitimate duties of government.

Unless one of the parties to the suit can convince the court that the contract in question legally amounts to a crime (bribery, blackmail, etc.), then the court must necessarily uphold the contract and enforce it.

Do campaign finance laws fall under "etc" here?

 

[acbytesla]

And Heaven forbid that should ever come to pass ...

I think it would be the seventh sign.