The Republican Thread

[iamshack]

Wow. Not a special relationship? Who the hell do they work for?!?

You can see why they wouldn't want to establish that precedent though...the police would then be potentially liable for every failure to protect a citizen, and all their negligent actions would be called into question, etc, etc...

[EvilMonkey]

Is there some kind of ongoing budget battle? This could be a PR move to get more resources/officers.

They ALWAYS cut or threaten to cut teachers and first responders instead of the real waste that they all know is there. Can't cut those extra 4 office people, they are all related to big donors.

[EvilMonkey]

You can see why they wouldn't want to establish that precedent though...the police would then be potentially liable for every failure to protect a citizen, and all their negligent actions would be called into question, etc, etc...

Yes, this is snark, but if they limit our ability to protect ourselves, aren't they then obligated to do it for us?

[Jenksismyhero]

You can see why they wouldn't want to establish that precedent though...the police would then be potentially liable for every failure to protect a citizen, and all their negligent actions would be called into question, etc, etc...

 

Yeah, but you can state that on different grounds like, hey just because a judge enters a protective order doesn't mean you get an armed security team to follow you around.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

Yeah, but you can state that on different grounds like, hey just because a judge enters a protective order doesn't mean you get an armed security team to follow you around.

I was referring more to the 1970's Wash DC case, but yes, I agree.

[Balta1701]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/chi...some-911-calls/

 

So the Chicago Police won't come help you if your s*** gets stolen and the robbers are gone. I can't wait until this stupid City gets sued after someone gets killed/raped/assaulted when they report a crime, the police fail to show up, and the robber/criminal sticks around knowing the police won't show up. What a stupid, idiotic decision. And you people want to take away a persons ability to protect themselves?

 

And really, isn't this giving criminals free reign? There's no fear that the cops will show up now.

I'm trying to get over the fact that this sounds unworkable on investigation grounds. If a robbery suspect is apprehended, how do you actually link the suspect to the stolen goods and victim if the police never shows up to take a statement, fingerprint the door, or anything else like that?

 

Clearly it can't just be a free pass for robbery, right? How do you take evidence in the case if the police don't arrive at some point?

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm trying to get over the fact that this sounds unworkable on investigation grounds. If a robbery suspect is apprehended, how do you actually link the suspect to the stolen goods and victim if the police never shows up to take a statement, fingerprint the door, or anything else like that?

 

Clearly it can't just be a free pass for robbery, right? How do you take evidence in the case if the police don't arrive at some point?

 

That's what I mean - they've just admitted that they're giving up on those cases completely. They're not going to even fake being police. I have an email into one my CPD buddies. I'm interested to see what he says. I'm guessing it's the reality that 99% of the time those are bulls*** cases that never get solved anyway, so why waste the time/money/manpower.

[StrangeSox]

You can take a statement over the phone or later. Maybe they meant responses to those would be very-low-priority, maybe not same-day.

[iamshack]

You can take a statement over the phone or later. Maybe they meant responses to those would be very-low-priority, maybe not same-day.

I think that's exactly what they meant...but let's be honest, in practice, it means if he's not still there, we're mostly likely not going to catch him...and we have no officers to waste right now.

[Balta1701]

I think that's exactly what they meant...but let's be honest, in practice, it means if he's not still there, we're mostly likely not going to catch him...and we have no officers to waste right now.

So would anyone come and take a fingerprint off a door or do those just get wiped away? It seems like a no brainer to at least see if you can get an easy conviction and take someone off the streets for years by matching a print.

[iamshack]

So would anyone come and take a fingerprint off a door or do those just get wiped away? It seems like a no brainer to at least see if you can get an easy conviction and take someone off the streets for years by matching a print.

Yeah, you make some strong points, that's for sure...my guess is they thought about these things when considering taking this measure, and with the full understanding of how their protocols actually work, and can account for them...but the police have done sillier things before, this is for certain.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, you make some strong points, that's for sure...my guess is they thought about these things when considering taking this measure, and with the full understanding of how their protocols actually work, and can account for them...but the police have done sillier things before, this is for certain.

If I had to guess, I'd imagine this would mean that someone else other than an on-duty police officer could come by and do that sort of work, and I could see how that would be passable. But then, maybe that sort of conviction just never, ever happens, so it makes no sense to send anyone at all and just let the insurance handle it.

[StrangeSox]

Now I'd call this the "Trump" card. Now watch Maher weasel out of it.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/yahoo-...-151304482.html

 

 

I hope they take him to court over that. Sounds to me like that was an oral unilateral contract with performance by Trump.

 

 

Trump would argue unilateral contract with performance.

 

Maher would argue that there was no contract as there was no "meeting of the minds" and therefore its unenforceable.

 

Bottom line Id guess Maher wins and Trump loses. No way is any judge going to want to set a precedent that a joke or something on tv can be turned into a binding contract. Well see what happens but I doubt it goes anywhere. For Trump to win theyd have to exhume his father and do a DNA test. Because isnt Trump's position that birth certificates arent legitimate proof?

 

Seems silly.

 

Well, the suit's been filed. Eugene Volokh weighs in with some good snark:

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/donald-trump-v-bill-maher/

 

Now Trump has sued Maher, claiming that Maher’s statement was a binding offer, Trump accepted the offer, Trump provided a birth certificate showing that his father was not an orangutan, and Maher now has to pay up $5 million.

 

I am not a contract law expert, yet here is my quick legal analysis:

 

1. When a comedian, on a comedy show, offers $5 million for proof that someone isn’t the offspring of an orangutan, that is what the law calls a “joke” (or perhaps “a frolic and a banter“), and when something is obviously a joke, it has no legal effect as an offer. “When expressions are intended as a joke and are understood or would be understood by a reasonable person as being so intended, they cannot be construed as an offer and accepted to form a contract.”

 

2. While the law is tolerant of jokes on The Tonight Show, it isn’t so big on legal pleadings that are themselves jokes. So while I’m inclined to think that Trump is just having fun with his complaint, and doesn’t expect it to actually win, I would think that the complaint is such a clear loser that it would likely be sanctionable under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7. The standard is that “[t]he claims, defenses, and other legal contentions” in a pleading must be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law”; see, e.g., Burkle v. Burkle (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), for an illustration of a California court’s conclusion that a litigant’s legal position was indeed frivolous. Now perhaps Trump is prepared to make a nonfrivolous argument why the law should be changed in this instance (“nonfrivolous argument for the ... reversal of existing law” is a mushy standard, to be sure). But, unless I’m mistaken, it seems to me that the complaint does not meet the requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7 — or I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.

Edited February 5, 2013 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

Well, the suit's been filed. Eugene Volokh weighs in with some good snark:

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/donald-trump-v-bill-maher/

Shouldn't Mahr have to prove he is actually funny for that to be considered a joke? He is a no talent hack, at best.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's no way this would be considered frivolous. First, there's a good argument to be made there, even if he ultimately loses and it's more likely than not that he will lose. Frivolous is filing a case you know has 0% chance of winning. You can be pretty certain you will lose and still file the case without being sanctioned.

 

Second, i'm not aware of any "joke" defense to contracts. Yes, this will come down to a reasonable person standard, i.e. would a reasonable person believe that Maher intended to create a unilateral contract. But that's Maher's burden now, not Trumps.

 

[StrangeSox]

check volokh's links (he's a professor of law at UCLA, though not, as he notes, of contract law).

[Jenksismyhero]

check volokh's links (he's a professor of law at UCLA, though not, as he notes, of contract law).

 

He cites Washington law, which isn't controlling. Still though, I agree that it's going to come down to a reasonable person standard as to whether he really intended to make the offer.

 

Edit: from that case:

 

If a party's words or acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree in regard to the matter in question, that agreement is established, and it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of the party's mind on the subject.

 

It would have been really interesting if Maher's comment was something like "i'll give you 5 million if you prove you're actually American given what awful principles you hold." The orangutan line pushes it to the realm of absurdity. But hey, they can get it to trial at least, and let the trier of fact (jury) decide.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

Link

 

In 1999, John Leonard sued PepsiCo., attempting to get the company to hand over an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet. The advertised "offer" came in the form of a television commercial that showed the big prize for 7 million Pepsi points. Leonard had 15 points and attempted to send Pepsi a certified check for $700,000 -- 10 cents a point, per contest rules -- to cover the rest.

Pepsi successfully argued that its advertisement was intended to be humorous.

"Plaintiff's insistence that the commercial appears to be a serious offer requires the Court to explain why the commercial is funny," wrote a judge. "Explaining why a joke is funny is a daunting task; as the essayist E.B. White has remarked, 'Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process.' "

Ultimately, Leonard was deemed to be a loser.

As the judge wrote: "A reasonable viewer would understand such advertisements as mere puffery, not as statements of fact. … The Court rejects plaintiff's argument that the commercial was not clearly in jest."

[Soxbadger]

There's no way this would be considered frivolous. First, there's a good argument to be made there, even if he ultimately loses and it's more likely than not that he will lose. Frivolous is filing a case you know has 0% chance of winning. You can be pretty certain you will lose and still file the case without being sanctioned.

 

Second, i'm not aware of any "joke" defense to contracts. Yes, this will come down to a reasonable person standard, i.e. would a reasonable person believe that Maher intended to create a unilateral contract. But that's Maher's burden now, not Trumps.

 

I doubt the lawsuit would be frivolous, but that is going to depend on how quickly Trump loses in summary judgment. Motion for sanctions generally has to be after the defendant has been found not liabile.

 

As for your second part, I am confused as to why there would be any shift of burden. It will be up to Trump to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Maher and Trump had a contract.

 

In order to prove a contract Trump has to allege elements and prove those elements. Some of the problems that Trump will have is 1) offer, what were the exact terms, when did it expire, does a "joke" constitute an offer, 2) acceptance, did Trump actually ever accept the "offer" that Maher made, 3) meeting of the minds were Maher and Trump on the same page when Trump accepted the offer and 4) consideration, what was Maher going to get.

 

It also appears they are not arguing unilateral contract, as the pleadings state specifically that Trump accepted Maher's offer.

 

In a unilateral contract acceptance is irrelevant. All that matters is that there was an offer and completion.

 

If I put up: "$1,000 reward to first person to find my dog" you dont write me a letter stating you are going to find my dog, you find my dog, you get the money.

 

So it seems that Trump's attorneys are trying to play both sides, yet didnt plead it in the alternative.

 

This should be summary judgment. Trump's attorneys cant even formulate what the offer is in the pleadings. Its just a mismashed jumble quote

 

"suppose that perhaps DT had been the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan... I hope its not true... but, unless he can offer proof, I'm willing to offer $5million dollars to Donald Trump."

 

The brief bolded 1 part, I am going to bold a different part.

 

That is called a hypothetical.

 

The more I read their pleadings, the more I would go for sanctions. Even their lawyers cant keep this joke straight.

[Soxbadger]

This case isnt getting to trial, its going to be a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

 

The only question is whether or not the California judge wants to stick Trump for being a douche.

[StrangeSox]

That he made it about an orangutan is why it's so clearly a joke.

[Soxbadger]

That he made it about an orangutan is why it's so clearly a joke.

 

No that isnt true.

 

if Bill Maher had said: "I will give trump $5mil if he can prove he is not the son of an oraguntan by January 1, 2013, and if he can not prove that he owes me $5mil."

 

If trump wrote a letter accepting that offer, it would be binding and maher would be on the hook.

 

But when you start a comment as a hypothetical its completely different. Words have meaning "suppose" means something. You cant parse the comment.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

And also as I said before, Trump has not performed. A birth certificate does not prove anything. A different father can be put on a birth certificate. As Trump has failed to perform, he cant even sue.

 

That is actually the best argument for sanctions, that the only way to prove the father would be a DNA test, and Trump hasnt done that.

[Jenksismyhero]

I doubt the lawsuit would be frivolous, but that is going to depend on how quickly Trump loses in summary judgment. Motion for sanctions generally has to be after the defendant has been found not liabile.

 

As for your second part, I am confused as to why there would be any shift of burden. It will be up to Trump to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Maher and Trump had a contract.

 

In order to prove a contract Trump has to allege elements and prove those elements. Some of the problems that Trump will have is 1) offer, what were the exact terms, when did it expire, does a "joke" constitute an offer, 2) acceptance, did Trump actually ever accept the "offer" that Maher made, 3) meeting of the minds were Maher and Trump on the same page when Trump accepted the offer and 4) consideration, what was Maher going to get.

 

It also appears they are not arguing unilateral contract, as the pleadings state specifically that Trump accepted Maher's offer.

 

In a unilateral contract acceptance is irrelevant. All that matters is that there was an offer and completion.

 

If I put up: "$1,000 reward to first person to find my dog" you dont write me a letter stating you are going to find my dog, you find my dog, you get the money.

 

So it seems that Trump's attorneys are trying to play both sides, yet didnt plead it in the alternative.

 

This should be summary judgment. Trump's attorneys cant even formulate what the offer is in the pleadings. Its just a mismashed jumble quote

 

"suppose that perhaps DT had been the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan... I hope its not true... but, unless he can offer proof, I'm willing to offer $5million dollars to Donald Trump."

 

The brief bolded 1 part, I am going to bold a different part.

 

That is called a hypothetical.

 

The more I read their pleadings, the more I would go for sanctions. Even their lawyers cant keep this joke straight.

 

It's Trump's burden to establish a contract, yes, but for Maher to get out of this he's going to have to use, as a defense, that it was a joke and he didn't mean it. Trump doesn't have to show that Maher was serious. At least that's what I would argue without doing any research into it.

 

Re: the jet case, I think advertising is a different ballgame than this case. And really, I think that was a BS decision If you're going to fake offer crap to get people to buy your product, you should be prepared to give them what you offer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

It's Trump's burden to establish a contract, yes, but for Maher to get out of this he's going to have to use, as a defense, that it was a joke and he didn't mean it. Trump doesn't have to show that Maher was serious. At least that's what I would argue without doing any research into it.

 

I would argue the following:

 

1. There was no contract (and then list out every reason why the 4 elements were not met.)

 

In the alternative:

 

2. There was a contract but no performance by Trump.

3. It was a unilateral contract and revoked prior to performance.

 

etc.

 

 

I would never say "It was a joke, he didnt mean it." I would use the exact quote: "suppose that perhaps DT had been the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan... I hope its not true... but, unless he can offer proof, I'm willing to offer $5million dollars to Donald Trump."

 

And argue that in no universe that can be interpreted as a contract. There is no clear offer, there is no way to accept, there is no meeting of the minds and there is no consideration.

 

Its a hypothetical. I dont see why "joke" has to be involved. the only reason hed have to go down the "joke" route was if he had actually made a legitimate offer that could be accepted. As he did not, it would stupid to argue its a joke, because that lends credence to the idea that in some world that may have been an offer.

 

But there is just no way a 3rd party can look at Maher's statement and come to the conclusion it was an offer. That is why Trump's attorney put in the nonsense about Trump's Obama bet, to try and argue that it was somehow prior course of dealing and therefore the terms were implied.

 

Once again, it just shows how nonsensical this complaint is, because the course of dealing was between Obama and Trump.

 

This lawsuit is a joke, but unfortunately its not funny and is a waste of court time and resources. I really hope that they sanction Trump, just to send a message. Courts arent for play time.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Soxbadger