Fogbow

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:03 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 11:40 am Sounds like a reason for the move to Florida. Are there "tapes" between Individual-1 and DeSantis, hmmm?

Whenever I hear about someone who might be in financial trouble moving to Florida, my mind always turns to the generous state bankruptcy exemption that allows debtors to keep their house (including any solid gold plumbing).

Now that could be interesting... Trump would get to keep his suite at Mar-a-Lago, but the remainder of the property would be sold in bankruptcy.

How saleable would it be, with him squatting like a malignant orange tarantula in the middle of it?

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:01 pm How saleable would it be, with him squatting like a malignant orange taratula in the middle of it?

Have you noticed how many gullible rich people live in Florida?

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:03 pm

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:01 pm How saleable would it be, with him squatting like a malignant orange taratula in the middle of it?

Have you noticed how many gullible rich people live in Florida?

True. They're everywhere. But there is vigorous competition from the gullible poor people.

Thank you FRP! An excellent explanation. I could see DeSantis and Trump litigating this again through the federal courts as Trump did with his tax returns though.

But Mar A Lago isn't legally Trump's residence, it is, as stipulated in his original agreement with Palm Beach County, a for profit club where no member, including him, can live.

Which brings us to how he is living there, which is he is an employee, a mere peasant living in the servant's quarters of the private, for profit, club, that is definitely not his residence, all of which he argued, at length, just a few weeks ago, when someone brought up that he had agreed not to live there.

filly wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:08 pm Thank you FRP! An excellent explanation. I could see DeSantis and Trump litigating this again through the federal courts as Trump did with his tax returns though.

Me too. The important difference? Trump is no longer President, which means there are no longer any concerns about federal courts interfering with the function of the presidency. The potential to spin things out in federal court forever and a day is a lot less now.

I trust that the Mar A Lago night manager gets Trump out of bed to deliver more towels to one of the paying guests.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:22 pm

FRP provides a great deal of helpful information but then goes and says,..

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:22 pm Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 US 66

And thus starts the earworm which must share.
You're welcome.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:53 pm

filly wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:08 pm Thank you FRP! An excellent explanation. I could see DeSantis and Trump litigating this again through the federal courts as Trump did with his tax returns though.

Me too. The important difference? Trump is no longer President, which means there are no longer any concerns about federal courts interfering with the function of the presidency. The potential to spin things out in federal court forever and a day is a lot less now.

Except for the crazy federal judges Trump/McConnell installed. Naomi Rao comes to mind. I guess my concern is the argument will be that the SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided and should be overruled. But I hope you're right. The State of Georgia may also seek his extradition. Will this force the bloated Orange Menace to stay in Florida?

filly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:18 am

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:53 pm

filly wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:08 pm Thank you FRP! An excellent explanation. I could see DeSantis and Trump litigating this again through the federal courts as Trump did with his tax returns though.

Me too. The important difference? Trump is no longer President, which means there are no longer any concerns about federal courts interfering with the function of the presidency. The potential to spin things out in federal court forever and a day is a lot less now.

Except for the crazy federal judges Trump/McConnell installed. Naomi Rao comes to mind. I guess my concern is the argument will be that the SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided and should be overruled. But I hope you're right. The State of Georgia may also seek his extradition. Will this force the bloated Orange Menace to stay in Florida?

I'm not always the voice of optimism on this forum, but let me state quite clearly that Puerto Rico v. Branstad is not going to be overruled to save Donald Trump's hide. You're absolutely right to fear right-wing activist judges like Rao who are completely unbound by precedent when it suits them, but the consequences of reversing Branstad would be too ghastly to contemplate even for them. First, only SCOTUS can reverse that precedent. Lower courts are all bound by it, and Branstad is pretty sweeping in its language. A district court judge could not save Trump by refusing to enforce an extradition without immediately being reversed by the appellate courts for defying the controlling case law. But mostly, I want to lay out a pretty devastating parade of horribles (if you're a FedSoc member) that would follow on such a reversal: Literally every interstate extradition would become a political football; an opportunity for governors to grandstand and play to their base. Defendants would be extradited (or not) based upon political considerations having nothing to do with justice or due process. It would be chaos, and even ultra-conservative FedSoc acolytes fear chaos more than they fear politically unattractive outcomes.

But suppose you're a crazy right-wing judge, and that doesn't dissuade you. Here's why Branstad is never getting overruled: Doing so would immediately imperil the ability of death penalty states to utilize capital punishment. Exactly as foreign governments opposed to capital punishment (despite having extradition treaties with the United States) will frequently only extradite fugitives to the US once they have received a guarantee that the death penalty will not be sought, reversing Branstad would mean governors of states opposed to the death penalty could refuse to extradite unless and until the demanding state agreed not to seek the death penalty, and the demanding state would have no recourse. You might even see an recurrence of the Underground Railroad, where potential capital defendants flee to asylum states with outspoken anti-death penalty governors, who could make all kinds of political hay out of their principled stand against state-sponsored killing.

Why is that such a big deal? Because if there is any shibboleth among right-wing judges in the context of criminal justice, it is that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. The Bill Barrs and Naomi Raos of the world think it is eternally true that executing criminals deters other criminals, no matter how many studies and statistics show that it doesn't. Witness Barr's grotesque orgy of executions on his way out as Attorney General. These people really believe that you can build a more law-abiding and "just" society upon a pile of dead bodies. Is that insane? Of course it is. It's exactly like the people (who, by and large, just so happen to fall on the same part of the political spectrum) who think that you can put an end to terrorism if you just kill enough suspected terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers. My point is that it is an absolute article of faith that America must not ever return to the period between 1972 and 1976 when the death penalty was effectively outlawed by Furman v. Georgia until the decision in Gregg v. Georgia reauthorized it. (Apparently the United States was literally Sodom and Gomorrah during those four years; I once heard former AG Ed Meese say as much in a lecture at my law school alma mater. Again, statistics don't really mean much to this crowd.)

[Apologies for what turned into a little bit of a ranting digression about the death penalty there.]

Could activist SCOTUS justices possibly carve out an exception and overrule Branstad in a more limited fashion to benefit Trump while preventing an immediate assault on the ability of death penalty states to use their favorite toy? Yes, but I can't really conceive of a way to do that without it being pretty apparent that they're just doing this to protect Donald Trump personally. And remember that Donald Trump personally holds no power any more. He cannot appoint the judges' successors, nor can they be removed just because his political base is upset with them. Article III deliberately protects federal judges from these kinds of political considerations, and now that Donald Trump is just another person, he doesn't get the benefit of the "well, but courts have to be mindful of distracting the President or interfering with his duties" thinking that comes with litigation involving a sitting president.

Don't get me wrong: The activist right wing of the Supreme Court has its eye on a lot of precedents they would like to see go the way of the dodo. Morrison v. Olson is practically a dead letter at this point; Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are in serious jeopardy depending on what sort of mood John Roberts is when he wakes up on any given morning; Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (from whence we get the term "Chevron deference") is on the rocks. Hell, I think you could find five votes to overturn West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and send us back to the Lochner era of "freedom of contract" literally trumping any ability of the government to regulate or restrict private businesses in any way. Hope y'all liked having a hundred years of child labor laws and the minimum wage, because Neal Gorsuch would really prefer if 12-year-olds would have to work down at mill 14 hours a day for sixpence a week. But Branstad isn't on anyone's dream list of precedents to overrule, because everyone involved in the justice system understands on some level that governors having a purely ministerial role in extraditions (and federal courts being able to step in when governors do not fulfill their duty) prevents political considerations from infecting criminal process. There's no surer way to erode public support for the courts (especially in regards to crime and punishment) than to start making every criminal extradition a potential political football.

It's not going to happen. But I certainly understand why you would fear that it might.

Thank you for sharing that, panda. Just awesome.

To that I'd add all the women and health care providers involved in abortions in Arkansas and the rest of the Baptist Taliban states who pass laws to sentence them to 50 years in prison, so they just pop off to Vermont or California and there go all their 50 years of scheming.

I think that a lot of the rubes think if SCOTUS reverses Roe v Wade that instantly abortion, birth control and letting womenfolk wear pants or shoes is the law of the land. They have no concept that no matter what, there will be more than enough places and Doctors for Jason Miller to take his knocked up girlfriend to 'fix the problem" before his wife finds out. But if 16 year old girl in Little Rock finds herself in a position she is in no way prepared for and makes the hard but prudent decision to not have a baby whose life is going to ruin their own and that of a few more people, well, she needs to find someone to help her get to San Diego where the nearest clinic is, and pay oodles of money because the yahoos have made a federal law saying the providers have to have 20 times the insurance of say a cardiologist and then, after all that, she may never be able to return home because in the Confederate States of Evangelical Purity, just having had one, even in another state, is a crime if you left there to do it.

And all that falls apart if the states that don't try to reboot the Salem Witch Trials blow up state to state extradition to save Emperor Cheeto.

Oh, and I never answered filly's question: Yes, assuming DeSantis could block Trump's extradition and the federal courts chose not to do anything about it, Trump would have to remain in Florida forever. Extradition is concerned with the state where you are right now, not your state of residence or anything like that. If you live in Wisconsin, but get arrested for committing a crime in Chicago, you don't get to make the State of Illinois seek your extradition from Wisconsin. They already have you, so they get to try you.

For the same reason, I would advise Kirstjen Nielsen or anyone else involved in Trump's child-separation policy being enacted to avoid international travel for the indefinite future, lest their journey abroad be waylaid and result in a change of destination to The Hague.

Last last thing: I am not at all thinking about a potential Georgia criminal case, and I only have one reason for that. Lots of people seem to think that Ron DeSantis would be willing to risk getting pwned in federal court or causing the collapse of the interstate extradition system with an unprecedented (at least in recent times) abuse of power in order to protect Donald Trump. No one seems to be thinking about the fact that it might be politically expedient for Brian Kemp, in a completely routine and mundane use of gubernatorial authority, to preemptively pardon Donald Trump before he could be tried for any alleged crimes against the State of Georgia.

Personally, I think the latter is far more likely to occur than the former.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:26 pm Oh, and I never answered filly's question: Yes, assuming DeSantis could block Trump's extradition and the federal courts chose not to do anything about it, Trump would have to remain in Florida forever. Extradition is concerned with the state where you are right now, not your state of residence or anything like that. If you live in Wisconsin, but get arrested for committing a crime in Chicago, you don't get to make the State of Illinois seek your extradition from Wisconsin. They already have you, so they get to try you.

For the same reason, I would advise Kirstjen Nielsen or anyone else involved in Trump's child-separation policy being enacted to avoid international travel for the indefinite future, lest their journey abroad be waylaid and result in a change of destination to The Hague.

Really? All these years I've been waiting for Hillary to be tried in the Haig with George Soros and Bill Gates, I have thought they reason they never got sent (well, aside from reality) was that the Hague was a place where nations were tried, in mostly civil like litigation and they didn't do criminal trials.
FOr instance, Pinchot was tried in France under the doctrine that certain War Criminals can be tried in any civilized nation and the reason France got away with it (and Israel with Eichman) was A) he was guilty as sin and B)Somewhere one of his victims might have been a Citizen of France.

So, as far as I have always thought, its not so much Stephen Miller's little Acapulco all inclusive is gonna end up sending him to the Hague, as they might take him for trial in Mexico, where I'm sure he'll find a jury of his peers, eager to give him every benefit of the doubt.

(I'm sorry, the thought of Stephen Miller in a Central American jail almost gets me sexually aroused)

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:52 pm But Mar A Lago isn't legally Trump's residence, it is, as stipulated in his original agreement with Palm Beach County, a for profit club where no member, including him, can live.

Which brings us to how he is living there, which is he is an employee, a mere peasant living in the servant's quarters of the private, for profit, club, that is definitely not his residence, all of which he argued, at length, just a few weeks ago, when someone brought up that he had agreed not to live there.

I thought that I read, a few months ago, that the City Attorney for Palm Beach declared that the original agreement did not preclude DJT from living at Mar a Lago permanently. The City Council decided not to pursue it in court.

The bottom line is, at least for now, he gets to live there with impunity.

Touche, Gregg. I was mostly using The Hague as a byword for standing trial for crimes against humanity. If memory serves, noted evil person and walking corpse Henry Kissinger had a close call abroad around the time of the Pinochet trial, because a judge wanted him to answer questions about his involvement with Pinochet and other matters. He hopped a jet back to the US, and I don't think he has traveled abroad much since. Or if he has, he has confined his travel to places that won't bother him with such things. Given the amount of business Kissinger & Associates does with Beijing, I very much doubt the Chinese would trouble him much.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:26 pm Oh, and I never answered filly's question: Yes, assuming DeSantis could block Trump's extradition and the federal courts chose not to do anything about it, Trump would have to remain in Florida forever. Extradition is concerned with the state where you are right now, not your state of residence or anything like that. If you live in Wisconsin, but get arrested for committing a crime in Chicago, you don't get to make the State of Illinois seek your extradition from Wisconsin. They already have you, so they get to try you.

For the same reason, I would advise Kirstjen Nielsen or anyone else involved in Trump's child-separation policy being enacted to avoid international travel for the indefinite future, lest their journey abroad be waylaid and result in a change of destination to The Hague.

Good takes and thank you for sharing your knowledge on this/these topics.

filly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:11 pm

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:26 pm Oh, and I never answered filly's question: Yes, assuming DeSantis could block Trump's extradition and the federal courts chose not to do anything about it, Trump would have to remain in Florida forever. Extradition is concerned with the state where you are right now, not your state of residence or anything like that. If you live in Wisconsin, but get arrested for committing a crime in Chicago, you don't get to make the State of Illinois seek your extradition from Wisconsin. They already have you, so they get to try you.

For the same reason, I would advise Kirstjen Nielsen or anyone else involved in Trump's child-separation policy being enacted to avoid international travel for the indefinite future, lest their journey abroad be waylaid and result in a change of destination to The Hague.

Good takes and thank you for sharing your knowledge on this/these topics.

Yes.

northland10 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:45 am And thus starts the earworm which must share.

That Route 66 episode is supposedly set in Mississippi and is from the black and white era of TV (some of us can remember back that far) - but it is missing something. I dunno, I just can't put my finger on it.

I did notice that they kept pronouncing Drumph's name oddly... it kinda sounded like they were saying 'Garth' all the time.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:53 pm

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:52 pm But Mar A Lago isn't legally Trump's residence, it is, as stipulated in his original agreement with Palm Beach County, a for profit club where no member, including him, can live.

Which brings us to how he is living there, which is he is an employee, a mere peasant living in the servant's quarters of the private, for profit, club, that is definitely not his residence, all of which he argued, at length, just a few weeks ago, when someone brought up that he had agreed not to live there.

I thought that I read, a few months ago, that the City Attorney for Palm Beach declared that the original agreement did not preclude DJT from living at Mar a Lago permanently. The City Council decided not to pursue it in court.

The bottom line is, at least for now, he gets to live there with impunity.

Apparently, though, he gets to live there in the quarters set aside in the club for the ownership interest -- I am willing to bet his ownership of MaL is not personal but corporate. Is there protection for such pass-through ownership under Florida law?

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:46 am Apparently, though, he gets to live there in the quarters set aside in the club for the ownership interest -- I am willing to bet his ownership of MaL is not personal but corporate. Is there protection for such pass-through ownership under Florida law?

I would think that there would have to be. If not, allowing the "owner" to live there would be meaningless. I'm sure that facilities like Mar a Lago are almost universally owned by corporations, not individuals, even though the individual may own 100 percent of the corporation. Otherwise, all of the owners assets would be exposed to a liability lawsuit, if someone slipped and fell or drowned in the swimming pool.

northland10 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:45 am

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:22 pm

FRP provides a great deal of helpful information but then goes and says,..

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:22 pm Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 US 66

And thus starts the earworm which must share.

You're welcome.

There's another song called "Route 66:" the theme from a popular 1960s TV show (starring Martin Milner, George Maharis and Glenn Corbett). The theme show completely rocked. Here's Nelson Riddle and his orchestra with the version that, when cranked up appropriately, can blow you off the living room couch: