McCain turns down FEC matching funds

[jreeves]

You're not reading.... or you're not comprehending. I don't know which it is... but it's one of them.

Either way, if you tell that to a client, be prepared for the malpractice suit after the guy/gal listens to you and ends up indicted.

And now go back and read up on collateralizing loans. Because you haven't given any indication of understanding a single thing about the concept.

Ok well explain to me how in fact I am wrong in assuming that "public funding is to not be used as collateral" means something other than what is explictly stated in the contract?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're not reading.... or you're not comprehending. I don't know which it is... but it's one of them.

Either way, if you tell that to a client, be prepared for the malpractice suit after the guy/gal listens to you and ends up indicted.

And now go back and read up on collateralizing loans. Because you haven't given any indication of understanding a single thing about the concept.

So why haven't the lawyers for the bank been charged? They all agree he did not use it as collateral. Are you calling them liars? Should they be charged with a crime? How about McCain's lawyer, I guess McCain should sue him now?

 

[Dogger]

Again the contract explictly states that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral. What's so hard to understand about that?

Do some research on federal taxation and temporary employees. About 20 years ago, some employers tried to shift costs onto workers by having both parties sign independent contractor agreements. Those agreements stated that the workers were not employees. But other portions of the agreements (control over work, pay by hour rather than job, inability to subcontract, etc.) made it apparent that the parties were trying to evade federal law, and the courts consistently held that merely reading the technical language was not enough - they looked at the nature of the relationship created rather than the labels placed on those relationships by the parties.

That's the way it is in federal court, kid. They look at what you do instead of what you say. And that's why I want you to answer my question: Why mention federal funding in the loan agreement?

 

[jreeves]

Do some research on federal taxation and temporary employees. About 20 years ago, some employers tried to shift costs onto workers by having both parties sign independent contractor agreements. Those agreements stated that the workers were not employees. But other portions of the agreements (control over work, pay by hour rather than job, inability to subcontract, etc.) made it apparent that the parties were trying to evade federal law, and the courts consistently held that merely reading the technical language was not enough - they looked at the nature of the relationship created rather than the labels placed on those relationships by the parties.

That's the way it is in federal court, kid. They look at what you do instead of what you say. And that's why I want you to answer my question: Why mention federal funding in the loan agreement?

OK, what did MCcain do then that portrayed his intent on using public funding as collateral?

 

[Dogger]

OK, what did MCcain do then that portrayed his intent on using public funding as collateral?

We plowed that ground days ago.

 

[jreeves]

OK, what did MCcain do then that portrayed his intent on using public funding as collateral?

As far as your question goes, I believe I have answered it. He didn't know if he was going to use public funds.

 

[jreeves]

We plowed that ground days ago.

Well, enlighten me again please?

 

[jreeves]

Do some research on federal taxation and temporary employees. About 20 years ago, some employers tried to shift costs onto workers by having both parties sign independent contractor agreements. Those agreements stated that the workers were not employees. But other portions of the agreements (control over work, pay by hour rather than job, inability to subcontract, etc.) made it apparent that the parties were trying to evade federal law, and the courts consistently held that merely reading the technical language was not enough - they looked at the nature of the relationship created rather than the labels placed on those relationships by the parties.


Could you provide the case citation? Do you think the two cases could not contain distinguishing factors?

 

[jillian]

Well, enlighten me again please?

Why would he do that when you clearly didn't absorb or undestand what he said the first time around?

Either that or you're just trolling around trying to makepeople respond to the same things over and over.

Oh...and if I were you, I'd do the research yourself instead of continuing to make yourself look silly

 

[jreeves]

Why would he do that when you clearly didn't absorb or undestand what he said the first time around?

Either that or you're just trolling around trying to makepeople respond to the same things over and over.

Oh...and if I were you, I'd do the research yourself instead of continuing to make yourself look silly

Because nothing said on this thread has adequately disputed the fact it was explicitly stated in the loan application that public funding was not to be used as collateral.

Of course I look silly because when I interpret a contract I look at the explicit terms of the contract. I think if he is going to provide a brief synopsis of a case then he could provide the case citation so that I can anaylze the case for myself.

 

[Dogger]

Could you provide the case citation? Do you think the two cases could not contain distinguishing factors?

I briefed it 20 years ago, and don't have access to my materials. The central point is "merely reading the technical language was not enough - they looked at the nature of the relationship created rather than the labels placed on those relationships by the parties".

Labeling an employee a "consultant" or "independant contractor" did not change the worker into one. And claiming that an interest is not a security interest when the interest exists to secure repayment of a loan doesn't work.

It's like naming your son "Not Boy", but with less risk of beatings.

 

[BrianH]

I briefed it 20 years ago, and don't have access to my materials. The central point is "merely reading the technical language was not enough - they looked at the nature of the relationship created rather than the labels placed on those relationships by the parties".

Labeling an employee a "consultant" or "independant contractor" did not change the worker into one. And claiming that an interest is not a security interest when the interest exists to secure repayment of a loan doesn't work.

It's like naming your son "Not Boy", but with less risk of beatings.

You're a camel....now does that make you a camel??? I get it

 

[Dogger]

You're a camel....now does that make you a camel??? I get it

"Call me a cab!" "Okay, you're a cab."
- The Marx Brothers

 

[jreeves]

I briefed it 20 years ago, and don't have access to my materials. The central point is "merely reading the technical language was not enough - they looked at the nature of the relationship created rather than the labels placed on those relationships by the parties".

Labeling an employee a "consultant" or "independant contractor" did not change the worker into one. And claiming that an interest is not a security interest when the interest exists to secure repayment of a loan doesn't work.

It's like naming your son "Not Boy", but with less risk of beatings.

How convenient, no case citation, especially if you briefed the case?
Ok, so now you want to compare employment law to federal election law? Isn't there any case law to support your position, that by mentioning public funding in any sense on a loan app. is the same as using it for future interest?

A couple of more points, the FEC did not act on the DNC's complaint to begin with as an adminstrative agency. So the DNC, filed against the FEC, the adminstrative agency. Hopefully you know the chances that a federal judge is going to grant the DNC's relief is slim to none and slim just left town.

 

[Larkinn]

How convenient, no case citation, especially if you briefed the case?
Ok, so now you want to compare employment law to federal election law? Isn't there any case law to support your position, that by mentioning public funding in any sense on a loan app. is the same as using it for future interest?

A couple of more points, the FEC did not act on the DNC's complaint to begin with as an adminstrative agency. So the DNC, filed against the FEC, the adminstrative agency. Hopefully you know the chances that a federal judge is going to grant the DNC's relief is slim to none and slim just left town.

Chevron?

Not quite. They are asking the court to act because the FEC does not have the ability to act, not that its actually wrong.

By the way...the FEC also said that McCain cannot pull out of federal funding, he must request federal funding. So if the Court upholds the FEC chairs ruling/letter/whatever McCain loses.

 

[jreeves]

Chevron?

Not quite. They are asking the court to act because the FEC does not have the ability to act, not that its actually wrong.

By the way...the FEC also said that McCain cannot pull out of federal funding, he must request federal funding. So if the Court upholds the FEC chairs ruling/letter/whatever McCain loses.

What about Chevron????


He's comparing employment law to election law. Whether or not the FEC has told MCcain he can or can't pull out of federal funding in this case is not relevant.

Do you have case law that backs up your claim, that by mentioning public funding you are automatically using it as future collateral??

 

[Dogger]

How convenient, no case citation, especially if you briefed the case?

You do realize that not every case gets appealed, and that not every court opinion gets published? Is your law school not teaching you the basics, or are you just not capable of absorbing them?

And FYI, the other side did not appeal in my case, because the law was clear and they were not so obstinate as to continue a dispute where they had no case. You could learn from their example.

Or you could stop ignoring a salient point I have raised repeatedly and tell me why the funds were mentioned in the loan agreement.

 

[jreeves]

You do realize that not every case gets appealed, and that not every court opinion gets published? Is your law school not teaching you the basics, or are you just not capable of absorbing them?

And FYI, the other side did not appeal in my case, because the law was clear and they were not so obstinate as to continue a dispute where they had no case. You could learn from their example.

Or you could stop ignoring a salient point I have raised repeatedly and tell me why the funds were mentioned in the loan agreement.

Give case law to support your claim, that by metioning public funds on loan app. you are providing future security. No I do realize that not every opinion gets published. That's the reason I am asking for case law or are you saying this is a case of first impression?

 

[Dogger]

Give case law to support your claim, that by metioning public funds on loan app. you are providing future security. No I do realize that not every opinion gets published. That's the reason I am asking for case law or are you saying this is a case of first impression?

I have already laid it out above.

Now answer the question.

 

[jreeves]

I have already laid it out above.

Now answer the question.

Sorry I missed the case law, can you repeat it please?
Ok, like I have said two times already his campaign wasn't sure if they were going to be using public funds.