McCain turns down FEC matching funds

[Dogger]

Well it seems they did an excellent job of doing it, considering that's the way it will be interpreted.

Make up your fucking mind.

First you say the court will establish "the actual intent of the contractual parties". Then you say the court will blindly follow the technical language. You liked the first rule of interpretation until I informed you that it contradicted your conclusion. Have you no principle that you won't surrender if it becomes inconvenient?

The first intent - evade the restrictions of federal law - is reflected by the language the you keep harping upon. Federal courts are not impressed by that.

The second intent - restrict McCain's interst in the funding, and give control of it to the bank - is clear in the language I have cited above.

The third intent - ensure the funds are available for repayment of the loan - is likewise clear. The 2d and 3d intents clearly violate the intent of the federal rules, an intent which Courts will consider when interpreting the rules.

The purpose of the federal restrictions is to prevent a candidate from joining the program (as McCain did), using the promise of funds and other benefits of the program as a fallback (which McCain clearly did), and then dropping out of the program when something better comes along (as McCain did not only here, but with his first wife as well).

Whatever happened to conservative respect for law and order? You guys lost that when you became a cult of personality.

 

[Dogger]

Actually, it's not a matter of moral or ethical values, it's a matter of upholding individuals rights. Everyone in America benefits when the government has to prove their case beyond a resonable doubt. If not for these safeguards, you could be charged and sentenced without a chance at a fair trial.

Nice. It's good to see a conservative savage the Bush Administration.

 

[jreeves]

Make up your fucking mind.

First you say the court will establish "the actual intent of the contractual parties". Then you say the court will blindly follow the technical language. You liked the first rule of interpretation until I informed you that it contradicted your conclusion. Have you no principle that you won't surrender if it becomes inconvenient?

The first intent - evade the restrictions of federal law - is reflected by the language the you keep harping upon. Federal courts are not impressed by that.

The second intent - restrict McCain's interst in the funding, and give control of it to the bank - is clear in the language I have cited above.

The third intent - ensure the funds are available for repayment of the loan - is likewise clear. The 2d and 3d intents clearly violate the intent of the federal rules, an intent which Courts will consider when interpreting the rules.

The purpose of the federal restrictions is to prevent a candidate from joining the program (as McCain did), using the promise of funds and other benefits of the program as a fallback (which McCain clearly did), and then dropping out of the program when something better comes along (as McCain did not only here, but with his first wife as well).

Whatever happened to conservative respect for law and order? You guys lost that when you became a cult of personality.

The only intent that is relevant is whether or not he used public funding for collateral, both contracting parties agree that public funding wasn't used as collateral. Every other intent you harped on aren't relevant as the contracting parties didn't subscribe to it. I think this really easy to understand, do you not get it?

 

[Larkinn]

http://www.finweb.com/loans/legal-determination-of-a-contract.html

When a court of law is presented with a case involving a contract, it must look to a set of guidelines known as the "Rules of Construction" in order to properly interpret the agreement. These guidelines assist the court in establishing the actual intent of the contractual parties. Ignorant

*sigh*

Whether they wanted to have a collateral loan or not is irrelevant. The intent is not in question. The intent was to make a deal that if McCain lost the primary he would get federal funding and repay them with that. They claim that they didn't intend to make a collateral loan. Well, whether they intended to or not, the provisions in it make it dependent on the federal funds as a source of collateral.

By the way...again, that has nothing to do with Reliance.

 

[Larkinn]

Don't worry, being a lawyer makes you UNIVERSALLY HATED by all. The only profession with a lower approval rating is Politician...who, ironically, are predominantly....lawyers....

The public is quite stupid, aren't they?

And yet another bad show for the legal profession when NBC news covering the child custody case in Texas stated the only thing outnumbering the children in that court proceeding....were the lawyers.....

This is a bad showing, how exactly?

 

[Larkinn]

Ironic ...... being a lawyer should be a very noble and rewarding profession...

It is for many individuals.

But because most, (and I do believe most is correct) practicing the profession are so freekin' dishonest in general

Tell me what other profession you can be banned from practicing if you lie? Tell me what other profession has as many ethics rules as lawyers?

But yet you think all lawyers are dishonest? Alright then.

....and have no grasp of common moral and ethical values and have a warped sense of justice

Do describe these common moral and ethical values.

..., they are viewed as scumbags....how a person can take pride of getting murderers and child molesters , etc. ,their freedom is just irrational to most of us....that isn't justice by any standard I live by......

You don't live by the standard of the American legal system that the founders set up? Tsk, tsk...I didn't know you were so anti-American.

 

[jreeves]

*sigh*

Whether they wanted to have a collateral loan or not is irrelevant. The intent is not in question. The intent was to make a deal that if McCain lost the primary he would get federal funding and repay them with that. They claim that they didn't intend to make a collateral loan. Well, whether they intended to or not, the provisions in it make it dependent on the federal funds as a source of collateral.

By the way...again, that has nothing to do with Reliance.

Jeez...you really don't understand contract law do you? A contract's intent is how a judge will either provide for a relief or not, to say it's irrelevant is ignorance. And your imaginary intent is irrelevant since your not one of the two contracting parties.

 

[Dogger]

Collateral isn't movable . . . .

Your car is collateral for your car loan.

How much did you pay for a car that doesn't move? Your posts to date suggest you would be dumb enough to buy one.

Security for a loan can be fixed or moveable, real or personal, vested or contingent, present or future, and even intangible interests, such as an option or right to acquire something in the future. If something has value, it can be collateral.

You don't know what I know, and yet you argue just because the outcome displeases you. Like so many right-wingers, you assume that something you can't understand must not be true.

The limits of your knowledge would suggest to an intelligent person that you are in over your head here. You are too stupid to see how stupid you really are. That's one of many drawbacks to being really, really stupid; you miss that which is obvious to a person of normal or higher intelligence.

If I thought you had anything of value to contribute, I would at least reflect on it. That's what smart people (like me) do. Your body of knowledge is so limited precisely because you don't listen or reflect. That's what ignorant people (like you) do.

I'm done with you; future offerings will be met with silence or simple contradiction.

Call me ignorant if you like; your history of unfounded opinions establishes that conclusion as baseless as anything else you have to say.

So go argue with Zoomie. That imbecile bashes all lawyers, which necessarily includes the bank lawyers you defend. Besides, his intellectual deficits are worse than yours, so you have some chance of winning there.

Bear in mind one thing - his stupidity keeps him from understanding some things that fall within your limited reach, so he will seem as obtuse to you as you do to me.

 

[Larkinn]

Jeez...you really don't understand contract law do you?

LMAO...this from someone who gets his knowledge of law from wiki?

A contract's intent is how a judge will either provide for a relief or not

Umm, yes and no. The intent is certaintly NOT the only way for relief to be granted. Nor is it relevant at all in this case when the case isn't about what they intended to do, rather its about the realistic ramifications of what the contract means to third parties (such as the FEC).

And your imaginary intent is irrelevant since your not one of the two contracting parties.

Imaginary intent? What are you talking about?

 

[Dogger]

Imaginary intent? What are you talking about?

Don't ask him; he doesn't know. jreeves's the idiot that got a car loan for a car that doesn't move.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Actually, it's not a matter of moral or ethical values, it's a matter of upholding individuals rights. Everyone in America benefits when the government has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If not for these safeguards, you could be charged and sentenced without a chance at a fair trial.

It's not criminal law that gives people heartburn with the legal profession. It's civil law and personal injury and malpractice attorneys chasing unlimited liability and their 40% cut. When Fl Int'l did study a few years back and claimed that less than 25% of the tobacco suit settlement ever reached the plaintiffs with most going to legal firms, then ABC did a 20/20 on all the crooked and unethical law firms that took part in that fiasco it kind of cemented the national hate towards the legal profession.

At least in states like Nebraska now they have a $250,000 liability limit for medical malpractice and other strict limits on product liability and personal injury. Once enacted, malpractice suit filings dropped in the first year by over 70%. Reason? Unscrupulous, ambulance chasing law firms could no longer make much money from it.... And Nebraska now has one of the lowest malpractice insurance rates in the nation and finally a few general practitioners are beginning to move back into unserved rural areas again after nearly a decade with NO general practice physician coverage over vast swaths of the state.

 

[Larkinn]

It's not criminal law that gives people heartburn with the legal profession. It's civil law and personal injury and malpractice attorneys chasing unlimited liability and their 40% cut. When Fl Int'l did study a few years back and claimed that less than 25% of the tobacco suit settlement ever reached the plaintiffs with most going to legal firms, then ABC did a 20/20 on all the crooked and unethical law firms that took part in that fiasco it kind of cemented the national hate towards the legal profession.

No Judge would approve a settlement with 75% going to the lawyers. By the way, lawyers are expensive and if you have a better way of running the tort system, I'd like to hear it. As it is we are a country that doesn't have much regulation. We've made up for it by building a fairly large tort system. Nothing is keeping GM from selling you cars that explode on impact except the tort system.

At least in states like Nebraska now they have a $250,000 liability limit for medical malpractice and other strict limits on product liability and personal injury. Once enacted, malpractice suit filings dropped in the first year by over 70%. Reason? Unscrupulous, ambulance chasing law firms could no longer make much money from it

And plaintiffs who are injured and have a cause of action can no longer get reparations for said injury. This is far, how exactly? If a surgeon negligently amputates the wrong arm don't you think the individual should get some money for that? I love how Conservatives are all "personal responsibility" until the idea of paying for your fuckups via the tort system comes into play.

.... And Nebraska now has one of the lowest malpractice insurance rates in the nation and finally a few general practitioners are beginning to move back into unserved rural areas again after nearly a decade with NO general practice physician coverage over vast swaths of the state.

Which is good and a negative effect of the tort system. Have any idea how to keep the rates low enough for GPs to practice, while at the same time allowing individuals who are harmed by negligent actions to have some venue? I don't.

 

[jreeves]

LMAO...this from someone who gets his knowledge of law from wiki?



Umm, yes and no. The intent is certaintly NOT the only way for relief to be granted. Nor is it relevant at all in this case when the case isn't about what they intended to do, rather its about the realistic ramifications of what the contract means to third parties (such as the FEC).



Imaginary intent? What are you talking about?

Actually no I have had courses in contract law and understand intent is one of the most important parts of a contract. The reality of the contract is that neither MCcain or the bank listed public funds as collateral. Nor did they intend to list public funds for collateral.

 

[jreeves]

It's not criminal law that gives people heartburn with the legal profession. It's civil law and personal injury and malpractice attorneys chasing unlimited liability and their 40% cut. When Fl Int'l did study a few years back and claimed that less than 25% of the tobacco suit settlement ever reached the plaintiffs with most going to legal firms, then ABC did a 20/20 on all the crooked and unethical law firms that took part in that fiasco it kind of cemented the national hate towards the legal profession.

At least in states like Nebraska now they have a $250,000 liability limit for medical malpractice and other strict limits on product liability and personal injury. Once enacted, malpractice suit filings dropped in the first year by over 70%. Reason? Unscrupulous, ambulance chasing law firms could no longer make much money from it.... And Nebraska now has one of the lowest malpractice insurance rates in the nation and finally a few general practitioners are beginning to move back into unserved rural areas again after nearly a decade with NO general practice physician coverage over vast swaths of the state.

Well as far as Civil law goes, yes there is definetly the need for reform.

 

[jreeves]

Don't ask him; he doesn't know. jreeves's the idiot that got a car loan for a car that doesn't move.

Dumbass, your saying its personal property, when he hadn't received a penny in public funding. And the intent and reasonable interpretation of the contract didn't list public funding as collateral.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually no I have had courses in contract law and understand intent is one of the most important parts of a contract.

Oh, and care to explain what the imaginary intent is?

Lmao...where were youre courses on Contract law, the local CC?

The reality of the contract is that neither MCcain or the bank listed public funds as collateral.

Umm, yes they did actually.

Nor did they intend to list public funds for collateral.

Thats correct, they tried to skirt federal law. Looks as if they failed.

 

[Larkinn]

There are 2 different forms of intent here.

The first intent is what they intended to DO. Collateral is basically a guarantee that you can get the money or will give the lender items equivalent to the amount loaned. McCain had two situations when he signed the loan. Either his fortunes would improve, and at that point the bank would trust him to repay the loan. OR his fortunes would NOT improve and at that point he would take federal funding and repay the loan that way.

Now, they qualified the loan in such a way to avoid it being collateral as much as they could. But whether the intent was to make it collateral or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant is what they intended the actual ramifications of the loan to be. Whether they call those ramifications collateral, fred, jesus H. Christ is irrelevant, just as what their intent in calling those ramifications is irrelevant. If the Feds think that the loan was collateral, whatever their intent might have been, it was collateral.

I suggest you get a refund on your law courses.

 

[Dogger]

Why mention the funds at all if the bank never expected to rely on them for repayment? Why did McCain's campaign adopt (and initial specifically, by the way) language providing for a "first priority perfected security interest" in the funds?

I repeated those questions in a later post, and yet no wannabe legal scholar has tried to answer them.

If you think federal law can be evaded so easily, you're probably not bright enough to attempt an answer.

 

[jreeves]

Oh, and care to explain what the imaginary intent is?

Lmao...where were youre courses on Contract law, the local CC?



Umm, yes they did actually.



Thats correct, they tried to skirt federal law. Looks as if they failed.

Your imaginary intent is that they used public funding as collateral. I took my courses on contract law at the University of Maryland. No they didn't the loan app. says that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral. No that's your imaginary intent coming in again....

 

[Dogger]

Your imaginary intent is that they used public funding as collateral. I took my courses on contract law at the University of Maryland. No they didn't the loan app. says that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral. No that's your imaginary intent coming in again....

My law school spits on your business law class.

Answer my questions above.