Subpoenas For Payments to Trump Properties; Emoluments Clause

[OKTexas]

For every fool calling the OP fake news and/or deriding the content irrelevant in some manner, here is the very basis for the subpoena and orders noted in the OP.

"Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss in July of 2018 ruling that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. Read the decision here."
~~ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND V. DONALD J. TRUMP - CREW ~~

Here is the decision handed down by Judge Messitte DENYING Trump's attempt to quash the civil suit regarding his profiteering from the WH from last July 25th;
~~ https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.ci...18/07/25161515/2018-07-25-123-MTD-Opinion.pdf ~~

That decision to quash Trump's response to the suit, presented directly above, allowed the Order noted in the OP to be issued by the Court. All of it quite legal under the law! Additional documentation regarding the case can be found in the listing below;

• Complaint - Jun. 12 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29 2017
• Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - Oct. 6 2017
• Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Oct. 25 2017
• List of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017
• List of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - Oct. 25 2017
• Defendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - Oct.27 2017
• Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Nov. 2 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - Nov. 7 2017
• Declaration of Rachel J Roginsky - Nov.7 2017
• Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D. - Nov.7 2017
• Former Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Brief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Former National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff' - Nov.14 2017
• Legal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 1 2017
• Oral Argument Order - Dec. 17 2017
• Amended Complaint - Mar. 12 2018
• Opinion on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Declaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon Brockmyer - May 18 2018
• Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 25 2018
• Court Opinion - July 25, 2018

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

For every fool calling the OP fake news and/or deriding the content irrelevant in some manner, here is the very basis for the subpoena and orders noted in the OP.

"Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss in July of 2018 ruling that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. Read the decision here."
~~ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND V. DONALD J. TRUMP - CREW ~~

Here is the decision handed down by Judge Messitte DENYING Trump's attempt to quash the civil suit regarding his profiteering from the WH from last July 25th;
~~ https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.ci...18/07/25161515/2018-07-25-123-MTD-Opinion.pdf ~~

That decision to quash Trump's response to the suit, presented directly above, allowed the Order noted in the OP to be issued by the Court. All of it quite legal under the law! Additional documentation regarding the case can be found in the listing below;

• Complaint - Jun. 12 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29 2017
• Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - Oct. 6 2017
• Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Oct. 25 2017
• List of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017
• List of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - Oct. 25 2017
• Defendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - Oct.27 2017
• Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Nov. 2 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - Nov. 7 2017
• Declaration of Rachel J Roginsky - Nov.7 2017
• Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D. - Nov.7 2017
• Former Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Brief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Former National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff' - Nov.14 2017
• Legal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 1 2017
• Oral Argument Order - Dec. 17 2017
• Amended Complaint - Mar. 12 2018
• Opinion on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Declaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon Brockmyer - May 18 2018
• Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 25 2018
• Court Opinion - July 25, 2018

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

 

[bripat9643]

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

 

[OKTexas]

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

Yet here you are just like all the other puke regressives can't even define an emolument. Lacking even that elementary knowledge you proclaim Trumps guilt. Moronic retard fits you and your ilk pretty well.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck.

You're just as fucking dumb as the Texas Fraud. As I stated the subject of emoluments are LAWS defined as the Judicial Branch deals with them. To many fucking moving parts for the minuscule blob of protoplasm passing for a brain in that over sized, vacuous cranium of yours, mouth?

 

[EasyPeasy]

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

They ain't too bright.

 

[edward37]

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

They ain't too bright.

Here dull blub

The Washington Post recently reported considerable interest in booking Trump’s Washington hotel as a deliberate way for foreign visitors to show their support for the incoming Trump White House. Two legal experts—Richard Painter, who was former President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, and noted constitutional legal expert Lawrence Tribe—both say that this appears to be an “emolument” (a gift) that a president isn’t allowed to accept.
—Jeff Nesbit, Time.com, 21 Nov. 2016

The emoluments clause could also come into play when Trump’s business sells condos at its properties or partners with foreign investors in the United States or other countries. A condo sale to a foreign dignitary could be seen as an emolument, especially if it were above the market rate.
—Paul Blumenthal, huffingtonpost.com, 19 Nov. 2016

Emolument has been in use in English since the late 15th century, and is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” There is an additional sense of the word, now obsolete, which is “advantage, benefit.”

The word comes from the Latin word emolumentum, which means “profit” or “gain”; the literal meaning of the word is “sum paid to have grain ground up,” as it comes from the word emolere (“to grind up”).

The emoluments clause of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) reads as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

 

[EasyPeasy]

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!
I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]
Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

They ain't too bright.

Here dull blub

The Washington Post recently reported considerable interest in booking Trump’s Washington hotel as a deliberate way for foreign visitors to show their support for the incoming Trump White House. Two legal experts—Richard Painter, who was former President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, and noted constitutional legal expert Lawrence Tribe—both say that this appears to be an “emolument” (a gift) that a president isn’t allowed to accept.
—Jeff Nesbit, Time.com, 21 Nov. 2016

The emoluments clause could also come into play when Trump’s business sells condos at its properties or partners with foreign investors in the United States or other countries. A condo sale to a foreign dignitary could be seen as an emolument, especially if it were above the market rate.
—Paul Blumenthal, huffingtonpost.com, 19 Nov. 2016

Emolument has been in use in English since the late 15th century, and is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” There is an additional sense of the word, now obsolete, which is “advantage, benefit.”

The word comes from the Latin word emolumentum, which means “profit” or “gain”; the literal meaning of the word is “sum paid to have grain ground up,” as it comes from the word emolere (“to grind up”).

The emoluments clause of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) reads as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Read the last paragraph... tell us, was Trump anointed King of Somalia or something?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Um, Trump owns a hotel, said person stays in hotel, and pays for their room.

That's called paying for something. I would say it would be much more intriguing if a head of state or foreign official stayed in Trumps hotel for FREE. That would look bad. But paying for their room? Um no.

Nothing burger here.

 

[edward37]

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

They ain't too bright.

Here dull blub

The Washington Post recently reported considerable interest in booking Trump’s Washington hotel as a deliberate way for foreign visitors to show their support for the incoming Trump White House. Two legal experts—Richard Painter, who was former President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, and noted constitutional legal expert Lawrence Tribe—both say that this appears to be an “emolument” (a gift) that a president isn’t allowed to accept.
—Jeff Nesbit, Time.com, 21 Nov. 2016

The emoluments clause could also come into play when Trump’s business sells condos at its properties or partners with foreign investors in the United States or other countries. A condo sale to a foreign dignitary could be seen as an emolument, especially if it were above the market rate.
—Paul Blumenthal, huffingtonpost.com, 19 Nov. 2016

Emolument has been in use in English since the late 15th century, and is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” There is an additional sense of the word, now obsolete, which is “advantage, benefit.”

The word comes from the Latin word emolumentum, which means “profit” or “gain”; the literal meaning of the word is “sum paid to have grain ground up,” as it comes from the word emolere (“to grind up”).

The emoluments clause of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) reads as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Read the last paragraph... tell us, was Trump anointed King of Somalia or something?

Pardon me Peasy but you republicans sure think his shit ""don't "" stink

 

[BWK]

So Crooked Hillary's Insurance Policy using Mueller's Witch Hunt has officially dropped the Russia Hoax and is now trying to see if President Trumps Washington DC Hotel made a couple of bucks through his influence? Very sad. Pathetic actually. That said, Mueller's crooks could easily obtain all customer credit card charges that were processed through the hotel.

Except that's a lie. Try again.

 

[BWK]

Um, Trump owns a hotel, said person stays in hotel, and pays for their room.

That's called paying for something. I would say it would be much more intriguing if a head of state or foreign official stayed in Trumps hotel for FREE. That would look bad. But paying for their room? Um no.

Nothing burger here.

Except Trump benefits. He will get a fine and should be impeached for profiting from his position.

 

[BWK]

Here we go again...down snowflake hill....

Too bad you aren't able to construct a counter defense for an emoluments clause violator.

 

[BWK]

"District of Columbia" as plaintiff?...By whose authority?

The law and his violation of the Emoluments Clause. Any more stupid questions?

 

[edward37]

Um, Trump owns a hotel, said person stays in hotel, and pays for their room.

That's called paying for something. I would say it would be much more intriguing if a head of state or foreign official stayed in Trumps hotel for FREE. That would look bad. But paying for their room? Um no.

Nothing burger here.

Except Trump benefits. He will get a fine and should be impeached for profiting from his position.

500 rooms rented by arabs after trump became president?? Just walk on by???

 

[airplanemechanic]

I surely don't think his shit doesn't stink.

We don't worship Trump like liberals worshipped Obama. But due to the constant attacks on him by the left, the right is forced to defend him at every turn.

 

[EasyPeasy]

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

They ain't too bright.

Here dull blub

The Washington Post recently reported considerable interest in booking Trump’s Washington hotel as a deliberate way for foreign visitors to show their support for the incoming Trump White House. Two legal experts—Richard Painter, who was former President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, and noted constitutional legal expert Lawrence Tribe—both say that this appears to be an “emolument” (a gift) that a president isn’t allowed to accept.
—Jeff Nesbit, Time.com, 21 Nov. 2016

The emoluments clause could also come into play when Trump’s business sells condos at its properties or partners with foreign investors in the United States or other countries. A condo sale to a foreign dignitary could be seen as an emolument, especially if it were above the market rate.
—Paul Blumenthal, huffingtonpost.com, 19 Nov. 2016

Emolument has been in use in English since the late 15th century, and is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” There is an additional sense of the word, now obsolete, which is “advantage, benefit.”

The word comes from the Latin word emolumentum, which means “profit” or “gain”; the literal meaning of the word is “sum paid to have grain ground up,” as it comes from the word emolere (“to grind up”).

The emoluments clause of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) reads as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Read the last paragraph... tell us, was Trump anointed King of Somalia or something?

Pardon me Peasy but you republicans sure think his shit ""don't "" stink

Pardon me Rdean, but you have yet to tell us how Trump violated the emoluments clause.

 

[EasyPeasy]

Um, Trump owns a hotel, said person stays in hotel, and pays for their room.

That's called paying for something. I would say it would be much more intriguing if a head of state or foreign official stayed in Trumps hotel for FREE. That would look bad. But paying for their room? Um no.

Nothing burger here.

Except Trump benefits. He will get a fine and should be impeached for profiting from his position.

Impeached for what exactly?

 

[BWK]

I surely don't think his shit doesn't stink.

We don't worship Trump like liberals worshipped Obama. But due to the constant attacks on him by the left, the right is forced to defend him at every turn.

I could care less who you worship or don't worship. Trump broke the law. That's all that matters, and he should pay for his crimes.

 

[EasyPeasy]

I surely don't think his shit doesn't stink.

We don't worship Trump like liberals worshipped Obama. But due to the constant attacks on him by the left, the right is forced to defend him at every turn.

I could care less who you worship or don't worship. Trump broke the law. That's all that matters, and he should pay for his crimes.

How did he break the law?