\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Textualism & Monopoly Rules

"Unimproved properties ... may be sold ... for any amou...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Ahem, "any".
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
A canon of statutory interpretation is to look beyond the li...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Wouldn't this run counter to the concept of "textualism...
Fragrant Beta Chapel
  10/17/04
Nope, because it still absorbs the plain meaning of the enti...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"plain meaning" ...which, ironically enough, ha...
metal electric new version therapy
  10/17/04
If you looked below, you'd be forced to acknowledge that &qu...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
I agree that maximum isn't the correct intepretation.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
So what the fuck is your substitute? A lot? A "reason...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Nope, adding "reasonable" would be looking at legi...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"adding 'reasonable' would be looking at legislative hi...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Hi! I'm textualism. Have we met?
supple brunch hissy fit
  10/17/04
I caught my mistake later. I believe Scalia's into "or...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
That is often the difference between Thomas, Scalia, and Reh...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"That is often the difference between Thomas, Scalia, a...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
CT and Nino are the 7th most likely pair to vote together. T...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"The liberal bloc votes together more than they do.&quo...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Obviously CT-Nino-WHR are a bloc, and JPS-RBG-SGB-DHS are a ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
What term(s) are you talking about? I just happen to know t...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
In OT2003, they were 7th. In the 10 ?? years of this current...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Are you sure about the 10 years of this Court? I'm not sayi...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
72 combinations (9 times 8), right? Not that it matters. ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I think that is double counting (eg, Scalia with Thomas and ...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
FWIW, I found an old National Review article saying that in ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Sounds right to me (I had always heard that Souter and Ginsb...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
I don't know why Ginsburg-Breyer isn't also higher than CT-S...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Obviously, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter are not all agreeing...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Ah. A google search reveals that Scalia's a textualism buff...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Let it go. And your interpretation sucks.
tantric wonderful fat ankles
  10/17/04
You're a soddin' moron. HTH.
charismatic effete gaming laptop
  10/17/04
"any"="maximum"?
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Even if you convert the "may" to a "may only&...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Holy fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
I agree that "maximum" changes the meaning, but th...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I don't get that. Doesn't "any" mean there are no...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Yep. I fail to see how anyone could argue that the second i...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
No, it can't be the second. There is clearly no requirement ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
How isn't it? "A 'sale' consists in the passing of t...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
it is an "ammount the owner can get" though so ...
Cream deep roast beef
  10/17/04
Also, "can get" must be analyzed. I wouldn't consi...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
it rhymes with "faggot" which is what you are for ...
Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen
  10/17/04
The obvious interpretation is that no amount is too high. Y...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
That's silly. Of course $6 is SOMEthing ... just not much.
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Unconscionability comes into play, too.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
It's not a contract.
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
he was trying to big word us with consideration earlier.
Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen
  10/17/04
Of course it is a contract. Immediate performance doesn't ma...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Go to court and try to enforce it then.
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
Why would I enforce a contract I don't want enforced?
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Do you think a court would enforce a "contract" to...
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
They may not have given me a TRO, but they may give me monet...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Get over it and go to bed.
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
I have to finish reading this Epstein article.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Then go read it.
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
Not 'till I prove my point! You want to read it for me and s...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
No. And I'm still not going to play monopoly with you.
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
Fine. Your loss.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
look at this way: the properties were of zero value to her, ...
Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen
  10/17/04
The "value to her" of the properties is clearly no...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
it's amazing to me that, with your fine legal senses, you co...
Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen
  10/17/04
I can't tell whether that is a compliment or an insult ;)
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"she finds SIGNIFICANT value in MY NOT HAVING them.&quo...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
"How could you know?" She said so.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"She said so." Nothing was on paper.
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
She said she did it so that I would lose / be worse off. Cle...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Were you already a creditor? If not, it wasn't a fraudulent...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Being a pre-existing creditor isn't required for a fraudulen...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"Creditor" means a person who has a claim. UFTA S...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Yes, I had a right to a payment (of her property) that hadn'...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
As I asked below, was landing on your property certain? A...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
You could conceptualize it based on the simple probabilities...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
You could. Or, you could stay within the game story and thi...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
But the liability rules / property rules (i.e., the stuff in...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
But you are loading the question to call those "liabili...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Good points. Perhaps the best framework for conceptualizing ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
But that just calculates the probabilities of the various Xs...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Rathr than " a series of discrete contracts which have ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Obviously, such contracts do exist in the real world (all en...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Part of the game story is that in addition to playing rent, ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Sure, but what we are talking about is what is happening bef...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
But just because you aren't PLANNING to stay anywhere in par...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
But I think you are again slipping between the game story an...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Explain, please.
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
How is it unconscionable? Unconscionable sales are when one...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
I believe there is sometimes third party right of action for...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"Also, you can't always sell something for below market...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Yea, people who come close are able to work around the laws,...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
No, unconscionability has nothing to do with third parties (...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
I'm a de facto creditor (see above)
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I saw your post above, but how does this work?
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
You own a nuclear power plant. You know that tomorrow the wh...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Was it certain she was going to land on your property?
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Substantially certain that she would land on it that time ar...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"Substantially certain" sounds a lot like not cert...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
What is the rule for a tort creditor? Is it imminent or susb...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Most torts require actual harm. A few allow recovery for im...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
"and 100% certain that I would eventually bankrupt her ...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
She had enough in property / assets such that she couldn't h...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
During that skip around the board, yes.
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
The best way to conceptualize it is to program a computer to...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I doubt you'd go 10,000 for 10,000. I never doubted that th...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
What Sexpert is saying is that if I don't go 10,000 perfect,...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I'm not speaking for Sexpert. Just saying the "100% ce...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Subjective probability was 75%. She landed on his property....
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
It depends on how you interpret Monopoly events. That could...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
" In the real world, people do not randomly stay at cer...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Right, and the law has no application to Monopoly the game. ...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
"So, your issue only makes sense if we try to apply it ...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Again, I think that is blending the game story and the game ...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
The facts of a case like this actually seem pretty close to ...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Yea exactly.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
You did construct the example. It should match :)
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the most rationa...
aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party
  10/17/04
I'm amused too. Little did I know what would come of a stupi...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Well, three liberals. At least two of us were bound to scre...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
If we look at the intent of the rules... We will see that on...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"This represents the intent to prevent such collusion b...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Fuzzy textualism can.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I'm pretty sure that means "not textualism". Bu...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
"I'm pretty sure that means 'not textualism'. " ...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Yea, little did I know a monopoly game would turn into this.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
"Fuzzy textualism can." As you probably know, I...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
Because I'm SCALIA. I'd easily win on a realist basis. That ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
A rare moment of RWA idiocy. HTH.
crawly institution
  10/17/04
Even if the legal argument falls apart, ponk was the clear i...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
and you were the clear QUITTER....QUITTER QUITTER QUITTER!!!
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
DIRTY SPIC!! DIRTY SPIC!! DIRTY SPIC!! DIRTY SPIC!! I can sa...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
i can say that you...are...a...QUITTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
Damn RWA... you're a loser!
wine hairraiser boltzmann mother
  10/17/04
RWA had no standing to challenge the transaction. It was a ...
thriller state
  10/17/04
I'm not challenging the transaction per se. I'm simply reque...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
the transaction was made before she landed on your monopoly,...
thriller state
  10/17/04
I'm no different than the tort creditor (I explained this ab...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
there was no tort here. the tort creditor statutes exist to...
thriller state
  10/17/04
Come on, you know better than that. The probability of landi...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I said 'dice sum possible combinations.' never said 3/11. ...
thriller state
  10/17/04
Also, I still contend that the actual probability should be ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
that's such bullshit. the team that scores first in a baseb...
thriller state
  10/17/04
A team that is up by 10 runs in the 9th inning is an imminen...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
yet they still play out the rest of the inning. the yankees...
thriller state
  10/17/04
"you have no claim because you quit before you became (...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
well hmmm...that makes it a tougher call. I was operating u...
thriller state
  10/17/04
ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH!! I thought you read the o...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
I read it last night, but I was about 4 glasses of wine in a...
thriller state
  10/17/04
Ah, you misunderstand flip-flops. Nothing wrong with changin...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
no, Kerry just does a bit of pandering (which every politici...
thriller state
  10/17/04
Bush. Kerry has only killed an unarmed teenager whose back w...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
the guy had a rocket launcher and was a threat to every one ...
thriller state
  10/17/04
HAHAHAHAHA, OMFG!!!!! hi-larious
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
Hillarious that you're a dirty spic who cheats.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
WHO GIVES A DAMN? IT'S AN ONLINE GAME. GET A LIFE!!!
wine hairraiser boltzmann mother
  10/17/04
This is life. She did far more than violate the rules of a g...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
hehehe, sue me!!!...oops, i am bankrupt, HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
For what it is worth, during this discussion I became convin...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Interesting (and I see the game story vs. real life distinct...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
For the purposes of the UFTA, I'm pretty sure the reason why...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Yea, if we go back into the game context, your making coalit...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Players are under no obligation to maximize their chances of...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
But in the game situation, players do not come in with any p...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
hahaha, i made no such claim...all i said was that if it loo...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
Your intent was to prevent me (a conservative Jew) from havi...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
you are saying that i stated my intent which i clearly did n...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
Your intent can be deduced from other things besides your st...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
like what? like the fact that i called you jew boy in return...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
"what i did was fair and square" No it wasn't. ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
you didn't protest at the time
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
The trade was made 10 seconds before I bankrupted you.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
but you knew about it well in advance, like a minute before ...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
So your only response is that your behavior is OK because I ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
Maybe she wouldn't have done it if you'd asked. Not everyon...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
no, my response is that unless the rules say otherwise, my m...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
We've proven that your move was illegal based on the rules. ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
yeah, *we've* proven nothing...you've ranted and raved all d...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
"We've proven that your move was illegal based on the r...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
"All of the legal experts agree that it was 1) dirty pl...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
I'm suing your pants off!
thriller state
  10/17/04
go ahead, i'm bankrupt thanks to RWA
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
Debtor's prison.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
please, if that were real, half of america would be in priso...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
It should be real. We need to go back to Merry Ole England. ...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
eww, those people wore wigs to hide their lice...dammit, sto...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
And those people had HONOR, unlike you.
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
you and your offspring will be paying of this debt for years...
thriller state
  10/17/04
How about we sterilize her so she can't have offspring? Frau...
massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim
  10/17/04
oh, i always wondered how my parents got all that money
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
good idea. and off with that clitoris too!
thriller state
  10/17/04
why don't you go recite the fifty states or something...whit...
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
boo! (I'm not white--I'm a ghost and transparent!)
thriller state
  10/17/04
casper is white!
Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home
  10/17/04
casper was friendly; I'm a scum and blood sucking lawyer/doc...
thriller state
  10/17/04
"it is really a question of intent: if you are making a...
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
I'm just reading the UFTA Sec. 4, which you can see here: ...
comical frum bbw
  10/17/04
Danke.
bronze haunted graveyard
  10/17/04
I miss RWA.
Splenetic theatre
  07/24/06


Poast new message in this thread





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:43 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

"Unimproved properties ... may be sold ... for any amount the owner can get"

A textual analysis leads to the conclusion that a property may NOT be sold for an amount LESS than what the owner can get. HTH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500916)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:44 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

Ahem, "any".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500924)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:53 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

A canon of statutory interpretation is to look beyond the literal meaning of any one word. See, e.g., United States v. Singleton (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, -- U.S. --.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500958)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:54 AM
Author: Fragrant Beta Chapel

Wouldn't this run counter to the concept of "textualism?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500960)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:59 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Nope, because it still absorbs the plain meaning of the entire phrase. This is in sync with Scalia's book (A Matter of Interpretation, or whatever).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500977)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:08 PM
Author: metal electric new version therapy

"plain meaning"

...which, ironically enough, has no plain meaning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502717)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:58 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

If you looked below, you'd be forced to acknowledge that "maximum" isn't a good candidate substitute for "any," no matter what non-literal crack you're smoking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500974)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:01 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I agree that maximum isn't the correct intepretation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500983)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:03 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

So what the fuck is your substitute? A lot? A "reasonable" amount? What are your grounds?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500990)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:05 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Nope, adding "reasonable" would be looking at legislative history / intent of the drafter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500992)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:07 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"adding 'reasonable' would be looking at legislative history / intent of the drafter."

OK. And I'll guess that you haven't begun to do so.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500998)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:01 AM
Author: supple brunch hissy fit

Hi! I'm textualism. Have we met?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501139)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:10 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

I caught my mistake later. I believe Scalia's into "original intent," and thought our boy RWA would be as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501149)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:12 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

That is often the difference between Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist, when they diverge.

Also, Scalia looks at the intent of the Framers but never the intent of Congress.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501154)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:18 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"That is often the difference between Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist, when they diverge.

Also, Scalia looks at the intent of the Framers but never the intent of Congress."

Thanks. They don't diverge often.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501161)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:20 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

CT and Nino are the 7th most likely pair to vote together. The liberal bloc votes together more than they do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501166)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:22 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"The liberal bloc votes together more than they do."

Mildly surprising to me, but I never claimed there wasn't a liberal bloc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501171)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:26 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Obviously CT-Nino-WHR are a bloc, and JPS-RBG-SGB-DHS are a bloc. But the racist left perpetuates the myth that CT is Nino's lapdog and votes with him every single time. The fact is that they're different relative to other pairings. And Brennan-Thurgood Marshall had like a 99.5% statistic (I think CT-Nino is about 93% over their 10+ years).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501176)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:24 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

What term(s) are you talking about? I just happen to know that in one term (1996-97) they were the most likely to vote together (all but one case that term, in fact).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501174)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:27 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

In OT2003, they were 7th. In the 10 ?? years of this current court, they certainly aren't close to first. And see above about Brennan-Marshall.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501177)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:32 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Are you sure about the 10 years of this Court? I'm not saying I know otherwise ... but if they were 7th (out of 36 possible combinations, I think) in one year, and 1st in another, they are well on their way to being 1st overall.

Of course, that doesn't mean they are the highest of all time. But still, they may be the highest, or one of the highest, on this Court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501183)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:37 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

72 combinations (9 times 8), right? Not that it matters.

I remember vaguely they're like 4th-6th of this current court. I'm not quite sure exactly where they are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501187)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:43 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

I think that is double counting (eg, Scalia with Thomas and Thomas with Scalia).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501196)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:51 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

FWIW, I found an old National Review article saying that in 94-99 it was:

DHS-RBG 84%

DHS-SGB 81%

CT-Scalia 80%

And it is clear that Thomas has diverged from Scalia much more in the last 5 years.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501208)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:26 PM
Author: comical frum bbw

Sounds right to me (I had always heard that Souter and Ginsburg were up there with Thomas and Scalia, and I am not surprised to see Souter and Breyer as well on this list).

Incidentally, I have come to appreciate the important differences between Thomas and Scalia, and depending on the issue, I may think one or the other of them has the better side of the argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503259)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:33 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I don't know why Ginsburg-Breyer isn't also higher than CT-Scalia, based on the transitivity.

Yea, when they diverge, they often both have good arguments. Unlike Sandy, they actually craft a legal argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503309)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:13 PM
Author: comical frum bbw

Obviously, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter are not all agreeing on the same 81-84% of the cases. Roughly, Ginsburg and Breyer could be agreeing on case anywhere from around 60-97% of the time, and because they aren't on that list it must be in the lower end of that range.

I personally like O'Connor's casuistry, but that is just me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503597)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:13 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Ah. A google search reveals that Scalia's a textualism buff as well--guess I should've guessed (after all, RWA did reference as Scalia book on the subject).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501157)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:45 AM
Author: tantric wonderful fat ankles

Let it go.

And your interpretation sucks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500927)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:48 AM
Author: charismatic effete gaming laptop

You're a soddin' moron. HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500941)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:51 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"any"="maximum"?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500952)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:58 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Even if you convert the "may" to a "may only" (a controversial issue in statutory construction), you can't convert "any amount" to "the highest amount" without changing the plain meaning,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500973)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:01 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Holy fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500984)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:02 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I agree that "maximum" changes the meaning, but the plain meaning is consistent with "any" excluding certain amounts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500986)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:09 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

I don't get that. Doesn't "any" mean there are no exclusions?

"You may take any deal that you can get."

"You may only take the best deal that you can get."

I'd say the second phrase clearly has a different meaning than the first.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501002)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:13 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Yep. I fail to see how anyone could argue that the second interpretation is better than the second without going beyond the text.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501020)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:15 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

No, it can't be the second. There is clearly no requirement of the best deal or even a fair deal. It is the first. $6 is NOT "a deal"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501028)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:22 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

How isn't it?

"A 'sale' consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price."

UCC 2-106(1). $6 is the price ... a low one, but a price nonetheless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501052)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:32 PM
Author: Cream deep roast beef

it is an "ammount the owner can get" though

so anything over 0 would seem to qualify

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501825)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:05 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Also, "can get" must be analyzed. I wouldn't consider $6 as getting anything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500994)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:08 AM
Author: Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen

it rhymes with "faggot" which is what you are for ANALyzing this so much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500999)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:09 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

The obvious interpretation is that no amount is too high. You'd need some reel good historicity behind you to make a contrary case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501001)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:11 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

That's silly. Of course $6 is SOMEthing ... just not much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501012)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:13 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Unconscionability comes into play, too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501019)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:14 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

It's not a contract.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501021)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:14 AM
Author: Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen

he was trying to big word us with consideration earlier.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501024)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:16 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Of course it is a contract. Immediate performance doesn't make an unconscionable deal somehow OK.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501034)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:18 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

Go to court and try to enforce it then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501041)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:21 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Why would I enforce a contract I don't want enforced?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501051)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:23 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

Do you think a court would enforce a "contract" to play a board game?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501060)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:25 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

They may not have given me a TRO, but they may give me monetary damages. My IIED claim would put the damages over $21. :)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501067)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:30 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

Get over it and go to bed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501085)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:32 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I have to finish reading this Epstein article.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501090)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:33 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

Then go read it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501093)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:34 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Not 'till I prove my point! You want to read it for me and summarize it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501099)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:36 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

No.

And I'm still not going to play monopoly with you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501105)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:39 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Fine. Your loss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501109)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:18 AM
Author: Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen

look at this way: the properties were of zero value to her, therefore the six dollars was more than adequete consideration and unconcionsability doesn't enter in to it when the parties are both aware of what they are doing and the implications of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501042)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:21 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

The "value to her" of the properties is clearly not zero -- she finds SIGNIFICANT value in MY NOT HAVING them. And even if they are worthless to her, it is a fraudulent conveyance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501050)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:23 AM
Author: Blathering mind-boggling theater stage liquid oxygen

it's amazing to me that, with your fine legal senses, you couldn't find a job.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501057)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:24 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I can't tell whether that is a compliment or an insult ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501061)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:25 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"she finds SIGNIFICANT value in MY NOT HAVING them."

How could you know?

"it is a fraudulent conveyance."

How so?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501063)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:26 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

"How could you know?"

She said so.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501070)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:29 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"She said so."

Nothing was on paper.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501079)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:30 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

She said she did it so that I would lose / be worse off. Clearly anti-Bush and anti-semitism is a motive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501083)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:25 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Were you already a creditor? If not, it wasn't a fraudulent conveyance either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501066)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:28 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Being a pre-existing creditor isn't required for a fraudulent conveyance. Courts consistently protect tort "creditors" for against conveyances made before torts have actually happened but are imminent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501076)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:39 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

"Creditor" means a person who has a claim. UFTA Sec 1(4).

"Claim" means a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured. UTFA Sec 1(3).

There are indeed imminent torts that give rise to claims. But did you have a claim here?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501111)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:46 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Yes, I had a right to a payment (of her property) that hadn't yet matured (that would mature when the imminent event of her landing on my property happened).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501116)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:50 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

As I asked below, was landing on your property certain?

Actually, I think this is where the entire application of this area of the law to Monopoly the game breaks down. How are we supposed to conceptualize either landing on or not landing on a property?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501122)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:53 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

You could conceptualize it based on the simple probabilities of the dice rolling those particular numbers. And you add in the P that she'll land on it the next time around, less the P that someone else will bankrupt her before then (negligible) and so on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501129)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:01 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

You could. Or, you could stay within the game story and think of it as a series of discrete contracts which have not been made until the dice are rolled.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501140)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:02 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

But the liability rules / property rules (i.e., the stuff in the rules and on the deeds) fix all the events/conditions of each of those discrete contracts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501141)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:11 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

But you are loading the question to call those "liability" and "property" rules. They are actually just game rules. You are right that they are mechanically determinate, of course: If X happens, Y will result. And we can assign probabilities to X ... but that is outside the game story. Within the game story, I think we are supposed to talk about these as voluntary acts. In other words, we roll a die and determine that our person has decided to stay at a certain place. In truth, there is no "decision" involved ... again, the game is mechanical. But within the game story, the events are described as voluntary.

And of course, you can't apply the law outside the game story ... because it is just a game. You can only pretend that you are applying the law within the game story.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501153)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:16 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Good points. Perhaps the best framework for conceptualizing it is to just to run a computer simulation, and see what happens.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501159)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:18 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

But that just calculates the probabilities of the various Xs for you. That is a fact about the game, not the game story, and again, you can't base your fraudulent transfer claim on anything outside the game story (because there are no real property transfers outside the game story).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501162)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:19 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Rathr than " a series of discrete contracts which have not been made until the dice are rolled," what about a series of discrete contracts that HAVE been made for which performance is contingent on the occurrence of certain events (i.e., a certain die roll). Sort of like a futures contract triggered by certain events.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501163)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:21 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Obviously, such contracts do exist in the real world (all enforceable bets are like that, for example).

But does that match what is going on inside the Monopoly game story? I don't think so (you pay rent--you don't pay off your bet, or your futures contract).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501168)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:23 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Part of the game story is that in addition to playing rent, you give all your property to the landlord if you are unable to pay the rent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501173)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:28 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Sure, but what we are talking about is what is happening before you stay there at all. In other words, in the Monopoly game story, before you have rolled the dice, it would seem to me that you are not yet planning to stay anywhere in particular. Hence, if you make a transfer, you could not be intending to defraud any creditor within the game story.

Outside the game story, of course, you could be doing this to screw another PLAYER. But again, the law doesn't apply to the game and to players outside the game story ... and within the game story, until the dice are rolled, you are not yet their landlord, and indeed may not be even after the dice are rolled.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501180)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:31 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

But just because you aren't PLANNING to stay anywhere in particular, you know that you're more likely to stay somewhere. You're conscious of the fact that the odds are different. Accordingly, you could take certain actions based on your desire to minimize the chances of a certain thing happening when you land on something you're likely to land on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501181)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:37 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

But I think you are again slipping between the game story and the game itself. Landing on spaces is outside the game story ... in the game, you stay in hotels and houses, you don't "land on spaces".

To put this point another way, you as a player of the game of course know all sorts of probabilities, and are not staying anywhere ... nor are you really selling property.

The you in the game is apparently someone travelling around Atlantic City staying in different accomodations. Is that you in the game, which is the you that pretend-sells property, supposed to be aware of these game-level probabilities? I doubt that is how the game story is supposed to work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501186)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:14 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Explain, please.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501023)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:19 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

How is it unconscionable? Unconscionable sales are when one party takes advantage of the other. If you voluntarily want to sell something below market value, or just knowingly give it away, the law won't stop you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501046)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:23 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I believe there is sometimes third party right of action for unconscionable sales (of course, not for all contracts, but for certain ones where a 3rd party's interests are at stake). Also, you can't always sell something for below market value -- there are protections against sham transactions, fraudulent conveyances, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501055)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:27 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"Also, you can't always sell something for below market value -- there are protections against sham transactions, fraudulent conveyances, etc."

You must be right about this. You can't just give everything away to your close relatives prior to bankruptcy--though I'm sure some people come pretty close.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501073)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:30 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Yea, people who come close are able to work around the laws, plan far enough in advance, have good lawyers, etc. But fraudulent conveyance / sham transaction laws do exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501082)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:32 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

No, unconscionability has nothing to do with third parties (it is a consent issue). And third parties generally do not have standing to assert a claim against the enforcement of a contract.

"Sham transactions" is usually a tax term--and you weren't a tax collector.

"Fraudulent conveyances" are conveyances used to defraud creditors ... and my understanding is that you were not yet a creditor.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501092)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:33 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I'm a de facto creditor (see above)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501095)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:38 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

I saw your post above, but how does this work?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501108)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:43 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

You own a nuclear power plant. You know that tomorrow the whole thing will blow up because of something stupid that you've done in the past. So you sell off all your assets and cash out, because you know you'd be sued up the ass by the neighbors and lose everything. The neighbors aren't don't become creditors until the thing blows up, yet are de facto creditors and are protected by the asset transfer before the explosion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501114)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:48 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Was it certain she was going to land on your property?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501117)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:50 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Substantially certain that she would land on it that time around, and 100% certain that I would eventually bankrupt her (nobody else could have based on the situation of the board).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501121)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:53 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

"Substantially certain" sounds a lot like not certain, and "100% certain . . . eventually" sounds a lot like not imminent.

But as I said above, I think the real problem is that we don't know how to conceptualize Monopoly events.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501127)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:54 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

What is the rule for a tort creditor? Is it imminent or susbstantially certain, or what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501132)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:04 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Most torts require actual harm. A few allow recovery for imminent harm, and the standard varies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501143)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:54 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"and 100% certain that I would eventually bankrupt her (nobody else could have based on the situation of the board)."

This can't be right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501130)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:56 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

She had enough in property / assets such that she couldn't have landed on anyone else's without not being able to pay it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501133)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:07 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

During that skip around the board, yes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501146)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:10 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

The best way to conceptualize it is to program a computer to run the game from where we left off, and play it all out 10,000 times. We'll see how many times I BK her vs. how many times you two BK her.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501150)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:20 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

I doubt you'd go 10,000 for 10,000. I never doubted that the odds were overwhelmingly in your favor.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501167)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:22 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

What Sexpert is saying is that if I don't go 10,000 perfect, what rule do we use?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501170)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:28 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

I'm not speaking for Sexpert. Just saying the "100% certain" claim was hyperbole, but you already knew that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501179)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:52 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Subjective probability was 75%. She landed on his property. Looks like RWA is in the same counterfactual and actual position as the neighbors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501126)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:58 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

It depends on how you interpret Monopoly events. That could be interpreted as a tort-like event, such as a 75% chance of the reactor blowing up ... but that isn't the make-believe story in Monopoly (a tort occurring). Instead, the underlying story is about exchanges: a person staying at a certain property and paying rent. In the real world, people do not randomly stay at certain property.

So, I agree that it might be a fraudulent conveyance if you sold all your goods for a song, knowing that you had a reservation at an incredibly expensive hotel. But how are we supposed to conceptualize this notion of not knowing yet whether you are going to stay at the hotel, and yet also not having that choice yourself?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501137)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:00 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

" In the real world, people do not randomly stay at certain property. "

Right. Monopoly the game is about a dice roll between 1 and 12.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501138)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:14 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Right, and the law has no application to Monopoly the game. There are no real sales of legal property, for example ... just pretend sales.

So, your issue only makes sense if we try to apply it within the game story, because outside the game story, there is no issue at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501158)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:25 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"So, your issue only makes sense if we try to apply it within the game story, because outside the game story, there is no issue at all."

I think RWA is claiming that there's good reason to think they apply within the game story--namely, because they reflect widely accepted notions of fair play.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501175)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:42 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

Again, I think that is blending the game story and the game itself. "Fair play" is a concept that applies to Monopoly the game. "Fraudulent conveyance" is a concept that applies to specific real world property transfers, not games ... so if it applies directly, it applies inside the game story.

Of course, if you are saying there is a moral lesson to be learned from the property rule ... well, maybe, except Monopoly the game isn't about morality and fair play--heck, it is about monopolization!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501192)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:49 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

The facts of a case like this actually seem pretty close to those in your own in the relevant respects. (For instance, though it couldn't be determined that you *would* be Ponky's creditor in advance, the same applies to the neighbors.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501120)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:51 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Yea exactly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501123)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:57 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

You did construct the example. It should match :)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501135)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:33 AM
Author: aromatic mildly autistic parlor reading party

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the most rational poster on the board is arguing about the legality of a monopoly move?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501097)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:35 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I'm amused too. Little did I know what would come of a stupid monopoly game with 2 liberals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501104)





Date: October 17th, 2004 3:39 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Well, three liberals. At least two of us were bound to screw you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501110)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:34 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

If we look at the intent of the rules... We will see that one is forbidden from making loans to other players. This represents the intent to prevent such collusion between two players and to ensure that any deal struck isn't unconscionable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501185)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:40 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"This represents the intent to prevent such collusion between two players and to ensure that any deal struck isn't unconscionable."

But textualism can't get us here, can it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501189)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:42 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Fuzzy textualism can.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501195)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:44 AM
Author: comical frum bbw

I'm pretty sure that means "not textualism".

But anyway, it was an interesting discussion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501199)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:47 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"I'm pretty sure that means 'not textualism'. "

Asshole. You beat me to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501204)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:49 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Yea, little did I know a monopoly game would turn into this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501206)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:46 AM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"Fuzzy textualism can."

As you probably know, I'm a mere 0L, but this sounds like "bastardized textualism" to me.

Why don't you contruct a legal realist argument? That would probably be easier.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501201)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:48 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Because I'm SCALIA. I'd easily win on a realist basis. That isn't fun.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501205)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:49 AM
Author: crawly institution

A rare moment of RWA idiocy. HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501207)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:53 AM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Even if the legal argument falls apart, ponk was the clear idiot tonight.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501211)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:42 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

and you were the clear QUITTER....QUITTER QUITTER QUITTER!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501863)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:43 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

DIRTY SPIC!! DIRTY SPIC!! DIRTY SPIC!! DIRTY SPIC!! I can say I have my integrity. What can you say?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502565)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:59 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

i can say that you...are...a...QUITTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........................................................................Q...U...I...T...T...E...R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503502)





Date: October 17th, 2004 1:21 PM
Author: wine hairraiser boltzmann mother

Damn RWA... you're a loser!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501614)





Date: October 17th, 2004 1:37 PM
Author: thriller state

RWA had no standing to challenge the transaction. It was a contract between two private parties not involving (though affecting) him. What's your claim?!

12(b)(1) bitch.

This is the kind of poor lawyering that could only come from somebody who's never had a legal job.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501668)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:42 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I'm not challenging the transaction per se. I'm simply requesting injunctive relief to enforce MY rights (i.e., returning to the status quo) as a de facto creditor of one of the parties to the transaction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502558)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:55 PM
Author: thriller state

the transaction was made before she landed on your monopoly, no?

(if so, you weren't a 'de facto' creditor)

an injunctive relief to return to the status quo (and who has a vested right to the status quo anyway?) would necessarily entail a nullification of the transaction which, again, you don't have standing to ask for.

no pound of flesh for you!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502642)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:59 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

I'm no different than the tort creditor (I explained this above... do a search ... -- the power plant company that sells all of its assets right before the place blows up). You need a vested/matured right according to the bankruptcy fraudulent conveyance statute (see above for the cite to the UFTA).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502671)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:13 PM
Author: thriller state

there was no tort here. the tort creditor statutes exist to protect the state or society having to pay for foreseeable injuries and medical harm. here there is no such interest and using that statute to buttress your interpretation of the monopoly rules is silly. even scalia, j., thinks so.

It was also by no means a certainty that the other player would have landed on your property thus causing any right of yours as creditor to vest. actually, wasn't it even more likely that she wouldn't have landed on your property? (with 11 possible dice sum combinations, and only three spaces with hotels, your claim of 'imminence' doesn't wash)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502741)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:22 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Come on, you know better than that. The probability of landing on my squares isn't 3/11ths. I'm sure you can figure out that some dice rolls are more likely than others. Or do law students not know math these days?

Of course there is no tort. I'm making an analogy to show you how there are de facto creditors in general. I would either be a creditor of a property interest or a contract (depending on how you view the Monopoly game situation of landing on a square and paying rents), and I'm protected by foreseeable attempts to avoid such obligations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502806)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:27 PM
Author: thriller state

I said 'dice sum possible combinations.' never said 3/11. still, I bet the odds of landing on your spaces was less than 1/2.

I'm saying that the fact that this isn't a tort is a distinction with a difference. not only were you not a 'de facto' creditor, but there is no policy that would be served by granting you any kind of relief here, and thus no reason to interpret the monopoly rules as you would have us.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502836)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:33 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Also, I still contend that the actual probability should be based on the chances that I will bankrupt her at some point (if the game were replayed perfectly say 10,000 times).

I _am_ a de facto creditor, and obviously the statute protects de facto creditors (the language about unmatured, unvested, etc.) because it recognizes the policy justifications for protecting someone in my situation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502885)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:45 PM
Author: thriller state

that's such bullshit. the team that scores first in a baseball game will, over 1000 games, more likely than not win the game. but we don't vest the yankees with a world series title (or even a victory in that game) when they score first. even if it was probable (which it probably wasn't), you still need to allow for the significant factor of luck, and the moves and transactions of the other players.

what's the cite to the statute? can you find me a case where a third party could challenge a contract like this one? you've got the burden of proof.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502977)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:53 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

A team that is up by 10 runs in the 9th inning is an imminent winner.

The statute was cited above by sexpert. I don't feel like doing a search on this now, given that the baseball game is on. I'll do it later. People pay top law students like me the big bucks to research such complex issues.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503034)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:09 PM
Author: thriller state

yet they still play out the rest of the inning. the yankees are up 3-0 against the sox and are an imminent winner of the series, yet they still play game 4.

you still haven't answered my point about it being less likely than so that she would have landed on your spaces on the next roll.

bottom line--you have no claim because you quit before you became (or even were likely to become) a creditor. counted your chickens before they hatched!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503154)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:13 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

"you have no claim because you quit before you became (or even were likely to become) a creditor."

No no no. She sold her property before her turn, and then immediately landed on my space. I protested AFTER it happened. The chickens hatched.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503179)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:29 PM
Author: thriller state

well hmmm...that makes it a tougher call. I was operating under the assumption that you suffered no harm in fact, but you did. Add to this their statements that they did what they did to defraud you, proving intent isn't tough.

I'll be your lawyer if you need one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503285)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:36 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH!! I thought you read the orignial fact pattern last night. Ok, I'm so glad I have the Deaniac stamp of approval. You can second-chair the case (i.e., hold me briefcase).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503330)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:38 PM
Author: thriller state

I read it last night, but I was about 4 glasses of wine in already.

I flip-flopped!

(not such a bad thing when an understanding of the facts changes)

EDIT: only a fool has himself for his client! besides I have a crapload more legal experience than you do. I'd take the wood to these fools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503350)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:40 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Ah, you misunderstand flip-flops. Nothing wrong with changing positions, if the circumstances change. What Lurch does is that he goes from A to B (the flip) and then back to A (the flop). Bush has changes his positions (all pols do), but doesn't flip-flop.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503362)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:46 PM
Author: thriller state

no, Kerry just does a bit of pandering (which every politician does), but at least he's competent and knowledgeable.

if your ship was sinking (or being overrun by ragheads), who would you rather have as your captain? Kerry in a second. he's killed people. after 9/11, if took bush like 4 days to get his bearings before that silly manufactured bullhorn moment.

anyway, that's a topic for another day. I'm not expecting that you'll vote for Kerry, but you've got to admit that Bush is a disaster. hell, vote for badnarik or nader if you have to, but don't insult your own intelligence by voting Bush.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503421)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:55 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Bush. Kerry has only killed an unarmed teenager whose back was turned. Bush would have Jesus (Rove/Cheney) do something. Kerry would hold a summit and go to the UN before he does anything.

Yea, W isn't the brightest guy (that NYT hit piece was pretty revealing). My vote doesn't matter, since I'm in CA. Are you voting Lurch or Nader? Who is Badnarik? Is he a libertarian?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503473)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:00 PM
Author: thriller state

the guy had a rocket launcher and was a threat to every one of those GI's lives. the dangerousness of the situation, and the magnitude of Kerry's bravery, is reflected by the fact that he carries shrapnel from the encounter to this day.

(and if we'd listened to what our allies at the UN had been telling us we wouldn't be involved in the boondoggle that is Iraq)

I'm voting Kerry. no question. Badnarik is the libertarian, correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503515)





Date: October 17th, 2004 2:33 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

HAHAHAHAHA, OMFG!!!!! hi-larious

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501834)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:41 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Hillarious that you're a dirty spic who cheats.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502541)





Date: October 17th, 2004 4:56 PM
Author: wine hairraiser boltzmann mother

WHO GIVES A DAMN? IT'S AN ONLINE GAME. GET A LIFE!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502650)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:00 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

This is life. She did far more than violate the rules of a game.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502676)





Date: October 17th, 2004 5:43 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

hehehe, sue me!!!...oops, i am bankrupt, HAHAHAHAHA!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1502958)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:24 PM
Author: comical frum bbw

For what it is worth, during this discussion I became convinced RWA had a better "claim" under the law than I originally thought. As I understand the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, it is really a question of intent: if you are making a transfer with the sole intent to keep the property away from a creditor, it can be fraudulent even if that is a FUTURE creditor.

My only remaining point above was that within the game story, I am not sure that would fit this situation--the real world players of the game may know that RWA is a likely future creditor, but the fictional monopolist within the game story may not have such knowledge. Still, that is a relatively technical point about games--and I, for one, learned something new about the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503241)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:26 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Interesting (and I see the game story vs. real life distinction). She stated that her intent was to keep the property away from me because I'm a Jew with too much money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503262)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:30 PM
Author: comical frum bbw

For the purposes of the UFTA, I'm pretty sure the reason why she wants to screw you out of your money is not legally relevant.

Of course, back in the real world/game-playing context, these games are all about forming coalitions and not making enemies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503291)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:38 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Yea, if we go back into the game context, your making coalitions would simply be based on the situation on the board. You would have no hatred/love for any one of the other three players.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503346)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:15 PM
Author: comical frum bbw

Players are under no obligation to maximize their chances of winning, particularly not when those would be marginal improvements.

Strategy games like this are all about diplomacy ... which is actually a useful life lesson.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503611)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:17 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

But in the game situation, players do not come in with any pre-existing favoritism to any of the other players. In the game situation (not the real world), ponky would never have made that deal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503623)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:37 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

hahaha, i made no such claim...all i said was that if it looks like i may go down then i'm selling to my fellow liberal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503344)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:38 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Your intent was to prevent me (a conservative Jew) from having your property.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503354)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:42 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

you are saying that i stated my intent which i clearly did not...wtf am i arguing for, i need to read

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503378)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:44 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Your intent can be deduced from other things besides your statements. (Your statements itself are sufficient, though.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503399)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:51 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

like what? like the fact that i called you jew boy in return for your more demeaning slur of "spic"?...or because i called you a money grubber, like i called CALM a money grubber in the second game last night?...or maybe it's the xoxo board comments that reveal how liberal i am...well hells bells, why don't we just blame it on the fact that i got a full ride from a very jewish law school and the taste of jewish money makes me want to screw all jews out of what they think is theirs...what i did was fair and square and i gave you advanced notice that i might do such a thing but you happened to miss it and were thus surprised...either way, it was fun-ny

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503446)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:58 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

"what i did was fair and square"

No it wasn't. All of the legal experts agree that it was 1) dirty play, and 2) illegal.

"and i gave you advanced notice that i might do such a thing but you happened to miss it and were thus surprised"

What good does that do? There was nothing I can do to stop it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503498)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:59 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

you didn't protest at the time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503512)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:02 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

The trade was made 10 seconds before I bankrupted you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503534)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:04 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

but you knew about it well in advance, like a minute before it happened and you didn't protest

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503541)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:06 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

So your only response is that your behavior is OK because I didn't waste my time protesting something I couldn't prevent?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503559)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:11 PM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Maybe she wouldn't have done it if you'd asked. Not everyone takes online Monopoly with xoxo buds as seriously as you do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503587)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:11 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

no, my response is that unless the rules say otherwise, my move was LEGAL...you can only go by what the rules say for this particular game, which exists in its own little world...if it were otherwise then we would have to question those $1 sales between me you and calm...oh yeah, one other thing, HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503590)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:13 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

We've proven that your move was illegal based on the rules. The $1 sale was simply to avoid a bug in the game's software, you dumb cunt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503598)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:16 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

yeah, *we've* proven nothing...you've ranted and raved all day for nearly 24 hrs. now that you're bound to find some poster who is going to finally agree with you...this is sad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503617)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:17 PM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"We've proven that your move was illegal based on the rules."

Where did you prove that? Like I said, you'd have to stretch the loans statute.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503624)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:04 PM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"All of the legal experts agree that it was 1) dirty play, and 2) illegal."

This thread was funny stuff, but Monopoly rules determine Monopoly legality. Dirty play? I guess, but I thought it was in jest. Illegal? Maybe a Monopoly judge would rule it as such by stretching the Monopoly loan statute you cited.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503544)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:47 PM
Author: thriller state

I'm suing your pants off!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503428)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:51 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

go ahead, i'm bankrupt thanks to RWA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503451)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:56 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

Debtor's prison.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503486)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:02 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

please, if that were real, half of america would be in prison

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503531)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:07 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

It should be real. We need to go back to Merry Ole England. And also to the days when common law felonies were punishable by death.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503565)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:13 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

eww, those people wore wigs to hide their lice...dammit, stop already, i have to go study!!!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503596)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:14 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

And those people had HONOR, unlike you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503606)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:56 PM
Author: thriller state

you and your offspring will be paying of this debt for years to come. (and I do suggest you quit slandering my client before I'm forced to amend our complaint for even more damages)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503488)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:59 PM
Author: massive galvanic coldplay fan goyim

How about we sterilize her so she can't have offspring? Fraudulent parents make fraudulent babies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503507)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:00 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

oh, i always wondered how my parents got all that money

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503518)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:01 PM
Author: thriller state

good idea. and off with that clitoris too!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503526)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:01 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

why don't you go recite the fifty states or something...white men don't scare me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503525)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:03 PM
Author: thriller state

boo!

(I'm not white--I'm a ghost and transparent!)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503538)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:04 PM
Author: Appetizing Quadroon Nursing Home

casper is white!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503545)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:08 PM
Author: thriller state

casper was friendly; I'm a scum and blood sucking lawyer/doctor ghost.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503572)





Date: October 17th, 2004 6:32 PM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

"it is really a question of intent: if you are making a transfer with the sole intent to keep the property away from a creditor, it can be fraudulent even if that is a FUTURE creditor."

Can you point to some possible cases (RWA already outlined one hypothetical)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503301)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:18 PM
Author: comical frum bbw

I'm just reading the UFTA Sec. 4, which you can see here:

http://www.fraudulenttransfers.com/section_4_future_creditors.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503636)





Date: October 17th, 2004 7:22 PM
Author: bronze haunted graveyard

Danke.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503659)





Date: July 24th, 2006 3:44 AM
Author: Splenetic theatre

I miss RWA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#6285400)