The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Textualism & Monopoly Rules
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:43 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend "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 |
 |
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:44 AM Author: lascivious son of senegal box office Ahem, "any". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500924) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:53 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Electric scourge upon the earth church 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Mauve Vigorous Sanctuary Tank "plain meaning"
...which, ironically enough, has no plain meaning. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:58 AM Author: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:01 AM Author: Cocky Filthy Lay 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:18 AM Author: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:20 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon "The liberal bloc votes together more than they do."
Mildly surprising to me, but I never claimed there wasn't a liberal bloc. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:26 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:37 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:43 AM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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.
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:26 PM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:33 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:13 PM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:13 AM Author: arousing dragon 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: silver crackhouse Let it go.
And your interpretation sucks. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:48 AM Author: Insanely creepy magical selfie 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: arousing dragon "any"="maximum"?
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:58 AM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:13 AM Author: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:32 PM Author: 180 bat-shit-crazy heaven keepsake machete it is an "ammount the owner can get" though
so anything over 0 would seem to qualify |
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:05 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Ruddy talented hell 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: arousing dragon 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: lascivious son of senegal box office 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: Ruddy talented hell 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: lascivious son of senegal box office 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: lascivious son of senegal box office 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: lascivious son of senegal box office 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: lascivious son of senegal box office 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: lascivious son of senegal box office No.
And I'm still not going to play monopoly with you. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:39 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend Fine. Your loss. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501109) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:18 AM Author: Ruddy talented hell 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Ruddy talented hell 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon "she finds SIGNIFICANT value in MY NOT HAVING them."
How could you know?
"it is a fraudulent conveyance."
How so? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:26 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend "How could you know?"
She said so. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:29 AM Author: arousing dragon "She said so."
Nothing was on paper.
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:30 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask "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? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:46 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:53 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:16 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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). |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:23 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:31 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:14 AM Author: arousing dragon Explain, please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501023) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:19 AM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:30 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:33 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:54 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:56 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: arousing dragon 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:00 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend " 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:14 AM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:25 AM Author: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:42 AM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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! |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:49 AM Author: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend Yea exactly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501123) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:57 AM Author: arousing dragon 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: lascivious son of senegal box office 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon "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? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:42 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend Fuzzy textualism can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501195) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:44 AM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask I'm pretty sure that means "not textualism".
But anyway, it was an interesting discussion. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:47 AM Author: arousing dragon "I'm pretty sure that means 'not textualism'. "
Asshole. You beat me to it. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:49 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon "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.
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:48 AM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Gaped Casino 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: tripping onyx corner new version 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:42 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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! |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 4:59 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 5:22 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 5:27 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 5:33 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 5:45 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 5:53 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:09 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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! |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:13 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:29 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:36 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:40 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:55 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:00 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:33 PM Author: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: tripping onyx corner new version 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:26 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:38 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask 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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:17 PM Author: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:59 PM Author: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: arousing dragon 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:04 PM Author: arousing dragon "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. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:47 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend Debtor's prison. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503486) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:02 PM Author: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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: Swashbuckling Whorehouse Organic Girlfriend 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Cracking lime mood stag film 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: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook 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: Cracking lime mood stag film boo!
(I'm not white--I'm a ghost and transparent!) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:04 PM Author: know-it-all jewess travel guidebook casper is white! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503545) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:08 PM Author: Cracking lime mood stag film 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: arousing dragon "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)? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:18 PM Author: Jet-lagged spectacular queen of the night pocket flask I'm just reading the UFTA Sec. 4, which you can see here:
http://www.fraudulenttransfers.com/section_4_future_creditors.htm |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 7:22 PM Author: arousing dragon Danke. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1503659) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2006 3:44 AM Author: fear-inspiring prole I miss RWA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#6285400) |