Textualism & Monopoly Rules
| sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | excitant base ladyboy | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Passionate violet library | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | stimulating painfully honest cuckold | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Indigo Boyish Senate | 10/17/04 | | vigorous navy home | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Talented confused center preventive strike | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Gold Dog Poop Gunner | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | Gold Dog Poop Gunner | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Gold Dog Poop Gunner | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Gold Dog Poop Gunner | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Splenetic Jewess Hospital | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | provocative organic girlfriend abode | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | Pearly Sandwich Den | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Pearly Sandwich Den | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | sienna galvanic box office | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | azure tanning salon goal in life | 10/17/04 | | massive field twinkling uncleanness | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | Big-titted fanboi stage | 10/17/04 | | Primrose startling puppy business firm | 10/17/04 | | know-it-all flesh trailer park round eye | 07/24/06 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:43 AM Author: sienna galvanic box office
"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 5:08 PM Author: Passionate violet library
"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 3:07 AM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 4:12 AM Author: sienna galvanic box office
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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 4:22 AM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 4:32 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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: sienna galvanic box office
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 4:51 AM Author: sienna galvanic box office
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: Big-titted fanboi stage
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: sienna galvanic box office
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: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 2:45 AM Author: Indigo Boyish Senate
Let it go.
And your interpretation sucks.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500927) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 2:51 AM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"any"="maximum"?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1500952)
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:09 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 3:22 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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: Talented confused center preventive strike
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: sienna galvanic box office
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 3:36 AM Author: Splenetic Jewess Hospital
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 3:25 AM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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: sienna galvanic box office
"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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"She said so."
Nothing was on paper.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501079)
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2004 3:39 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
"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 3:50 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 4:11 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 4:21 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 4:28 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 4:37 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 3:27 AM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 3:32 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 3:53 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
"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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 3:58 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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: sienna galvanic box office
" 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: Big-titted fanboi stage
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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 4:34 AM Author: sienna galvanic box office
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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 4:44 AM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 4:46 AM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 4:49 AM Author: provocative organic girlfriend abode
A rare moment of RWA idiocy. HTH.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501207) |
Date: October 17th, 2004 1:21 PM Author: Pearly Sandwich Den
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: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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 4:55 PM Author: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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 5:13 PM Author: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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: sienna galvanic box office
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: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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: sienna galvanic box office
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: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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: sienna galvanic box office
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: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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: sienna galvanic box office
"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: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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 6:38 PM Author: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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 6:46 PM Author: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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: sienna galvanic box office
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: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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: azure tanning salon goal in life
HAHAHAHAHA, OMFG!!!!! hi-larious
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#1501834) |
Date: October 17th, 2004 6:24 PM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 6:30 PM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 7:15 PM Author: Big-titted fanboi stage
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 6:58 PM Author: sienna galvanic box office
"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 7:17 PM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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 7:03 PM Author: massive field twinkling uncleanness
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 6:32 PM Author: Primrose startling puppy business firm
"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: July 24th, 2006 3:44 AM Author: know-it-all flesh trailer park round eye
I miss RWA.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=95271&forum_id=2#6285400) |
|
|