Jump to content

elmcitymaven

Members
  • Content Count

    13,581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

elmcitymaven last won the day on October 7 2016

elmcitymaven had the most liked content!

About elmcitymaven

  • Rank
    class traitor
  • Birthday June 5
  • Member # 31091

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • City
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests
    Abiding by the TOS.

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Local Office
    Los Angeles CA
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

28,637 profile views
  1. Those are still nicknames, and are not the candidates' given names. It's not to say that Jim, Bob, etc. are not more easily determinable as the nicknames of those persons (like Tom is almost certainly a Thomas, or Bill almost always a William), a point which I made when I said some were more obvious than others. The question was, "Who uses their nickname while running for political office?" Since James Jordan's nickname is Jim, and that is the name he uses in his campaign materials, the answer to the question is "Jim Jordan, inter alia." If the question had been, "Who uses a nickname while running for political office when that nickname is not a common nickname for the candidate's given name?" Jim Jordan would not be an appropriate answer, while Beto O'Rourke, Mitch McConnell and the others I listed above would still be correct answers. However, that was not the question, and I merely proposed answers to the question that was presented.
  2. Rafael "Ted" Cruz Addison "Mitch" McConnell Harold "Trey" Goudy James "Jim" Jordan Michael "Mike" Huckabee Robert "Bob" Goodlatte Louis "Louie" Gohmert Edmund "Jerry" Brown etc. These were just the ones that came to mind immediately. Some more obvious than others.
  3. Ooooh, is it time for Wildean bon mots? I've always loved this one: "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
  4. Right-o -- I wanted to figure out what person or organization is pumping the word "sedition" out there, and it looks like it's Sebastian Gorka on Hannity. Gorka is a nincompoop at best, and a borderline Nazi-sympathizer at worst. Anyway, Mr. Gorka is wrong. This is not sedition as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2384. Let's read it together: There needs to be a conspiracy to use force to do any of these things. Could a specious argument that the mere act of removing a paper from the president's desk involves "force," since some form of bodily movement requires a person to exert force? I guess so, but that's patently absurd. "Force" in these circumstances looks like something greater than snatching a document away; it would be more like coming in with a gun drawn so that others may see it and then removing the papers. Perhaps some argument could be made for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2383, "Rebellion or insurrection." Would it stick? Eh, probably not. I counted four cases on Westlaw citing the statute over the years, most of them during the Civil War. The most recent one is from 1971, US v. Sinclair (E.D.Mich.1971) 321 F.Supp. 1074. This is an interesting quote: "In this turbulent time of unrest, it is often difficult for the established and contented members of our society to tolerate, much less try to understand, the contemporary challenges to our existing form of government. If democracy as we know it, and as our forefathers established it, is to stand, then 'attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government' ... , cannot be, in and of themselves, a crime. Such attempts become criminal only where it can be shown that the activity was/is carried on through unlawful means, such as the invasion of the rights of others by use of force or violence." (Id. at 1079.) Again, the use of force is required. I just don't think we can get there, in my personal opinion.
  5. Thanks -- I should be, since I already graduated from law school in England! I had to start over from scratch with a JD when I decided I wanted to practice in California. In total, I will have been in law school for six long years of my life between the two jurisdictions, which proves I must be a librul because only someone with serious brain damage would think law school twice was a great idea, let alone vote for Hillary. 🤮
  6. Lol, I meant 65. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp
  7. I am not familiar enough with that case to give any opinion. I was only recently returned the US at that point and not paying a lot of attention to the news! Once I get past the pinch point I have next week (my very, very last exam of law school!), I would be happy to do a little research and opine.
  8. It is not the law that a sitting president may not be indicted. The law is not settled in this area. It is only current Justice Department policy, and in the absence of settled law it is how these matters are currently handled. (I am also conversant with the process of impeachment.) Indictments and impeachments are apples and oranges. An impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one. An indictment is a criminal action, not a political one. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" need not be crimes or misdemeanors at all, and could even be something like "maladministration" -- it's a bit squishy but has its roots in English common law, as much of our law historically has been. An abuse of presidential power whether criminal or not would rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor, if we look at the same sources our Founding Fathers would have considered at the time of drafting the Constitution. I strongly suggest Federalist 56 on impeachment to get a sense of what the Founding Fathers were grappling with back then on the topic. All of this is to say impeachment handles only the removal of a president (or other government official who may only be removed by impeachment). It is not a process to determine guilt or innocence of a president charged with a particular crime, and again -- can't indict a president under current policy, and moreover Congress is not empowered to issue an indictment of a president or anyone else, so how would the Senate adjudicate criminal liability in the absence of an indictment? The power to indict is reserved to the judicial branch, not the legislative. So, if the issue of whether an indictment were to be brought to the Supreme Court, as it surely would, and the Court determined once and for all that it is in fact possible to indict a sitting president, it would be possible to have a court adjudicate any charges so brought. Impeachment leading to a trial in the Senate and indictment leading to a trial by jury are not the same type of legal proceedings, and if anyone is telling you they are or close enough, they are LYING TO YOU. When it comes to legal issues, I don't post here with a partisan hat on.
  9. I don't have the time to really dig down into the relevant statute to see if there is a specific SOL, but most likely it is 5 years from the last act by the party soliciting or conspiring to violate a statute. The list of federal crimes that don't adhere to the five year rule is pretty small relatively speaking, so in all likelihood it's five years. So, if we were to imagine that Trump had conspired to violate these statutes, the clock would start ticking from the last act committed in furtherance of the violation. Adding to the complication is the question (still unsettled) whether any SOL is tolled for a US president during the duration of his term. This is a matter we've discussed in the office as a purely academic question. A little rooting around on the legalwebz seems to indicate that legal scholars believe that any SOL would be tolled, since it is currently Justice Dept. policy not to indict a sitting president.
  10. Potentially, if there is probable cause, Trump could be charged with: Solicitation and/or conspiracy to violate 52 U.S. Code § 30116 Solicitation and/or conspiracy to violate 52 U.S. Code § 30118 Currently, Trump is not charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor. If, however, Trump directed another to violate these statutes, charges of solicitation and/or conspiracy would be felony charges if probable cause indeed existed.
  11. Oh bummer! You guys are going to be just fine, DCF or no DCF. Be well and enjoy this time together before you go home!
  12. London DCF graduate here (allllll the way back in 2007!). If it were me, and money and the possibility to start work ASAP were really important to me, I'd get married stat, cancel the K1 and refile via DCF, as long as I was able to sit tight in the UK for another 6 months. Why? Several reasons. First, DCF processing times in London have historically taken 4-6 months at most over the 11+ years I have been monitoring timelines. Yes, you're 7 months in and your K1 is likely to be granted sooner than a CR1 via DCF will be. But not that much longer -- maybe 3 months? Second, unless I am horribly mistaken, the cost of a CR1 processed via the consulate is still less than AOS once you're over in the States on a K1. You have to spend money anyway -- why not on a visa that will allow you to work, get a licence, etc. as soon as possible? Finally, the CR1 is just a better visa, full stop, in my opinion. Not only is it cheaper, not only are you afforded all the rights and privileges of a green card holder upon entry to the States, the clock starts ticking immediately on your ability to remove conditions on the green card, which in turn shortens the amount of time needed to wait to apply for citizenship, if so desired. So ask yourself: am I willing to get married soon and can I sit tight in the UK for a little while longer? It's a horses for courses situation -- you might want to be over in the States faster. Good luck!
  13. Point 1: NYU is a private university, not a public one, and it's a pretty great one too. Point 2: The money funding the the grants has been raised by this private university from "more than 2,500 supporters, including trustees, alumni, and friends. Visionary support was provided by Kenneth G. and Elaine Langone; trustee William Berkley and Marjorie Berkley; trustee Walter W. Buckley Jr. and Marjorie Buckley; Fiona Druckenmiller, co-chair of the Board of Trustees, and Stanley Druckenmiller; Laurence Fink, co-chair of the Board of Trustees, and trustee Lori Fink; trustee Larry Silverstein and Klara Silverstein; and trustee Jan T. Vilcek, MD, PhD, and Marica Vilcek." (source: https://nyulangone.org/press-releases/nyu-school-of-medicine-offers-full-tuition-scholarships-to-all-new-current-medical-students) This isn't about the gubmint giving your money away to feckless young people. Jesus. This is a plan to help increase the number of doctors who go into general practice and pediatrics, instead of more lucrative specializations that many new doctors feel they must pursue in order to pay off their debt. As a society we all benefit from greater access to healthcare, which increasing the number of GPs and pediatricians will further. Higher education is expensive -- outrageously so, and it is absolutely correct to be angry about it. But it is what it is right now, and this plan is one way to help keep a pipeline of talented students flowing into the medical profession. Law school and medical school are prohibitively expensive, and really for no good reason (especially law school, since the ridiculous cost is mostly used to pay salaries of tenured professors who rarely teach much anyway but I digress). This is a private initiative funded by a group of private individuals, including Ken Langone who is hardly a pinko. You should be HAPPY about it. Peace out -- back to bar study.
×