Sizemore vindicated!

Details at NW Republican.

Comments

[The Truth Hurts]

Vindicated? Yeah, right.

Gully, imagine yourself telling any client "You've been vindicated! Ahem, er, you do still have to pay $2.5 million."

If you honestly believe that the following constitutes a "vindication", then you're living in a land of make believe:

From that evidence, a finder of fact could draw reasonable inferences that OTU-EF's racketeering activity described above permitted it to obtain contributions from donors that were unlawfully used to promote ballot initiatives that were intended to--and did--cause plaintiffs to expend resources in opposition to those initiatives. A finder of fact could also reasonably infer from plaintiffs' unrebutted expert opinion evidence and from the substantial flow of funds from OTU-EF to OTU-PAC for noncharitable purposes that, if OTU-EF's unlawful use of funds to promote the ballot initiatives had come to light, the Department of Justice would have obtained an injunction against that unlawful activity and the damages suffered by plaintiffs would never have occurred.

[Gullyborg]

Did you even read the article?

[Gullyborg]

read comment here:

http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2006/10/sizemore-won.html#116017783682028282

[The Truth Hurts]

Yes, I did read the article. I also read other articles, then thought, hey, maybe I can find the decision online, and I did. I actually quoted from the decision in my first post (I could have made that clearer--my apologies).

How you can call this a vindication of Sizemore is beyond me. The damages weren't reduced, and $2.5 million is still a huge chunk of money to pay.

Also, the decision refers to racketeering activity by Sizemore's organization. Not exactly a vindication, either.

Do you realize how foolish you look to non-Kool-Aid® drinkers when you insist that obvious falsehoods are the truth?

Perhaps the problem is that you relied solely on a rightwing source for your information, rather than going to the opinion itself. This is a great opportunity for you to learn that right-wing sources can't be trusted.

[Gullyborg]

You obviously don't understand how the legal system works. The only count that stands is the dollar judgment against an organization. Sizemore himself is not attached to that organization. That organization has no funds and no longer serves any business or political function. The organization alone must foot the bill, and it has no funds and no income. Thus, the bill will never be paid, and Sizemore can about his business of political action.

The RESULT of the judgment is that Sizemore personally is vindicated and is under no further obligation to anyone.

See what law school can teach you?

[The Truth Hurts]

I guess law school has taught you to listen to Bill Sizemore's attorney, who says that Sizemore isn't personally responsible for the judgement. The plaintiff's attorney disputes that, and I have to say, I didn't see any language in the decision to support Sizemore's attorney's interpretation.

Perhaps you can point to the relevant language in the decision that absolves Sizemore of financial responsibility.

By the way, the dissenting judge wanted to continue the political restrictions on OTU-PAC.

[Gullyborg]

What, are you kidding? The very outcome of the decision is that Sizemore IS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE.

If you can't fathom that, there is no point trying to explain it to you.

[The Truth Hurts]

#1. Once again, where in the decision does it say that Sizemore is not personally liable?

#2. The judges still called the activities of his organization criminal.

[Gullyborg]

"The judgment against Bill Sizemore personally will be vacated, because he was only held liable for the judgment against the PAC, not the foundation. Now that the judgment against the PAC has been overturned, Sizemore doesn’t owe the unions anything."

And it was a civil trial, so there was no element of criminality. You can usually tell because neither side in the case was "State." That's usually a dead giveaway.

[The Truth Hurts]

Did I not make myself clear? I keep asking you to tell me where in the decision it says that sizemore is not personally liable for the judgement, and all you can do is quote from the NW Republican commentary about the decision.

Yes, I realize this was a civil trial, but your statement that "there was no element of criminality" is absurd--people have civil suits filed agianst them for their criminal behavior all the time. I'm guessing they probably taught you that in law school.

And, in fact, the actual court decision makes reference to criminal conduct:

"This case is not about innocent participation in the initiative process; it is not about good faith mistakes or errors in judgment in the course of such participation. Rather, as pleaded--and as ultimately found by the jury--this case is about a calculated course of criminal conduct perpetrated for the express purpose of crippling, and even destroying, defendants' political opponents.

"For the Oregonians of a century ago, the initiative process meant pure, "open" democracy--and (at least) most Oregonians would like to think that it still does. But this case involves the antithesis of that ideal: It involves cynical, criminal manipulation of the democratic process."

Just a little tip here--in your legal work, you're going to go a whole lot farther if you rely on actual court decisions, rather than on the writings on two-bit bloggers.

[Gullyborg]

I'll tell you what--you show me where in the decision it says that Bill Sizemore is actually personally liable for anything, where in the decision it says he has to pay any money, where in the decision it says he has to continue to refrain from political activity, and then we'll talk.

Until then, you have proved yourself incapable of understanding a legal decision, so I will refrain from responding to you further. You aren't worth the effort it takes to press keys.

[The Truth Hurts]

Ha ha, thanks for the laugh, Gully.

Outside of right-wing-bloggerland, when someone makes an assertion, they're usually the ones expected to support the assertion when questioned.

By the way, I haven't said that Sizemore does owe the money, I've just said that I haven't seen where it says that he doesn't.

So, it looks like you can't support your argument, so you're going to "cut and run", in the words of Jean Schmidt. Typical righty.

[Independent Thinker]

You are such a hypocrite. You demand proof. Gully shows proof. The proof is not good enough for you, so you demand more. Gully asks you to prove that you are right and he is wrong, and you get all uppity and say the burden is on him. Shmuck. Just admit that you want one strict set of rules that apply to conservatives, and one less stringent set of rules to apply to you.

[Gullyborg]

Typical moonbattery. "I demand that you prove me wrong" instead of "here is valid information to prove I am right."

Also the "I demand that you..." aspect, when it's my blog and my time and *I* get to decide what needs to be done here.

*I DEMAND* that people who post comments on my own blog do their own damn research before spouting off.

[The Truth Hurts]

This is just silly

I have not “demanded” that Gully do anything. Putting the statement inside quotation marks means that I used those exact words, when I haven’t even used words close to that. In fact, I haven’t even claimed that Sizemore doesn’t still owe the money. What I’ve said is that I don’t see anything in the opinion that addresses the issue. I have asked Gully to point out language in the decision that makes it clear.

I simply have pointed out that it appears that the information that Sizemore is no longer personally liable comes only from his lawyer, and I’ve pointed out that the lawyers for the other side have a different interpretation.

What Gully is doing is asking me to prove a negative—very difficult to do. What I’ve asked him to do is prove an affirmative statement of his—which, if true, shouldn’t be that hard to do. After all, he’s recently finished law school, so he’s ljkely much less rusty at reading court decisions than I am.

The attorney’s for both sides obviously want to spin the decision in their own particular ways, and so they aren’t reliable sources of information on the case.

I also addressed your snarky comment about it being a civil case, not criminal, by pointing out that the decision itself mentions criminal behavior.

Gully, you can continue to get in a huff when asked to support a position you’ve taken, in which case thinking people will write you off as a hack. Or, you can go to the trouble of making a thoughtful post, in which case people might take you seriously. It’s your call.

[Gullyborg]

Or, I can ignore you, because you don't matter to me. I have confidence that my writing is supported by self-evident truth. Nothing more is needed.