Yeah, it's white people who are entitled.

Whoa!

woah_wef.gif




Nogs in the Noggin Hood!
'tis gettin' old, and hard for any sympathy.

Regardless of the entitled cavalier attitude in court, I don't see how legally the family can be ordered to pay for the charging station damage unless they were complicit. So, I'm wondering if the reporter is in error here and the judge sanctioned the parents financially for filing a frivolous suit rather than finding them accountable for their 18 year old son's actions, who is was of age.

Wait, hold the phone!
The judge may have found the mom complicit because she opened her legs one too many times?
 
Good for the judge and I agree ordering the family to pay $30k for damages does not sound right. If so, would probably or already has be overturned on appeal.
 
Yeah, if the perpetrator was under 18 I could see the family being responsible for the damage but at 18 NO. And I too think it will be overturned in appeal.

BUT the big question is when did victims become responsible for criminals during the act of committing a crime?
 
USApat said:
Whoa!

View attachment 36415



Nogs in the Noggin Hood!
'tis gettin' old, and hard for any sympathy.

Regardless of the entitled cavalier attitude in court, I don't see how legally the family can be ordered to pay for the charging station damage unless they were complicit. So, I'm wondering if the reporter is in error here and the judge sanctioned the parents financially for filing a frivolous suit rather than finding them accountable for their 18 year old son's actions, who is was of age.

Wait, hold the phone!
The judge may have found the mom complicit because she opened her legs one too many times?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the story's made up. I tried to find a real story of it in the news, and didn't find anything.
 
FrankenGlock said:
Good for the judge and I agree ordering the family to pay $30k for damages does not sound right. If so, would probably or already has be overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal with appeals. It doesn't hold off the sanctions or any final orders by the judge. You have to post the bond in the full amount of the sanction amount in order to file an appeal. This also applies to indigents filing appeals. They may not have any court costs for the appeal if they can prove their indigent status, but it does not hold off the judgement by the judge. Indigent status only covers the court costs for the appeal process and the sanctions by the lower court remain during the appeal process and are due.

Additionally, if the judge orders any other sanctions or awards to the the other parties like attorney fees, or other damages, then those will be payable upon the judge's order. Once the appeal is done, AND IF the Nog parents wins the appeal they have to go and retrieve the funds from the other parties. If the other party decides to not pay them back, then the parents will have to sue for that payment. So, appeals can snow ball quickly in expenses exceeding the cost of filing the appeal with parties suing each other and grabbing or selling things if the opposing side cannot pay.

So, what it boils down to, and the judge knows this, if the parents have any income, they will be liable to post the $30k bond BEFORE they can file an appeal at minimum. So, he is probably aware of their financial situation, saw the frivolous suit in his lower court and threw out the sanctions to try and help further grief to the appellate courts.

If you recall, this was a similar situation with Trump with Lelita James in New York when she moved on acquiring Trump Tower. If Trump had not paid the bond for appeal (close to a billion dollars), she could have foreclosed during the appeal, sold the Tower, and then Trump would have had to sue her back for the damages of losing Trump Tower after he wins the appeal. He could not find a bondsman who would guarantee the figure because it was so high and from what I recall the court dropped it down to around $400 million or thereabouts. If he had not found a bond company to guarantee it, he would have had to make close to a billion dollar payment for the right to appeal. This is before ever filing his appeal. And the clock is ticking. Depending on the state, I think it's 30 days you have to file a "Notice of Appeal". And in that Notice of Appeal, you have to show that you are bonded for the lower courts judgement and fines or you don't pass go and the appeal is tossed. The clock is ticking. It was a bad situation for Trump.

And by the way, I am all for filing fines against these folks for whatever reason. It needs to happen often to quit this kind of frivolous litigation and suits.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye said:
BUT the big question is when did victims become responsible for criminals during the act of committing a crime?
Click to expand...
It started rolling downhill around 2008 when the Chocolate Jesus came into office.
Prior to this, it began with the Sharpton and Jackson shakedown era.
 
Last edited:
When (if) the parents filed suit against the power provider, they "assumed" responsibility of the 19yo deceased and therefore should have to pay for damages IMO. Or at least the scumbag slipNfall who brought it to court should have to pay... 😠 It could be a farce for clicks as I haven't checked the validity of it. ANYTHING is possible with AI nowadays. :rolleyes:

I have pics somewhere in my archives of some crispy critters turned that way by digging up underground power cables to harvest copper so it is plausible.

undeveloped.JPG
 
I'm calling FAKE. Some of the video looks "AI." And a google search does not reveal any credible news source for the story... just social media videos.

Donald Trump News GIF by IMPAULSIVE
 
Back
Top