Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
$20k isn't shit when he's raising MILLIONS off his idiotic mugshot. We really need to scale these court-ordered fines for accumulated wealth to stop these rich assholes from ignoring the law.
Fine his ass 5% of his inflated net worth for the first infraction, and keep incrementing from there until he complies, or put a lien on any of his companies making income in the state of NY or something.
Trump's legal burn rate is over $1.5m per week based on the first half of 2023 - before several of the newer charges were added.
While I don't disagree with your point, it's worth pointing out that the legal battles are ruining him, and adding more to fight (because he won't concede his frivolous arguments are frivolous) only ramps that up.
Some of those are donations, some is from selling trump stuff with his mugshot on it...
But the Fulton County Sheriff has a copyright on the mugshot, and can sue him for any profits off that stuff. Not sure if using the picture can get them the donations, but there's no reason not to try.
But the Fulton County Sheriff has a copyright on the mugshot, and can sue him for any profits off that stuff.
Is that the case for Georgia state agencies? At the federal level, works created by a federal employee as part of their job are not subject to copyright; they're automatically in the public domain. However that rule doesn't apply to states and different states have different rules. This Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't include Georgia.
“In the context of photographs taken by law enforcement during the booking process, the author of the mugshot photograph is the law enforcement agency,” the 2022 University of Georgia School of Law’s Journal of Intellectual Property Law states.
As such, Betsy Rosenblatt, a professor at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law, says there are limitations to what people may do with such photographs. “You’re prohibited from using it for a number of things without authorization,” she told Spectrum News 1 Ohio.
“You’re prohibited from reproducing it, making a derivative work of it, distributing it without authorization, or that is to say distributing anything that isn’t the one copy you already lawfully have, and various other things. Making a public display of it, making a public performance of it, which opens up all kinds of fascinating possibilities here.”
Yeah, I’d be surprised if a public photo was subject to copyright. Upside is that anyone ELSE can sell them.
Some US states do hold copyright over state workers' work. This isn't illegal under federal law (though maybe it should be).
So the old lady at the DMV owns all our ID pics?
No, as with all other work done as part of employment, the employer (in their case, the state) owns the copyright.
It was released by Fulton County, but they own the rights to it. They might end up buying a new fleet of cruisers over the copyright settlement.
I’d be investing in riot gear, but then again I’m sort of hopeful as a person.
I agree, but if it makes you feel better part of the punishment is the reputational hit to the law firm. It's one thing that they defending Trump in the first place, you might be able to waive that away with a "everyone is entitled to a competent defense" argument. But being fined for raising frivolous arguments multiple times in the same case just shows poor judgment and shit attorney work. You own a start up and are expanding and looking for legal counsel, you want to hire the firm that did such shit legal work that they and their client was fined because of it? Nah, fuck that.
Nobody in Trump's orbit cares about reputation, obviously. Whatever firm decided to represent him has ZERO scruples to begin with.
Bailiff, wack his pee pee.
I bet he'd like that.
"please retrieve the mushroom thumper from my chambers"
20k in fines? I'm guessing they'll just see that as an acceptable cost of muddling the public discourse.
That's really unfair of them to deny his lawyers the ability to use a crummy, previously rejected defense. He doesn't have a good defense because he's guilty." But it's not like he's going to ever admit guilt, so all he can do is trot out the same tired bullshit, however nonsensical. Can't we take pity on a poor, brain addled failed insurrectionist and coup leader who tried to destroy our country for his own personal gain? I mean, what's the big deal?
I wish I could have done that with my ex. She’d say something inaccurate, insulting and misleading, I’d point out that it wasn’t true and was frustrating… then she’d say the exact same thing again in 10 minutes or the next day.
I see The Hill sanctioned the Oxford comma
This is the best summary I could come up with:
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) in a new filing asked a state judge to sanction former President Trump, his two adult sons and their legal team for $20,000, saying they continue to bring up arguments already rejected in court.
An appeals court also separately rejected the claims.
When the Trump legal team raised the arguments the second time, the judge noted that they “were borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them” and said that a “sophisticated defense counsel should have known better,” according to Tuesday’s filing.
However, the judge said at the time sanctions were “unnecessary in light of the Court ‘having made its point.’”
James asked the court to fine the defendants and their legal team the maximum allowable amount, noting they “were previously admonished by the Court that their conduct in raising previously-rejected arguments was frivolous and sanctionable.”
The civil suit, which is set to go to trial in less than a month, is one of many legal battles facing the former president in the coming months — including four criminal indictments and a second defamation case brought by author E. Jean Carroll.
The original article contains 266 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 29%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I wish we could get to the "putting defendant P01135809 (trump) in jail" part of this season.
I wonder. Did they ask to be paid upfront for this?