McCain turns down FEC matching funds

[Larkinn]

Your imaginary intent is that they used public funding as collateral.

As I said, whether they intended it to be collateral under federal law or not is irrelevant. What the ramifications of the agreement were and if those fall under collateral ARE relevant/

I took my courses on contract law at the University of Maryland. No they didn't the loan app.

As I said, you should ask for a refund. And, lmao, they even have a law school?

says that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral. No that's your imaginary intent coming in again....

As I said, the intent is irrelevant. But do try again.

 

[Shogun]

goddamn lawyars.





j/k




welcome to the forum, dogger.

 

[Larkinn]

Dogger...what law school did you go too?

 

[jreeves]

As I said, whether they intended it to be collateral under federal law or not is irrelevant. What the ramifications of the agreement were and if those fall under collateral ARE relevant/



As I said, you should ask for a refund. And, lmao, they even have a law school?



As I said, the intent is irrelevant. But do try again.

Actually you are pretty ignorant as far as the law goes, the loan application specifically says public funding will not be used as collateral. The intent of both contracting parties was not to have public funding used as collateral...but you think that public funding was used as collateral....

Actually I seem to remembering you saying that intent isn't used in contract law. Then when I showed that you were ignorant...you question my education.

As I have showed you intent isn't irrelevant. A performance of a contract...so you need to take contract law 101.

 

[jreeves]

My law school spits on your business law class.

Answer my questions above.

That's your opinion, I have noticed the most educated people in the world can be the most ignorant people in the world. As evidenced by your claim that the UCC should be applied in this case. The UCC is used when there is a dispute in the terms of a contract, not when their is agreement between the contracting parties. As far as your questions above, what would you like to know?

 

[Larkinn]

Actually you are pretty ignorant as far as the law goes, the loan application specifically says public funding will not be used as collateral.

Thats nice. I pointed out why thats not applicable here. Going to respond to it or just make the same dumbass claims over and over again?

The intent of both contracting parties was not to have public funding used as collateral...but you think that public funding was used as collateral....

As I said, intent is irrelevant.

Actually I seem to remembering you saying that intent isn't used in contract law. Then when I showed that you were ignorant...you question my education.

Actually thats NOT what I said. But nice revisionism there. I said intent of this contract is meaningless, which it is.

By the way, care to explain what reliance has to do with intent again?

As I have showed you intent isn't irrelevant.

Intent here IS irrelevant. You stating its not isn't evidence of anything. Well since you are generally wrong its evidence for my case, really.

A performance of a contract...so you need to take contract law 101.

Got an A, thanks.

 

[jreeves]

Thats nice. I pointed out why thats not applicable here. Going to respond to it or just make the same dumbass claims over and over again?



As I said, intent is irrelevant.



Actually thats NOT what I said. But nice revisionism there. I said intent of this contract is meaningless, which it is.

By the way, care to explain what reliance has to do with intent again?



Intent here IS irrelevant. You stating its not isn't evidence of anything. Well since you are generally wrong its evidence for my case, really.



Got an A, thanks.

Yes intent is relevant in all contracts, whether it is implicit or explicitly stated in the contract, jeez you really are very ignorant. In this contract intent is both explicitly and implicitly stated....the part where it says that public funding was not to be used as collateral is explicitly stated.

The reliance theory does apply intent. For instance, if two parties are going to enter into a contract, for say a wedding reception. Mind you, neither party has signed the contract. Say the wedding planner asks the bride's dad if he wanted him or her to order the wedding cake and the dad responded yes. Then under the theory of reliance the intent of the dad would come into question. If the dad was relaying the intent to the wedding planner that he was going to sign the contract.(Say there was a time restriction in getting the cake ordered so that it could be there for the reception.) If the wedding planner ordered the cake on the implicit relaying of the intent of the bride's dad that he was going to sign the contract. So yes intent does apply to the theory of reliance.

I suppose we could all look to the Rezko thread for an example of how I am generally wrong huh? Even though you basically admitted that you were wrong, even if it was through your ignorance.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes intent is relevant in all contracts, whether it is implicit or explicitly stated in the contract, jeez you really are very ignorant.

It is NOT relevant when looking at it from a 3rd party perspective to try and see what the ramifications of the contract were. This is NOT a dispute between two parties, so why are you relying on contract law that assumes a dispute between the parties?

In this contract intent is both explicitly and implicitly stated....the part where it says that public funding was not to be used as collateral is explicitly stated.

Again, thats irrelevant.

The reliance theory does apply intent. For instance, if two parties are going to enter into a contract, for say a wedding reception. Mind you, neither party has signed the contract. Say the wedding planner asks the bride's dad if he wanted him or her to order the wedding cake and the dad responded yes. Then under the theory of reliance the intent of the dad would come into question. If the dad was relaying the intent to the wedding planner that he was going to sign the contract.(Say there was a time restriction in getting the cake ordered so that it could be there for the reception.) If the wedding planner ordered the cake on the implicit relaying of the intent of the bride's dad that he was going to sign the contract. So yes intent does apply to the theory of reliance.

Reliance is merely a way of interpreting a contract, and has nothing to do with intent.

I suppose we could all look to the Rezko thread for an example of how I am generally wrong huh? Even though you basically admitted that you were wrong, even if it was through your ignorance.

Right...because you thinking that I admitted I was wrong means that I did. Because we all know how perceptive you are.

 

[jreeves]

It is NOT relevant when looking at it from a 3rd party perspective to try and see what the ramifications of the contract were. This is NOT a dispute between two parties, so why are you relying on contract law that assumes a dispute between the parties?



Again, thats irrelevant.



Reliance is merely a way of interpreting a contract, and has nothing to do with intent.



Right...because you thinking that I admitted I was wrong means that I did. Because we all know how perceptive you are.

How can you analyze a contract even from a third party perspective without analyzing the intent? You are ignorantly attempting to analyze the intent to mean that MCcain intended on using public funding as collateral, you contradict yourself. The reason I am using contract law is because this loan app. is a contract.

I have showed you by your own contradictions that intent isn't irrelevant, it is highly pertinent.

Yet I have showed you how reliance does employ intent.

No I noticed once I showed your using the word 'forthcoming' was the same as you admitting you were wrong, you shut the hell up.

 

[jreeves]

It is NOT relevant when looking at it from a 3rd party perspective to try and see what the ramifications of the contract were. This is NOT a dispute between two parties, so why are you relying on contract law that assumes a dispute between the parties?



Again, thats irrelevant.



Reliance is merely a way of interpreting a contract, and has nothing to do with intent.



Right...because you thinking that I admitted I was wrong means that I did. Because we all know how perceptive you are.

To clearly show you reliance is based on intent, go to school.

To establish a reliance-based estoppel, the victimised party must be able to show both inducement and detrimental reliance, i.e.:

there must be evidence to show that the representor actually intended the victim to act on the representation or promise, or
the victim must satisfy the court that it was reasonable for him or her to act on the relevant representation or promise, and
what the victim did must either have been reasonable, or
the victim did what the representor intended, and
the victim would suffer a loss or detriment if the representor was allowed to deny what was said or done — detriment is measured at the time when the representor proposes to deny the representation or withdraw the promise, not at the time when either was made, and
in all the circumstances, the behavior of the representor is such that it would be "unconscionable" to allow him or her to resile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Reliance-based_estoppels

No intent has nothing to do with reliance....

 

[Dogger]

That's your opinion, I have noticed the most educated people in the world can be the most ignorant people in the world. As evidenced by your claim that the UCC should be applied in this case. The UCC is used when there is a dispute in the terms of a contract, not when their is agreement between the contracting parties. As far as your questions above, what would you like to know?

Please enlighten me, oh wise graduate of the University of MD business law classes.

If not the UCC, then what body of law would you apply? And how does that differ from the UCC on the relevant issue?

Or open the Loan Documents and go to the last paragraph on page 8 in Adobe Reader, which is at the bottom of the first page of the Commercial Security Agreement. Why does it define "Enforcement of Collateral" with express reference to the UCC? Why does the last paragraph on the next page authorize the lender to file a UCC financing statement? Why does the middle portion of the third page (as well as the top of the 4th) provide the Bank with all of the rights of a "secured party under the Delaware UCC"?

How do I know you are stupid? You wrote this: "The UCC is used when there is a dispute in the terms of a contract, not when their [sic] is agreement between the contracting parties".

The UCC was designed to: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions. Sec. 1-103

Any court that has to determine the existence of a security interest has to rely on the UCC.

You are a waste of time. You've blathered on brainlessly about the UCC, and you will stick to your ill-informed opinion even when the basis of that opinion has been shot to pieces.

You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

 

[jreeves]

Please enlighten me, oh wise graduate of the University of MD business law classes.

If not the UCC, then what body of law would you apply? And how does that differ from the UCC on the relevant issue?

Or open the Loan Documents and go to the last paragraph on page 8 in Adobe Reader, which is at the bottom of the first page of the Commercial Security Agreement. Why does it define "Enforcement of Collateral" with express reference to the UCC? Why does the last paragraph on the next page authorize the lender to file a UCC financing statement? Why does the middle portion of the third page (as well as the top of the 4th) provide the Bank with all of the rights of a "secured party under the Delaware UCC"?

How do I know you are stupid? You wrote this: "The UCC is used when there is a dispute in the terms of a contract, not when their [sic] is agreement between the contracting parties".

The UCC was designed to: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions. Sec. 1-103

Any court that has to determine the existence of a security interest has to rely on the UCC.

You are a waste of time. You've blathered on brainlessly about the UCC, and you will stick to your ill-informed opinion even when the basis of that opinion has been shot to pieces.

You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

Before you attack one's school you should know what the hell you are talking about.

The University of Maryland School of Law is the third-oldest law school in the United States, but its programs and community make it one of the most innovative and dynamic today. The school was established in 1816 and began regular instruction in 1823 as the Maryland Law Institute. Located in downtown Baltimore, Maryland, Maryland Law is part of the Washington, D.C.–Baltimore legal and business communities, as well as the University of Maryland, Baltimore. With an acceptance rate of 15.5%, Maryland is one of the most selective law schools in the United States. It ranks 15th in the nation among public law schools. But do keep claiming you are somehow superior in knowledge and try to degrade my education.


I took more than just business law genius, by the way business law is not contract law. The UCC shouldn't apply because both parties agreed to the meaning of the terms of the contract. Yes, the UCC is mentioned in the contract, but it is to advert a possible dispute and provide clarification.

It sounds as though you were appellate attorney in the prosecutors office. Wonder how many Civil cases did you try, how many businesses did you advise in the area of contracts? Criminal law isn't civil law.

All of your stammering doesn't change the fact that the loan application states explicitly that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral.

 

[Dogger]

Before you attack one's school you should know what the hell you are talking about.

The University of Maryland School of Law is the third-oldest law school in the United States, but its programs and community make it one of the most innovative and dynamic today. The school was established in 1816 and began regular instruction in 1823 as the Maryland Law Institute. Located in downtown Baltimore, Maryland, Maryland Law is part of the Washington, D.C.–Baltimore legal and business communities, as well as the University of Maryland, Baltimore. With an acceptance rate of 15.5%, Maryland is one of the most selective law schools in the United States. It ranks 15th in the nation among public law schools. But do keep claiming you are somehow superior in knowledge and try to degrade my education.

Did you graduate from that school, or just sneak into the classes? My alma matter isn't the third oldest, so it has managed to climb higher than yours in less time.

The University of Maryland Baltimore, MD is ranked 42nd out of roughly 195 law schools. If you have a degree from the law schoold, and not just the undergrad program, that's not too bad, but not as noteworthy as your selective statistic implied.

I'm not going to identify my school, for privacy reasons, but you can find it here, among the top 20.

Now I've asked you to explain the body of law your august education tells you should apply, and to explain why the federal funds were even mentioned in the loan documents if that was totally irrelevant. Did they tie them up just for fun?

Until you answer, I won't ignore you. I'll just make fun of your limited knowledge and ability, and your attempt to pass it off as more than it is. Plus that nonmovable collateral you secured with a car loan.

 

[Dogger]

An online search of the Virginia State Corporation Commission records establishes that the bank filed a UCC-1 form to protect it's security interest. However, it does not display details or images.

Enter "JOHN MCCAIN 2008" as the debtor if you try it.

 

[jreeves]

Did you graduate from that school, or just sneak into the classes? My alma matter isn't the third oldest, so it has managed to climb higher than yours in less time.

The University of Maryland Baltimore, MD is ranked 42nd out of roughly 195 law schools. If you have a degree from the law schoold, and not just the undergrad program, that's not too bad, but not as noteworthy as your selective statistic implied.

I'm not going to identify my school, for privacy reasons, but you can find it here, among the top 20.

Now I've asked you to explain the body of law your august education tells you should apply, and to explain why the federal funds were even mentioned in the loan documents if that was totally irrelevant. Did they tie them up just for fun?

Until you answer, I won't ignore you. I'll just make fun of your limited knowledge and ability, and your attempt to pass it off as more than it is. Plus that nonmovable collateral you secured with a car loan.

Lmao....you question my education, but your a cowardly self won't disclose where you went to law school. Yes I did, graduate from the University of Maryland and I am currently attending the law school. Not that's even any of your business...considering you won't disclose any information on your past. I work for a fortune 500 company applying contract law everyday. Now tell me again how a criminal appellate lawyer deals with civil contracts again??

Why should I feel the need to employ any sort of contract law to your assinine accusations? Well I can't exactly know their intent in mentioning public funding, but since they explicity stated in the contract that public funding was not to be used as collateral. You can only use the intent expressed by both contracting parties, not some contrived intent asserted by yourself and the democrats.

 

[Dogger]

Yes I did, graduate from the University of Maryland and I am currently attending the law school.

Then you should know where it falls on the food chain.

And you should be able to explain why the loan agreement even mentioned the federal funds. There is a reason the bank that holds your home mortgage doesn't require you to insure your car (it's not because you bought a car that isn't movable).

 

[jreeves]

Then you should know where it falls on the food chain.

And you should be able to explain why the loan agreement even mentioned the federal funds. There is a reason the bank that holds your home mortgage doesn't require you to insure your car (it's not because you bought a car that isn't movable).

I notice there was an underhanded attempt in there at my personal property comment, that's fine. Although the public funds were not MCcain's personal property, he hadn't received one penny. Therefore how is something movable if you don't in fact have possession of the said funds.
Is it possible MCcain hadn't made his mind up concerning whether or not he was going to use public funds?(just a guess)

 

[jillian]

I notice there was an underhanded attempt in there at my personal property comment, that's fine. Although the public funds were not MCcain's personal property, he hadn't received one penny. Therefore how is something movable if you don't in fact have possession of the said funds.
Is it possible MCcain hadn't made his mind up concerning whether or not he was going to use public funds?(just a guess)

Do you not understand the concept of a future interest? McCain represented he was accepting matching funds. Those matching funds were used as security for a loan. Therefore he benefitted from his interest in the funds. It's not all that complex, really.

I'm guessing you didn't make law review....

 

[jreeves]

Do you not understand the concept of a future interest? McCain represented he was accepting matching funds. Those matching funds were used as security for a loan. Therefore he benefitted from his interest in the funds. It's not all that complex, really.

I'm guessing you didn't make law review....

Again the contract explictly states that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[jillian]

Again the contract explictly states that public funding wasn't to be used as collateral. What's so hard to understand about that?

You're not reading.... or you're not comprehending. I don't know which it is... but it's one of them.

Either way, if you tell that to a client, be prepared for the malpractice suit after the guy/gal listens to you and ends up indicted.

And now go back and read up on collateralizing loans. Because you haven't given any indication of understanding a single thing about the concept.