Emotions aside, this seems like abuse of the legal system.
First, the lawsuit itself could be filed with little supporting evidence. Second, the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is significantly less than a criminal one.
I don’t care for Jay Z, I don’t listen to his music and he’s got too much money, but this is borderline defamation in regards to the damage it will cause.
Trump’s rape of E. Jean Carroll was uncovered in a civil suit.
O.J. Simpson’s only punishment was via a civil suit.
Alex Jones got fined over a billion dollars for harassing the parents of dead children in a civil suit.
It’s not abuse of the legal system, it’s fighting abuse of the legal system. Trump, Simpson, Jones, Jay-Z… they can all buy themselves out of a criminal trial. A civil suit is a hell of a lot harder to get out of.
And I hate to tell you this if this wasn’t your intention, but this is some real “women are lying gold diggers” territory.
And I hate to tell you this if this wasn’t your intention, but this is some real “women are lying gold diggers” territory.
Fuck off dude. The comment you replied to didn’t say anything whatsoever about women. You’re the only one being sexist here.
Filing a civil lawsuit 25 years later alleging a crime of this magnitude is extremely suspicious. Occam’s razor dictates that it’s very likely to be a cash grab.
Y’all are so incredibly biased, predictable and easily manipulated it’s embarrassing. If it makes someone rich and powerful look bad, Lemmings will literally eat the steamiest piles of shit and call it a wholesome meal. And that’s why the plaintiff knows they can possibly get a settlement out of this, because most people are absolute sheep and believe whatever gets shoved under their noses without a second thought, and Jay Z can afford to just pay to make it go away if he doesn’t want to deal with the harassment from the “Guilty until proven innocent” mob.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume the judiciary in an oligarch run state is going to be compromised (I am referring to the US civil vs. criminal distinction and the inability of winning criminal lawsuits)?
I see a lot of parallels between the judicial corruption in my own country (Ukraine) and the US. Sure our goons are more direct, while Americans prefer more pomp and roundabout methods for corruption, but the outcomes are the same. My favourite US oligarch group is the Sackler family.
In a bankruptcy court filing on July 7, 2021, multiple states agreed to settle. Though Purdue admitted no wrongdoings, the Sacklers would agree never to produce opioids again and pay billions in damages toward a charitable fund. Purdue Pharma was dissolved on September 1, 2021. The Sacklers agreed to pay $4.5 billion over nine years, with most of that money funding addiction treatment. The bankruptcy judge Robert Drain acknowledged that the Sacklers had moved money to offshore accounts to protect it from claims, and he said he wished the settlement had been higher.
What I mean by this tangent is that is not unreasonable to assume that groups that are de facto protected are going to engage in criminals behaviour.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume the judiciary in an oligarch run state is going to be compromised (I am referring to the US civil vs. criminal distinction and the inability of winning criminal lawsuits)?
Not really, no. What do you mean by compromised? The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it’s largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.
It’s perfectly possible to win a criminal case if/when you have hard evidence that a crime was committed. If you wait 25 years before bringing the case before the law, then it becomes nearly impossible for either the prosecution or defense to construct a convincing case. How do you go about calling witnesses and checking alibis for an event that happened 25 years ago? People aren’t going to remember, and even when they do, it becomes a he said she said, because there is little to no possibility of verifying the accuracy of their memories. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable even when interviewed mere hours or days after the crime.
The Sackler family are scum, but your understanding of that case seems limited. They utilized financial engineering to move the money offshore, thus placing it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn’t exist, because it can’t be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it’s legally sound. It’s not an issue with the courts, it’s an issue with the legislature and their inability/unwillingness to craft laws to prevent rich people from hiding their money like this.
Furthermore, the achieved settlement of $40 billion over 9 years is absolutely massive, and it would be difficult to argue that anything else would be more beneficial to the victims of the opioid epidemic. Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn’t directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court already overturned the original settlement earlier this year, ruling that the Sacklers were still liable and that the settlement could not proceed as previously agreed. So whatever bothered you about that ruling, it has been overturned. It’s strange how American judges can never seem to agree with each other, despite your claim that they are compromised/corrupt.
Do you honestly believe that I’m referring to their conservative beliefs? Have you been living under a rock? Google “Harlan Crow” for one.
Being publicly accessible does not preclude corruption. There is a reason that there are a few specific justices that are constantly arguing against any type of oversight.
Of course it doesn’t preclude corruption, it just makes it incredibly difficult to pull off. There’s no way to make it illegal for Supreme Court justices to have friends and family, is there? But when they start trying to bend the rules, they get caught very easily. Clarence Thomas is certainly suspicious but that’s why there’s public outrage and he’s being investigated.
Indeed, FixTheCourt, an organization dedicated to greater court transparency, found that Justice Clarence Thomas had received some $4.2 million in gifts and luxury trips over the past 20 years, much of it from Republican megadonors. In contrast, FixTheCourt reported that the other eight justices, plus the eight retired or deceased justices got gifts that altogether were valued at roughly $600,000 over the same 20-year period.
So aside from Thomas, the other judges received an average of $37,500 in gifts each over the past 20 years. Not nearly enough to claim widespread corruption. The reality is that corruption is unecessary, the judges argue in a certain way because that’s what they believe.
They were appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place because of their established judicial records which go back decades. There are several justices that frequently argue against government oversight because that’s the kind of judges that Republican presidents have decided to appoint, because they believe in the same things. It doesn’t always need to be some grand conspiracy, it’s usually a much more banal form of dysfunction.
I am assuming you mean $4B not $40 B (was not able to find anything around a $40B). The exact number is irrelevant if it allows the criminal organization to retain enough money to live an opulent lifestyle on a “generational” basis. This is not a controversial statement.
Not really, no. What do you mean by compromised? The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it’s largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.
Remember when I said in Ukraine the criminal do things in a direct manner, while in the US it is done with lots of pomp and in a roundabout manner? With the actual outcome being the same. Why do you think I mentioned this?
As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn’t exist, because it can’t be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it’s legally sound.
This is just an excuse. If anything a country like the US can very much resolve this issue. There is a lack of desire. In another case the issue would be solved and there would no pretend BS about “legally sound”. Imagine if something similar was relevant to a terrorism case on the scale of 9/11. They would resolve this without any pretend excuses, they would find a way.
You have a very naive view of the world if you think the judges are merely implementing the law. There is a massive feedback loop between the oligarchs, politicians and the judicial system. It’s a bit supremacist to think that Americans are inherently incapable of such corruption constructs.
Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn’t directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction.
So you believe that if you are an oligarch, it is a reasonable for a “non-compromised” (your implied words) judicial system to allow them to skip prison for their crimes (in this case organizing a massive drug cartel with probably 100K+ deaths)? Do you even read what you’re writing? You’re basically saying it’s good that criminals don’t get any liability as long as they are rich and well connected.
How do you know what was the goal of the original ruling being overturned (and subsequent the outcome)? And I didn’t see anything about liability for the Sackler family.
I will give you an non-US example. There was a really corrupt court (with scandalous behaviour) in Ukraine that was scheduled to be shut down following the passage of new laws to improve the judicial system. This move was overturned by another high court. Can you guess why this happened? They eventually shut down the court following the fullscale russian invasion because the corrupt judges got scared (angry population) and due to the state of emergency.
Back to Jay-Z. Considering your own admissions that US criminals can and do go free as long as long as they are rich (and for starting a drug cartel that enabled 100K+ deaths, no less), it is reasonable to be skeptical of the overall process w.r.t criminal liability. Not to mention there are earlier examples where it was basically impossible to get anywhere with a criminal lawsuit.
Of course it’s not fair that they still have generational wealth. But if you have no way of tracing the money, there’s nothing that the courts can do about it. Again, that’s the realm of the legislature, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, etc. It’s not that the prosecutors didn’t want to take away all their money. It’s that it’s literally impossible to trace.
The 9/11 attack and Islamic terrorism in general is well known to be partially funded by wealthy Muslims, many of whom reside in countries which are nominal allies of the US. Pakistan was sheltering Osama bin Laden for nearly a decade, during which time they received around $10 billion in economic and military aid from the US. We were sending them billions of dollars which they were using to train more Taliban fighters and send them into Afghanistan to fight US troops. There’s no need for pretend excuses, there is the very real excuse that this planet is insanely massive and complex and even the mighty US government can’t control and dictate more than a fraction of what is going on.
You have a very naive view of the world if you think the judges are merely implementing the law. There is a massive feedback loop between the oligarchs, politicians and the judicial system. It’s a bit supremacist to think that Americans are inherently incapable of such corruption constructs.
Judges are charged with interpreting the law, the police are the ones who implement it. The feedback loop between politicians and big business is very real, but there are a ton of restrictions in place that make it difficult to influence the judicial system in the same way. Judges are subject to intense scrutiny and they’re not allowed to do anything that might even suggest the possibility of a conflict of interest.
As I continue to read, you’re making less and less sense, so I’ll just leave you with this. If I started expounding on the intricacies of the Ukrainian government, you would rightly call me out. Why do you feel so confident in your understanding of the American government based solely on what you’ve read online? Ukraine is corrupt, I get it. But stop talking out of your ass regarding America.
Because I don’t like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a “corrupt shithole” while arguing that’s it’s OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can’t understand this?
I also don’t like people who call others lemmings who like eating shit just because they happen to be be a more sceptical and are more critical about proganada polemics.
P.S. I said I currently live in Ukraine. Does that mean I haven’t lived/worked/studied in the US for many years? I’ve even been to Flint multiple times! I loved how well the US judicial system worked when all those poor black people got life long poisoning.
Because I don’t like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a “corrupt shithole” while arguing that’s it’s OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can’t understand this?
No one has said any of this. You’re arguing with an imaginary straw man. None of this is okay, but if it were simply due to the American justice system being corrupt, it would be a much easier fix.
You’re basically looking at the roof of a house leaking water, and your proposed solution is to put a bucket under the leak. While I’m trying to explain to you that the whole damn roof is falling apart and just putting a bucket in one place isn’t really going to help in the long run.
I actually have no idea about the details of that case. Given what I know about Trump (the grab em by the pussy line), I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to hear that he is a rapist.
That’s completely irrelevant to my point in this case though.
So Trump probably did it because you know more about his sexual proclivities than you know about Jay-Z’s sexual proclivities. Even though in both cases it was decades after the fact.
The difference is what we KNOW about each accused person. In one case we have quotes from the person himself admitting to sexual assault multiple times, along with dozens of accusations over time. In the other case we have no other accusations over a 30 year career in the industry from a person who doesn’t do anything to get headlines (unlike Kanye or Diddy) outside of make music. That doesn’t mean the other person hasn’t done bad things, but we know of absolutely no other instances. The person you’re replying to said they wouldn’t be surprised that the guy who admitted on tape of sexually assaulting women had raped a woman, and you’re complaining that they are hesitant to condemn a person of something extremely heinous with no evidence or previous examples of bad behavior?
I don’t want to. You could stop trying to avoid the topic at hand, but I understand that you find it very hard to ever admit to being wrong or making a mistake. You should try it some time, it actually feels good.
Emotions aside, this seems like abuse of the legal system.
First, the lawsuit itself could be filed with little supporting evidence. Second, the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is significantly less than a criminal one.
I don’t care for Jay Z, I don’t listen to his music and he’s got too much money, but this is borderline defamation in regards to the damage it will cause.
Trump’s rape of E. Jean Carroll was uncovered in a civil suit.
O.J. Simpson’s only punishment was via a civil suit.
Alex Jones got fined over a billion dollars for harassing the parents of dead children in a civil suit.
It’s not abuse of the legal system, it’s fighting abuse of the legal system. Trump, Simpson, Jones, Jay-Z… they can all buy themselves out of a criminal trial. A civil suit is a hell of a lot harder to get out of.
And I hate to tell you this if this wasn’t your intention, but this is some real “women are lying gold diggers” territory.
Fuck off dude. The comment you replied to didn’t say anything whatsoever about women. You’re the only one being sexist here.
Filing a civil lawsuit 25 years later alleging a crime of this magnitude is extremely suspicious. Occam’s razor dictates that it’s very likely to be a cash grab.
Y’all are so incredibly biased, predictable and easily manipulated it’s embarrassing. If it makes someone rich and powerful look bad, Lemmings will literally eat the steamiest piles of shit and call it a wholesome meal. And that’s why the plaintiff knows they can possibly get a settlement out of this, because most people are absolute sheep and believe whatever gets shoved under their noses without a second thought, and Jay Z can afford to just pay to make it go away if he doesn’t want to deal with the harassment from the “Guilty until proven innocent” mob.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume the judiciary in an oligarch run state is going to be compromised (I am referring to the US civil vs. criminal distinction and the inability of winning criminal lawsuits)?
I see a lot of parallels between the judicial corruption in my own country (Ukraine) and the US. Sure our goons are more direct, while Americans prefer more pomp and roundabout methods for corruption, but the outcomes are the same. My favourite US oligarch group is the Sackler family.
What I mean by this tangent is that is not unreasonable to assume that groups that are de facto protected are going to engage in criminals behaviour.
Not really, no. What do you mean by compromised? The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it’s largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.
It’s perfectly possible to win a criminal case if/when you have hard evidence that a crime was committed. If you wait 25 years before bringing the case before the law, then it becomes nearly impossible for either the prosecution or defense to construct a convincing case. How do you go about calling witnesses and checking alibis for an event that happened 25 years ago? People aren’t going to remember, and even when they do, it becomes a he said she said, because there is little to no possibility of verifying the accuracy of their memories. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable even when interviewed mere hours or days after the crime.
The Sackler family are scum, but your understanding of that case seems limited. They utilized financial engineering to move the money offshore, thus placing it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn’t exist, because it can’t be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it’s legally sound. It’s not an issue with the courts, it’s an issue with the legislature and their inability/unwillingness to craft laws to prevent rich people from hiding their money like this.
Furthermore, the achieved settlement of $40 billion over 9 years is absolutely massive, and it would be difficult to argue that anything else would be more beneficial to the victims of the opioid epidemic. Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn’t directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court already overturned the original settlement earlier this year, ruling that the Sacklers were still liable and that the settlement could not proceed as previously agreed. So whatever bothered you about that ruling, it has been overturned. It’s strange how American judges can never seem to agree with each other, despite your claim that they are compromised/corrupt.
Lol. Have you seen our Supreme Court lately?
Yes? Who’s on the payroll? Conservative judges ruling according to conservative doctrine isn’t evidence of corruption.
Every single case that happens in the Supreme Court is documented by an army of scribes. It’s all publicly accessible.
Do you honestly believe that I’m referring to their conservative beliefs? Have you been living under a rock? Google “Harlan Crow” for one.
Being publicly accessible does not preclude corruption. There is a reason that there are a few specific justices that are constantly arguing against any type of oversight.
Of course it doesn’t preclude corruption, it just makes it incredibly difficult to pull off. There’s no way to make it illegal for Supreme Court justices to have friends and family, is there? But when they start trying to bend the rules, they get caught very easily. Clarence Thomas is certainly suspicious but that’s why there’s public outrage and he’s being investigated.
So aside from Thomas, the other judges received an average of $37,500 in gifts each over the past 20 years. Not nearly enough to claim widespread corruption. The reality is that corruption is unecessary, the judges argue in a certain way because that’s what they believe.
They were appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place because of their established judicial records which go back decades. There are several justices that frequently argue against government oversight because that’s the kind of judges that Republican presidents have decided to appoint, because they believe in the same things. It doesn’t always need to be some grand conspiracy, it’s usually a much more banal form of dysfunction.
I am assuming you mean $4B not $40 B (was not able to find anything around a $40B). The exact number is irrelevant if it allows the criminal organization to retain enough money to live an opulent lifestyle on a “generational” basis. This is not a controversial statement.
Remember when I said in Ukraine the criminal do things in a direct manner, while in the US it is done with lots of pomp and in a roundabout manner? With the actual outcome being the same. Why do you think I mentioned this?
This is just an excuse. If anything a country like the US can very much resolve this issue. There is a lack of desire. In another case the issue would be solved and there would no pretend BS about “legally sound”. Imagine if something similar was relevant to a terrorism case on the scale of 9/11. They would resolve this without any pretend excuses, they would find a way.
You have a very naive view of the world if you think the judges are merely implementing the law. There is a massive feedback loop between the oligarchs, politicians and the judicial system. It’s a bit supremacist to think that Americans are inherently incapable of such corruption constructs.
So you believe that if you are an oligarch, it is a reasonable for a “non-compromised” (your implied words) judicial system to allow them to skip prison for their crimes (in this case organizing a massive drug cartel with probably 100K+ deaths)? Do you even read what you’re writing? You’re basically saying it’s good that criminals don’t get any liability as long as they are rich and well connected.
How do you know what was the goal of the original ruling being overturned (and subsequent the outcome)? And I didn’t see anything about liability for the Sackler family.
I will give you an non-US example. There was a really corrupt court (with scandalous behaviour) in Ukraine that was scheduled to be shut down following the passage of new laws to improve the judicial system. This move was overturned by another high court. Can you guess why this happened? They eventually shut down the court following the fullscale russian invasion because the corrupt judges got scared (angry population) and due to the state of emergency.
Back to Jay-Z. Considering your own admissions that US criminals can and do go free as long as long as they are rich (and for starting a drug cartel that enabled 100K+ deaths, no less), it is reasonable to be skeptical of the overall process w.r.t criminal liability. Not to mention there are earlier examples where it was basically impossible to get anywhere with a criminal lawsuit.
4.5B X 9 years = 40.5B
Of course it’s not fair that they still have generational wealth. But if you have no way of tracing the money, there’s nothing that the courts can do about it. Again, that’s the realm of the legislature, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, etc. It’s not that the prosecutors didn’t want to take away all their money. It’s that it’s literally impossible to trace.
The 9/11 attack and Islamic terrorism in general is well known to be partially funded by wealthy Muslims, many of whom reside in countries which are nominal allies of the US. Pakistan was sheltering Osama bin Laden for nearly a decade, during which time they received around $10 billion in economic and military aid from the US. We were sending them billions of dollars which they were using to train more Taliban fighters and send them into Afghanistan to fight US troops. There’s no need for pretend excuses, there is the very real excuse that this planet is insanely massive and complex and even the mighty US government can’t control and dictate more than a fraction of what is going on.
Judges are charged with interpreting the law, the police are the ones who implement it. The feedback loop between politicians and big business is very real, but there are a ton of restrictions in place that make it difficult to influence the judicial system in the same way. Judges are subject to intense scrutiny and they’re not allowed to do anything that might even suggest the possibility of a conflict of interest.
As I continue to read, you’re making less and less sense, so I’ll just leave you with this. If I started expounding on the intricacies of the Ukrainian government, you would rightly call me out. Why do you feel so confident in your understanding of the American government based solely on what you’ve read online? Ukraine is corrupt, I get it. But stop talking out of your ass regarding America.
Because I don’t like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a “corrupt shithole” while arguing that’s it’s OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can’t understand this?
I also don’t like people who call others lemmings who like eating shit just because they happen to be be a more sceptical and are more critical about proganada polemics.
P.S. I said I currently live in Ukraine. Does that mean I haven’t lived/worked/studied in the US for many years? I’ve even been to Flint multiple times! I loved how well the US judicial system worked when all those poor black people got life long poisoning.
Not very “free speech” of you I must add.
No one has said any of this. You’re arguing with an imaginary straw man. None of this is okay, but if it were simply due to the American justice system being corrupt, it would be a much easier fix.
You’re basically looking at the roof of a house leaking water, and your proposed solution is to put a bucket under the leak. While I’m trying to explain to you that the whole damn roof is falling apart and just putting a bucket in one place isn’t really going to help in the long run.
Was it suspicious when E. Jean Carroll sued Trump? Do you think he’s innocent of raping her?
I actually have no idea about the details of that case. Given what I know about Trump (the grab em by the pussy line), I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to hear that he is a rapist.
That’s completely irrelevant to my point in this case though.
So Trump probably did it because you know more about his sexual proclivities than you know about Jay-Z’s sexual proclivities. Even though in both cases it was decades after the fact.
And you think this is logical, do you?
The difference is what we KNOW about each accused person. In one case we have quotes from the person himself admitting to sexual assault multiple times, along with dozens of accusations over time. In the other case we have no other accusations over a 30 year career in the industry from a person who doesn’t do anything to get headlines (unlike Kanye or Diddy) outside of make music. That doesn’t mean the other person hasn’t done bad things, but we know of absolutely no other instances. The person you’re replying to said they wouldn’t be surprised that the guy who admitted on tape of sexually assaulting women had raped a woman, and you’re complaining that they are hesitant to condemn a person of something extremely heinous with no evidence or previous examples of bad behavior?
I didn’t say he probably did it. I said I wouldn’t be surprised. I said I don’t know the facts.
You could literally look up the facts if you wanted to take a few minutes.
I don’t want to. You could stop trying to avoid the topic at hand, but I understand that you find it very hard to ever admit to being wrong or making a mistake. You should try it some time, it actually feels good.