Law firm head bought Gorsuch-owned property

No, the entire thread has been a layperson circlejerk wherein you represent that Gorsuch sold his property when in fact an entity Gorsuch held a non controlling stake in sold ITS land.
You represent he didn't report, when in fact he reported and gave more information than was strictly required.

 

I think it's also important to note that before post #10 in this thread, the user introduced TDS by invoking disdain for Trump supporters into the discussion.

 

FFS, stop be obtuse

It wasnt the WHAT, out was the WHO…….WHO did he sell to !!!!

 

I love how the people defending Gorsuch, ar here very same one screaming that Joe Biden is a crook for his business dealings (that they cant even find)

 

I don't. I would hope there are rules but I have no idea what they are. You seem to know them so why don't you tell me.

Of course not. I told you I have no idea if the property even sold for over market.

IMO if your hypothetical was accurate I would have no problems. Let's compare it to the real world facts. Gorsuch owned 20% of property sold to CEO Greenberg Traurig. As I said earlier, if he had no say in the sale of the property, I would have no issues with it. In my line of work we would have to disclose if there are potential conflicts but as you said my company's are not his. In your hypothetical Gorsuch discloses to the client that the LLC he had interest in paid him for land sold to Traurig. I am assuming this part of your hypothetical equates to him reporting this disclosure on the official federal disclosure forms. He listed he sold the property and the amount he sold it for. The problem is on those forms they asked him to disclose the name of the buyer and he left that box BLANK. Since the sale he has gone through, Gorsuch has been involved in at least 22 cases presented before the court involving Traurig's company. This brings me back to my very first post where I said if the transaction went through at a fair market price then I have no issues at all. If on the other hand the amount was excessive and could be viewed as a LAVISH GIFT then there could be an issue. That would depend on the SC ethics rules which I admitted I do not know. From my experience if this was to happen in our business, that individual was be excluded from internal decision making regarding the company that gave this lavish gift. Maybe in Gorsuch world this mean being excluded from cases involving Traurig.

You may want to re-read my example. In my example the client was already your client before you accepted the gift. The client already hired you. You just had not fully determine which companies are involved it the lawsuit. You accepted a gift from a CEO at a company before you determined they would be one of the companies your client taking action against.

I just want to end on this small note or observation. It is funny that you are a lawyer because when I started my career over 20 years ago I worked for a small startup tech company. Clients and vendors often gave us gifts like wine, sports ticket, dinners, etc... We used to give away some of the swag at the office Christmas parties and events. Now we are part of a large multinational corporation and it is our legal team that forces this training on us, telling us what is a acceptable and non acceptable gifts. It is the lawyers in your profession that are making the rules to protect the company and now it is another lawyer that ridicules them. Should make for some interesting water cooler discussion next time a corporate training session comes out.

 

I have told you. No rules were violated. See the article in the OP.

As stated perhaps 20 times now: As the minority stake he had literally no say in it. Which means, unless you're lying, you have no issue with it.
Glad I could clear that up for you.

Because he wasn't reporting a sale because he didn't make a sale. He got a distribution from a company which is what he's required to report. He additionally gave non required information so they could look into more deeply if they wanted to. All this was of record ffs.

As stated: Tell the class what sort of hold I have over you after you buy my house, regardless of price you pay. How am I to influence you?

You're not getting it: You the employee, you the PLEB, have to give up things people give you to influence the company.
The owner of the company doesn't have to give up ****.

Also as stated: Rules foisted on you as a wage slave, are not the same that apply to SCOTUS justices.

 

You mean the 10% for the big guy bit where he admitted to extorting someone over US aid funds?

 

And as I said in my first post I have no issues with it. It was YOU that started with the hypothetical situations. I thought my initial post finished my point.

Are you asking specific to Gorsuch case or are you asking in general because as you said I am not a supreme court justice.

I work for a public corporation. The owners are stock holders. People like me.

 

Ironic post since you are the poster that can't counter my points and instead created a strawman situation to get to the comfort zone of flaming. Still can't deny Gorsuch corruption and the stench of SCOTUS impropriety?

 

And your claim of "reported" can't counter the OP and the link......get it yet? Your opinion does not a counter make....

 

You're "points" are merely deflection by stating your opinions separately from your prior statement of fact, which, as a reminder, was, "Gorsuch is above the very laws he has sworn to uphold." You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up "facts" that aren't true. Additionally, I responded directly to your point. I quoted your entire post and responded to each sentence directly. What I didn't allow you to do was run away and try to change the subject as you have been desperately trying to do. Sorry, not sorry. The only response that makes sense to my posts are:

1. Gorsuch believes he is above this statute:

or

2. I said something stupid, sorry I'll do better next time. I also deeply apologize for using words I don't understand.

 

Tell me what hold I have over you after the deal is done dude. Its not a difficult question to answer. Don't be obtuse.

No dude, the owners of the majority stakes you'll find are very much not like you. You're an employee.

 

You mean the OP which states outright that he didn't violate a rule and disclosed? LOL

 

Yet you can't deny that Gorsuch is acting corrupt and he stink of impropriety give the office he holds......take off the partisan blinders, all SCOTUS should be squeaky clean. Now, put the straw down and deal with facts.

 

And the OP also stated he intentionally obfuscated the sale and that, ethically, that is wrong. Don't you want all SCOTUS to be accountable and squeaky clean given the vast responsibility they represent and the effect corruption could have on the general public? Care to answer or are we going back to the one trick? Rhetorical.

9 days after becoming SCOTUS he sells a property that's been on the market for 2+ years and to a law firm who's cases he adjudicates.

 

He intentionally obfuscated by complying with the rule and adding additional information he wasn't required to disclose.

 

Sounds like RW spit shining, some timeline and context:
9 days after becoming SCOTUS he sells a property that's been on the market for 2+ years and to a law firm who's cases he adjudicates.

^^^Explain it.......

 

As stated previously: I'm not right wing.

Further, I have explained it: Gorsuch didn't sell a property. A company he owned a non controlling stake in did, and he properly reported it with more than the minimum of required information.

 

That's your claim about not being RW but not once can you acknowledge that the appearance of impropriety is bad for a SCOTUS judge....in addition, you continue to avoid any comment or totally ignore that 9 days after becoming a SCOTUS judge he sells a property that was languishing on the market for 2+ years to a partner of a law firm who cases he rules on. Why did he choose to HIDE these details? Put up.......

 

Dude, seriously: I'm not right wing. I vote libertarian, and I talk a whole hell of a lot of **** about it.
@Turtledude Tell him how much **** I talk about it.

No I directly addressed your comment: HE didn't sell ****. HE doesn't control walden group LLC. You continue to willfully refuse to understand this.

 

I’m

This is nbd imho.

 

Why are Democrats always getting so pouty about our Supreme Court Justices? Just be patient, this current crop will be gone in 25-30 years.

 

You keep trying to shine the corrupt Gorsuch turd and all you are able to do is spout a far RW opine with zero cred along with the claim you are not RW...irrelevant, you are avoiding the willful appearence of corruption. Why?

 

Again: Not right wing. Not the first time I've said it.

There is no appearance of corruption. He reported what he was required to report, and gave additional information.
If you want to add compliance rules, add them. That doesn't let you dock him for it in the past, we don't allow ex post facto laws.

 

Gonna hafta link that stuff.