3 ms·
Whether or not he will lose (if he doesn't settle) is up to the courts - neither of us can claim to know the outcome. The fact that there is direct precedent fo
by w1ntermute 11y ago
Whether or not he will lose (if he doesn't settle) is up to the courts - neither of us can claim to know the outcome. The fact that there is direct precedent for this specific property[0] means that it's definitely possible that he could win.
0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/64/318 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/64/318
- cromwellian 11y agoEven if he wins, he will lose, in the sense that he is vilifying himself by trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law. No one's going to love him for doing this.
- w1ntermute 11y agoI don't think anyone "loves" VCs to begin with. Respects? Fears? Sure. Loves? Not anyone outside his family and close friends.
- Pyxl101 11y ago> trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law How is using the legal system "abusing" the legal system? He makes his arguments for his position, and the court rules, one hopes, according to the law. The law should be a stable foundation on which society can rest. If the treaty in question does actually govern property rights, and the people who bought property relied on the fact that it does so, and has done so in previous cases (thus establishing precedent), then it is unfair and abusive to change the status quo out from under them arbitrarily by popular opinion. That's not justice, that's tyranny by the majority.
- hkmurakami 11y agoKhlosa has always had a reputation as not exactly he nicest of people in his profession and that hasn't prevented his success. I doubt this will change anything.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]