[Newsbot]

Title: Cards Against Humanity buys land on Mexican border to stump Trump's wall plan
Category: Funny
Posted By: Tricks
Date: 2017-11-16 11:16:43

[Tricks]

So during a time when Companies are shying away from criticism, this happens.

No one can say they aren't willing to put their money on the line.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

So during a time when Companies are shying away from criticism, this happens.

No one can say they aren't willing to put their money on the line.

They're not putting their money on the line. Read the article and you'll see they're putting the money of their customers on the line.

That said, it's a marketing ploy that's worked out very well for them.

These same people have run scams in the past that skirt fraud laws and it won't surprise me in the least if the people they end up making the most fun of are the people who thought this would 'stop Trump'.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

They're not putting their money on the line. Read the article and you'll see they're putting the money of their customers on the line.

Which becomes theirs when the customer voluntarily gives it to them.

$1:

These same people have run scams in the past that skirt fraud laws and it won't surprise me in the least if the people they end up making the most fun of are the people who thought this would 'stop Trump'.

What scams are those?

The 5 dollars for nothing?

Buying bullshit?

Digging a hole?

They were all clearly spelled out when people sent their money. Those aren't scams when they say exactly what the customer gets. And the customer gets it.

[BartSimpson]

Be sure to visit New York City and when you do, be sure to go see the Egress.

It's amazing.

[Freakinoldguy]

This is a publicity stunt plain and simple. Even if their purchase is real they didn't factor in the American appropriation laws and land patents which means the people paying for this purchase would likely only get current value back on their purchase if the Federal Gov't needs to appropriate it for the wall.

But, since most of the border land in Texas is already privately owned I guess we're gonna see how the appropriation laws will be applied to "private property" without a land patent.

[Tricks]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

This is a publicity stunt plain and simple. Even if their purchase is real they didn't factor in the American appropriation laws and land patents which means the people paying for this purchase would likely only get current value back on their purchase if the Federal Gov't needs to appropriate it for the wall.

But, since most of the border land in Texas is already privately owned I guess we're gonna see how the appropriation laws will be applied to "private property" without a land patent.

That's why they've retained a law firm that specializes in eminent domain. They intend to fight it in the courts as long as possible.

[stratos]

$1:

That's why they've retained a law firm that specializes in eminent domain. They intend to fight it in the courts as long as possible.

in other words they know they will lose in the end but will cost the tax payers billions of dollars in legal fees and court expenses. Delay other cases being heard. Just to delay the wall being built all for the sake of going Na-Na to Trump. Yeah great investment.

[herbie]

Use the same thinking on Trump's everything from Obamacare to coal to African trophy hunting.
Just to fuck up what the other guys did and nothing else.

[Tricks]

stratos stratos:

$1:

That's why they've retained a law firm that specializes in eminent domain. They intend to fight it in the courts as long as possible.

in other words they know they will lose in the end but will cost the tax payers billions of dollars in legal fees and court expenses. Delay other cases being heard. Just to delay the wall being built all for the sake of going Na-Na to Trump. Yeah great investment.

I think they're hoping to put up enough of a fight it gets dropped.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I think they're hoping to put up enough of a fight it gets dropped.

Yeah, the thing with the border is that because it's a national security matter there's a law that allows the Feds to seize the property, build what needs to be built, all while concurrently allowing litigation to proceed.

The damnable thing about this is that the courts have never ordered the Feds to give back that which was taken in this manner.

I can't find the specific law but the ACLU speaks to it.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution ... order-zone

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

stratos stratos:

$1:

That's why they've retained a law firm that specializes in eminent domain. They intend to fight it in the courts as long as possible.

in other words they know they will lose in the end but will cost the tax payers billions of dollars in legal fees and court expenses. Delay other cases being heard. Just to delay the wall being built all for the sake of going Na-Na to Trump. Yeah great investment.

I think they're hoping to put up enough of a fight it gets dropped.

As well as raise awareness of what they deem an important issue. Which appears to have worked, to date.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I think they're hoping to put up enough of a fight it gets dropped.

Yeah, the thing with the border is that because it's a national security matter there's a law that allows the Feds to seize the property, build what needs to be built, all while concurrently allowing litigation to proceed.

The damnable thing about this is that the courts have never ordered the Feds to give back that which was taken in this manner.

I can't find the specific law but the ACLU speaks to it.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution ... order-zone

They'd have to argue it's a national security matter. That's not a forgone conclusion.

[Freakinoldguy]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I think they're hoping to put up enough of a fight it gets dropped.

Yeah, the thing with the border is that because it's a national security matter there's a law that allows the Feds to seize the property, build what needs to be built, all while concurrently allowing litigation to proceed.

The damnable thing about this is that the courts have never ordered the Feds to give back that which was taken in this manner.

I can't find the specific law but the ACLU speaks to it.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution ... order-zone

They'd have to argue it's a national security matter. That's not a forgone conclusion.

It isn't but, given the fact that Supreme Court is comprised of 5 Republican vs 4 Democrats appointees, if the issue gets that far it'd likely back the Gov'ts position on whether the appropriations were a National Security matter or not.

[Tricks]

[quote="Freakinoldguy"

It isn't but, given the fact that Supreme Court is comprised of 5 Republican vs 4 Democrats appointees, if the issue gets that far it'd likely back the Gov'ts position on whether the appropriations were a National Security matter or not.[/quote]That's a long road to get there.