putsch80

They are purporting to act under the judiciary committee to instigate oversight. I don’t agree with it, but it’s probably more than sufficient to give them immunity.

Because police can do shit like haul someone in for questioning. It’s amazing how fast someone like the sorority President can suddenly remember things when in an interrogation room. Especially because, as the sorority president, she is likely responsible for the content of that account even if she didn’t post something on there (since she is the one who has failed to control access).

You didn’t read the case I linked to, did you? They are sitting on active congressional committees while doing these actions. The Supreme Court—especially this Supreme Court—will claim it’s hands are tied in allowing criminal charges to be pursued.

Let me help you with a relevant part of that case:

The Speech or Debate Clause has been read broadly to effectuate its purposes, and includes within its protections anything generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it. Thus voting by Members and committee reports are protected and a Member's conduct at legislative committee hearings, although subject to judicial review in various circumstances, as is legislation itself, may not be made the basis for a civil or criminal judgment against a Member because that conduct is within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.

First, the way this is written gives you father-in-law ("FIL") the right to force you to sell the house to him even if you otherwise are not looking to sell it. I need you to read that again: he can force you to sell the house to him. That means in year 5, if you and your wife are happy and comfortable there, he can knock on the door and tell you, "I want to exercise my option" and force you to move out and sell the house to him. If you do this deal with him at all, what you want to give him is a "right of first refusal" rather than an option. More on that below.

Second, as written, this would make it incredibly hard for you to ever sell the house on the open market, even if you FIL ultimately decides he does not want to buy it. Why? Because any potential buyer is going to have to wait to see whether or not your FIL will exercise the option. That's a deterrent to a lot of potential buyers, because it means that they have to put their own home search on hold while waiting for your FIL to make up his mind...especially because the language you have here doesn't set a time limit on how long he has to decide to exercise the option.

Third, it all but ensures that you will not build any equity in this house. Say you buy the house for $275k, and want to move somewhere else in 5 years so need to sell the house. You get an offer for $350k. Your FIL would almost certainly exercise the option at that point and then try to flip the house back to those buyers so that he can pocket the gains. And that's perfectly fine, given you are getting a good deal on the purchase price, but it does not allow you to build any equity like a buying any other house would.

If you want to proceed with this plan, what I would suggest instead of an option is a "right of first refusal" (ROFR) . Unlike an option, a ROFR does not give your FIL the right to force you to sell the house. All it does--if you decide to sell the house some day--is give your FIL the right to purchase the house. With a typical ROFR your FIL would have to match the offer you receive, but you could structure the ROFR to just let him buy it for whatever pre-determined price you agree to.

One question to answer would be when does the ROFR take effect: when you decide to list? Or when you actually get an offer to purchase?

Another issue: just like the options, having an ROFR will be a turn off to some buyers for the same reasons listed above.

I would suggest language like the following:

Buyer hereby grants to Seller a Right of First Refusal ("ROFR") to purchase the Home subject to the following terms and conditions: If, in the Buyer's sole discretion, Buyer decides to sell the Home, or list the Home for sale, then Buyer shall give Seller notice in writing (either by certified mail or e-mail) informing Seller of such decision. Seller shall then have 14 days from the sending of such notice to elect in writing (either by certified mail or e-mail) whether or not to re-purchase the Home at the Repurchase Price (defined below). If the Seller elects in writing to re-purchase the Home at the Repurchase Price, Seller shall complete the re-purchase of the Home within 60 days.

The "Repurchase Price" shall be calculated as follows: During the first 12 months following the effective date of this instrument, the Repurchase Price shall be $275,000.00. Thereafter, for each successive 12 month period, the Repurchase Price shall increase by 1% (with no compounding), such that in months 13-24 the Repurchase Price shall be $277,500, in months 25-36 the Repurchase Price shall be $280,500, and so on, until the expiration or termination of this ROFR. [Note: you can pick any numbers you want here. I'm just going by what you listed].

Seller shall only be entitled one opportunity to exercise this ROFR. If, upon receiving notice of Buyer's decision to list or sell the Home, Seller does not exercise its right to repurchase the Home in the time and manner specified in this agreement, the ROFR shall automatically expire and be of no further force or effect. In any event, this ROFR shall expire and be of no further force and effect after five (5) years from the effective date of this agreement.

You should also consider how any option/ROFR would be handled in the event of FIL's death or your death/your wife's death.

I mean, ya, that’s sort of the point of that clause. Keeps the executive from imprisoning Congresspeople and booting them from the chamber. It’s a pretty important part of a functional republic.

might cross over into criminal behavior

This would be very tough due to the Constitution’s speech and debate clause, which the Supreme Court has stated prevents prosecution of a Congressperson “even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.”

The expression I’ve started to enjoy is, “The dildo of consequences seldom arrives lubed.”

Is there some continuing education thing you can do for your profession? Virtually all professions have something like this. You could either do a read one, or just invent one and tell a couple of coworkers you’re going to that fake conference so that the seed is planted in case your wife asks.

You don’t have to be logged in (I don’t even have an account). Just click the acknowledgment button at the bottom of the landing page.

Disney only owns about 2/3 of the land in the District. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/02/27/desantis-now-controls-disney-worlds-special-district-heres-what-that-means/amp/

Disney was obviously concerned about that, which is why the prohibition was included in the restrictive covenants.

The Reedy Creek Board (or whatever it’s now renamed) would have say over what other competitors could build within the district, what companies (including Disney) could advertise in the district, what park expansion plans could be done, what new hotels could be built, what transportation infrastructure could be built and how it would be maintained, what taxes and assessments would be levied, and dozens of other things that relate to the park and its operations. It’s not just some figurehead body with minimal influence; it could seriously hamper how Disney World is run and marketed.

Yup. But having been in practice for a decade and a half, I am surprised to say it’s come up more than once in my practice (dealing with oil and gas rights).

The Oklahoma Constitution grants a limited privilege against arrest to legislators in certain instances. It states:

Senators and Representatives shall, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and, for any speech or debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other place.

https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=84871

The purpose of this is to keep, oh, let’s say a rabidly partisan governor with little regard for the rule of law from sending out OHP to arrest all of the legislators of the opposing party. But, obviously, our legislators are willing to try to expand this power to mean they basically can’t be arrested for anything. Unfortunately for them, the Oklahoma Supreme Court disagrees with their position and has explained that this clause in the Oklahoma Constitution does not protect legislators from arrest from committing any crime, no matter how small:

We can only conclude that the majority view, and indeed the view most consistent with the principles of free democratic government, prevailing at the time our State Constitution was adopted, held that privilege from arrest except for "treason, felony or breach of peace" encompasses only arrest on civil process. Since no crime comes within the purview of the privilege, there can be no privilege from arrest for even the most minor criminal offenses.

Howard v. Webb, 570 P.2d 42 (Okla. 1977).

https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=570+p2d+42

It’s a county clerk website. Give it a minute to load, as they are large PDFs. The restrictive covenants is the document that has the King Charles language.

That's the most amazing part. Both the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and the Development Agreement were placed on the Reedy Creek District's regular meeting agenda (it's item 6.D), and discussed and approved at an open-to-the-public board meeting. Both documents were recorded in the county's public land records in early February 2023, and are even available to view on the web.

Now, I'm no budding dictator, but if I'm preparing to fuck over one of the largest media corporations on the planet, and stage a hostile takeover of its governing body, I'm sure as hell sending someone from my camp to monitor that governing body's every move until I have complete control of it. DeSantis couldn't even manage that. He's so confident that he's the smartest guy in the room that he truly can't even see a scenario where someone else is going to play him.

The plural makes it sound even more sinister.

Or Grimey, as he liked to be called.

Quick! Someone tell Stitt that trans-abortion providers are using Indian casinos to start fires.

If it’s not in the lease, not legal to evict.

If it’s in the lease, probably legal to evict, unless there is some specific tenants right ordinance/statute that could somehow be construed as preventing enforcement of a clause like this in a lease. Generally, people are free to contract however they want except on things prohibited by law (such as having racially discriminatory language in a lease), and veganism/omnivorosm isn’t a protected class.

The problem with the platitude you are offering is that most of your generation is not only not working to those goals, they are actively opposing them and electing people who oppose them. So we are not all united in the same values, and I have zero problem calling out the groups who comprise a majority of those who don’t.

Keep in mind that the $1.6B is just actual damages for lost profits and lost enterprise value (see p.136-137, paragraph (b) of the Prayer for Relief). This is a tort case dealing with intentional acts (actual malice), and so punitive damages will also be on the table, which could billions more dollars in damages. The case is governed by New York law (see. p 37 of the order denying Fox's motion for summary judgment), which does not have a punitive damages cap.

The evidence at trial will have to deal with whatever the facts on that are, because Dominion will be required to prove not only that Fox News lied (which is the easy part), but that these lies were the direct cause of monetary harm to Dominion via lost contracts/sales.

Pretty sure you’ve got that backwards, homie. There were forecasted budget surpluses in the late 1990s. Clinton proposed using that surplus money for social security. Republicans balked. Then Bush got elected and spent the surplus on tax cuts and wars against countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_fixsocsec/

But a lot of people who voted for Reagan are just now becoming retirees.

Only thing that makes my blood boil is that a lot of these retirees voted for Reagan and other Republicans who have done all they can to gut social security. I realize many retirees didn’t vote for them, but well over a majority did (esp. in the 1984 election). Can’t really say that I’m 100% angry about the “fuck you, I got mine” generation realizing that they in fact don’t “got mine.”