• imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    clear case of corruption (on an outcome basis)

    First of all, this makes zero sense. That’s like saying

    clear case of murder (on an outcome basis)

    You can’t prove murder based on the fact that someone is dead. You need to demonstrate that the killing was premeditated, the killer planned to kill the victim and executed their plan. Otherwise it’s manslaughter or negligent homicide. Similarly, how the fuck can you claim a case is a clear example of corruption just based on the outcome? Do you need me to provide the dictionary definition of corruption?

    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.

    Did you have difficulty understanding what I wrote? Let me clarify.

    THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED THE RULING THAT YOU CLAIM DEMONSTRATED CORRUPTION. IF THE COURT IS CORRUPT, WHY ARE THEY OVERRULING THE OTHER COURT THAT YOU CLAIM MADE A CORRUPT DECISION? WHICH COURT IS CORRUPT? BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?

    • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      We are going in circles. Short sentence on what you think I need to admit to. This shouldn’t be difficult.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        You need to admit that you aren’t a very intelligent person. You literally couldn’t even figure out that 4.5 times 9 equals 40.5. That’s basic fucking arithmetic dude, it’s like I’m trying to explain this shit to an 8 year old.

        You need to admit that the Sackler case provides zero evidence of judicial corruption.

        You need to admit that you are wrong.

        • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          I tried to keep the discussion somewhat measured.

          And yet you come up with “Admit you are wrong and stupid!” What? How? What is going through that head of yours? Are you a teenager? Do you really expect anyone to go through with this?

          I guess it’s on me that I expected something different.

          You can fuck righ off, you shit eating lemming!

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            You tried to keep the discussion measured??? You never responded to a single one of my points!

            In my very first comment, I made a number of points. You ignored them. I copied them into another comment and you ignored them again. I rephrased them and you ignored them again. You’re not engaging in good faith, you’re just ignoring everything that comes out of my mouth because you have no idea how to respond.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_v._Purdue_Pharma_L.P.)

            The very first thing you said was about the Sackler case and how the ruling wasn’t fair. The first thing I responded was that the Supreme Court already overturned that ruling. And after like 5 more comments I still have no idea if you are even aware that the ruling was overturned. You never once acknowledged reading that or clicking the hyperlink

            (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_v._Purdue_Pharma_L.P.)

            • granolabar@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 days ago

              My man… the fuck that supreme court had to over turn the ruling is the evidence of corruption.

              WTF is u larping pedo celebs and regime around here for?