Posted on 08/05/2021 1:32:07 PM PDT by kellymcneill
Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers previously called for the decertification of the 2020 election in Arizona following the groundbreaking Senate hearing last month.
Rogers has led the charge for decertification and a new election and she has been using her large social media platform constantly with powerful messages.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
No. Replace your word "only" with the actual first independent clause in the sentence that you left out.
"Fraud vitiates every thing, and a judgment equally with a contract; that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument; for, in general, the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud."
You mean like stop buying pillows and dietary supplements and sending in donations?
The second clause qualifies the first. My previous post remains correct.
“Every” emphasizes that judgments are not excluded, while “that is ...” goes on to specify which judgments are included.
In the first independent clause, "every" means "all", no exceptions. The first independent clause then goes on to reiterate that there are no exceptions by saying judgments and contracts are equal. Thus all judgments and contracts are vitiated.
The second independent clause ("that is") reiterates the first independent clause. Judgments obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgments founded on a fraudulent instrument are vitiated.
I haven’t listened to him in years. He always had that Chimeroky (sp) guy on. I think he is borderline Left.
What part of my post was the book title?
“Judgments obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgments founded on a fraudulent instrument are vitiated.”
Two flaws with your reading:
1. It’s ass-backward - a judgment obtained directly by fraud is a MORE likely object of vitiation than a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument.
2. It ignores the following clause, which explains why a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument is NOT vitiated: “for, in general, the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud.”
In the first independent clause, "every" means "all", no exceptions. The first independent clause then goes on to reiterate that there are no exceptions by saying that judgments and contracts are equal. Thus all fraudulent judgments and contracts are can be vitiated.
The second independent clause ("that is") reiterates the first independent clause. Judgments obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument are can be vitiated.
The third independent clause goes on to say that since both fraudulent judgments and fraudulent instruments can be equally vitiated, the court will not bother with the merit of the case since the instrument the case is founded on is fraudulent. The implication is that it is more time consuming and thus a waste of time to relitigate the merits of the case when you can more simply vitiate the case founded with a fraudulent instrument.
https://www.amazon.com/Its-Close-They-Cant-Cheat/dp/0785287787
If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat Paperback – February 5, 2008
Thanks for the reply, JohnnyP.
And it looks like the title is accurate!
“The implication is that it is more time consuming and thus a waste of time to relitigate the merits of the case when you can more simply vitiate the case founded with a fraudulent instrument.”
No, it says “the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud”; the court is not concerned with detecting and annulling the fraud that was committed by means of the instrument.
“The implication is that it is more time consuming and thus a waste of time to relitigate the merits of the case when you can more simply vitiate the case founded with a fraudulent instrument.”
No, it says “the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud”; the court is not concerned with detecting and annulling the fraud that was committed by means of the instrument.
He bills himself as a center right talk host but he’s a putz. He referred to birthers as nutters. I don’t know what he thinks about the election. Can’t stand him anymore so I quit listening a year ago.
From the preceding sentence of the Throckmorton ruling: “the doctrine is equally well settled that the court will not set aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.