Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(8,401 posts)

17. Five judges signed the decision, not three

Mon Mar 25, 2024, 03:20 PM

Mar 25

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The fix is in Srkdqltr Mar 25 #1

Not what i heard, but ok... getagrip_already Mar 25 #2

It's very rare because it can't be done on a whim... Hugin Mar 25 #3

I didn't think people were put in prison for civil suits. MichMan Mar 25 #5

That's not what I said... n/t Hugin Mar 25 #10

The court can reduce the amount owed. former9thward Mar 25 #16

This was heard by a panel of five judges. former9thward Mar 25 #14

Five judges signed the decision, not three markpkessinger Mar 25 #17

Sorry, I missed that. former9thward Mar 25 #18

They said Ms James would start seizing properties NanaCat Mar 25 #20

I thought there was no way that $464 million requirement would hold Sympthsical Mar 25 #8

The courts must be reasonable. See what happens in the next ten days. twodogsbarking Mar 25 #11

Why not? SlimJimmy Mar 25 #12

. . . Sympthsical Mar 25 #15

Speaking as an old guy . . . AverageOldGuy Mar 25 #13

I didn't think they would seize his properties today. LeftInTX Mar 25 #19