Trump offered E. Warren $1 million - can she collect? Trump said he would donate $1 million to Elizabeth Warren’s favorite charity if she was Cherokee. Since she has evidence for it now, can she collect? What court(s) would/could she sue in if possible/necessary?
Possibly, but not likely, but as always facts and circumstances matter, though Trump was not very concise in what he said. First let's start off from the the transcript of what Trump said. from Politifact: "I will give you (Warren) a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian." Looking at this as a contract, to have a contract you need five elements: offer, acceptance, consideration/quid por quo, capacity, and legality. It seems that all are pretty straight forward as being met except valid offer and consideration. For the offer, you could argue Trump said it as a joke, but given that he said it to the whole world and is wealthy enough to back it up where as an average Joe would not have the cash. This comes down to what a reasonable person would have thought. Did Trump's offer seem legitimate, did he rescind before acceptance, did he repeat the offer? All of the fact and circumstances matter as to whether the offer was valid. There is also the issue of what did the contract layout as performance? The vagueness of the contract may be an issue and make the deal illusory. For example, Trump said "a million dollars to your favorite charity" which is different than saying a million dollars to a charity of your choice. Is this Warren's favorite charity when the deal was made, or when the result were tendered, or when paid? Also there is no timeline. When must Trump make the donation? within one week, one year, one century? There is no deadline for Trump to make a donation. Also of note is the contract is for proof Warren is "Indian" (Native American), not specifically Cherokee. For consideration you could arguee that Trump gained proof that Warren was Native American, but the issue is what did Warren gain? You could argue nothing since Trump made the promise for a donation to charity, but you could also argue that Warren gained the joy of seeing a charity get $1,000,000, Trump lose $1,000,000 and the charity was a third party beneficiary which is allowed and is valid consideration. Even if a valid contract existed between the two, there is also the issue of what is considered performance? What does if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian. mean? May Warren be 1% native american or must she be 100% native american, the details are very vague. Since trump created the agreement, any reasonable interpretation by Warren would be permissable under the doctrine of contra-proferendum but then what is reasonable? Again facts and circumstances matter.
If you buy a house and your wife signs a quitclaim deed to you, that transfers to you whatever rights she has in the house. Similarly, if you and your wife sign an agreement that anything deposited in a particular bank account in your name would be your separate property, that would override the pre-nup as far as that account was concerned. Such an agreement could include a dollar limit per month or per year, or an explicit purpose, such as savings for a down payment. (It could be thought of as a gift to you of her share of any funds deposited.) Giving property to your parents or others with the understanding that it will be returned on your request might be seen as an attempt to evade the pre-nup, and a court might hold that the property was actually shared, if you ever do divorce. There might also be gift tax issues if the value is high enough. Whether asking your wife to agree to a quitclaim or any sort of agreement to modify the pre-nup would help or harm your marriage I cannot know, nor did you ask that. But I would think that for most people being open would work better than going behind a spouse's back. None of this should be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer.
You can't You are asking the analogue of &quot;What happens when you start a game of chess with the black queen on D1?&quot; and the only correct answer is &quot;That is not a legal starting position, the only position the Black Queen may have at the start of the game is D8. Re-setup the board to how it should be.&quot; An AI can't hold property, because it is not a recognized legal entity, and trying to file for a transfer to an illegal recipient is in itself impossible. As such, all your plan fails on step 1 (transfer property to AI) and all other questions are moot - the position required can't come up legally, and attempting to get it done results in the documents that tried to do it being all Void and Null: The person that tried to get rid of the company is the owner. That person is liable for all the tax that needs to be paid. All lawsuits against the corporate or the owner proceed as if nothing had happened. YES, you could be sued for attempted tax evasion, communally called &quot;tax fraud&quot;.
What would be the most reasonable thing to do? Live with it. Oh, and stop breaking the law with your automated emails. Illegality on their part does not justify illegality on your part. Also, it’s likely that this activity has caused your email address to be blocked automatically which may explain why they aren’t contacting you. From a legal point of view, that’s the only reasonable option. You do have valid grounds for a lawsuit for the value of the watermelon but the cost of filing will be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the value of the melon so doing so isn’t “reasonable”. If you want to vent, the internet offers a wide variety of social media platforms for which that seems to be their primary focus. But that’s got nothing to do with the law.
She damaged you - your beef is with her. If she has insurance, the choice of is she wants to claim or not is up to her. She is not obliged to make a claim and probably not obliged to tell her insurer about it. Perhaps she has a $20,000 excess. Perhaps she is a person not covered by the policy (too young or otherwise excluded) Perhaps she is (legitimately) concerned that making claims will increase her premium. Now, her contract may have a clause requiring her to disclose all accidents either ongoing or on renewal. However, the doctrine of privity of contract means that whether she does or not is no one’s business but hers and her insurer.
It's not theft, but the donee (recipient) generally is not entitled to keep the ring. A number of states - not all - have so-called "Heart Balm" Laws, which abolish the ability to sue for a breach of a promise to marry. New York State is one of them. However, this does not bar actions for recovery of a chattel, money, or securities transferred in contemplation of marriage - including wedding rings. Consider Mancuso v Russo, 132 AD2d 533 [2nd Dept 1987]. In this case, the plaintiff entered a claim to recover a gift of real property conditional upon subsequent marriage. The Court, and the appeals court, entered judgement in favor of the plaintiff. The relevant law is found in N.Y. CVR. LAW § 80-b: NY Code - Section 80-B: Nothing in this article contained shall be construed to bar a right of action for the recovery of a chattel, the return of money or securities, or the value thereof at the time of such transfer, or the rescission of a deed to real property when the sole consideration for the transfer of the chattel, money or securities or real property was a contemplated marriage which has not occurred, and the court may, if in its discretion justice so requires, (1) award the defendant a lien upon the chattel, securities or real property for monies expended in connection therewith or improvements made thereto, (2) deny judgment for the recovery of the chattel or securities or for rescission of the deed and award money damages in lieu thereof A search for Civil Rights Law § 80-b returns many more cases where claims for (primarily) engagement rings are disputed.
The president is not permitted to blackmail the Supreme Court, but what you've described isn't blackmail. Blackmail is a threat to expose someone's crimes. You're probably thinking of something more like extortion, which is outlawed under 18 U.S. Code § 875: Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. There are three problems with your theory I see right away: With the facts: As you noted, the President's statements were &quot;seemingly unrelated,&quot; which is essentially an admission that there's no indication one has anything to do with the other. Under those circumstances, you can't establish that he's making any kind of threat. With the statute: &quot;Extortion&quot; is generally understood to refer not merely to a threat to do something unpleasant. Instead, extortion is inducing another person to turn over property by the wrongful use of force, violence, or fear. There's no property at play here, and it's not unlawful to study changes to the court (nor would it be unlawful to actually make changes to the Court, which the president doesn't even have power to do anyway). With the First Amendment: The President has a First Amendment right to advocate for changes to gun laws, and for changes to the composition of the Supreme Court. That right does not evaporate when it is informed by the court's conduct. So the Biden situation is not really a good fit with the hypothetical you've described, which presents a much stronger factual basis from which to find a threat. Because it also appears you're using wrongfully inducing fear of economic injury to obtain another person's property, and because you have no right to do so, you would be liable for extortion, while the President would not. EDIT: Although the top-line questions has been reframed, I'll just note that the answer remains basically the same. Bearing in mind that the president has no power to force any Supreme Court justice into retirement, one might rephrase the question this way: &quot;If the Court rules that a constitutional amendment has Meaning X, can the president threaten to support a constitutional amendment?&quot; The answer should be obvious: The president is free to support policies to change the constitution, at any time, for any reason.
Parties may only call witnesses for the purpose of adducing* admissible evidence. Evidence is only admissible if it is relevant. If a witness cannot give any relevant evidence, then a party has no right to call them or invoke the court's power to compel them to give evidence. In practice, if there were any doubt about the witness's ability to give relevant evidence, it is likely that the court would allow the defendant to call the witness, if only for the purpose of a preliminary hearing where the parties can argue about whether the proposed evidence is actually admissible. If a judge or juror is able to give relevant evidence about a case, they should recuse themselves. If a judge does not recuse, or does not permit the defendant to call some other witness having decided that the witness could not give relevant evidence, these decisions can be reviewed on appeal. The standard required to overturn the judge's decision varies depending on the jurisdiction, but generally the defendant would have to show that the evidence they were not permitted to adduce was also material. This might prevent a mistrial from occurring in cases where, for example, the defendant was not permitted to call the President to give evidence about something that occurred at a public event the President attended. The President's knowledge of the event might be technically admissible, but plainly not likely to advance either side of the case, given the other evidence available. Of course, if the President can give relevant, admissible and material evidence about a fact in issue then the defendant would be entitled to call them. *Adduce: cite as evidence.