• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY tells Paxton to pound sand.

Quote where I claimed that she could be prosecuted in civil court.

Watch the conversation.
She should be tried in absentia in Texas.

LMAO you don't get "tried" in civil court. Only people getting prosecuted are being "tried". Nice try!

You’ve never heard of a civil trial? Wow.

In a civil trial the issue is tried not the person. Nice backpedal.

ETA:
The issue in a civil trial can not be tried in absentia. Your logic fails.

I never said otherwise.

Reread. Yes you did.

She can be tried in absentia is what you said. But no she can't.

See how the language flows, with meaning, one post after another?
 
Imagine trying the issue, without the issue present. That is the logic @Napoleon is selling.

In a civil trial, if a party is absent, a default judgment can enter.
 
Ken Paxton is trying raise his national profile. Its performance artistry….
 
Yes. See post 278 in this thread.
Don't know why you're quoting that there. Anyway, where did you answer my points about civil litigation and retain credibility?
 
Texas has no standing to enforce anything that happens outside of it's jurisdiction. That's just a legal fact.

Let's see them try and take legal action over stuff done in the UK they don't like.
It'll be fun.
 
Back
Top Bottom