Sen. Ted Cruz Makes It Official

[rgcraig]

He posted as Brother Strange. Unique, huh?

You can't find him in members list because he left and he's listed as a Guest now.

Thanks for trying to remember. He actually found what he was looking for where he posted it on FB.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

He posted as Brother Strange. Unique, huh?

You can't find him in members list because he left and he's listed as a Guest now.

Thanks for trying to remember. He actually found what he was looking for where he posted it on FB.

Great!

[shazeep]

well, a valid pov might be that many committed Christians see an unacceptable dichotomy in also pledging allegiance to a flag; but i admit that this was not an easy pov to come by. Also, you don't think that God ultimately chooses a leader?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, a valid pov might be that many committed Christians see an unacceptable dichotomy in also pledging allegiance to a flag; but i admit that this was not an easy pov to come by. Also, you don't think that God ultimately chooses a leader?

I think he did when Israel was a theocracy. I don't necessarily believe that today. It would stand to reason that whoever gets the most votes wins. If Christians don't vote, well...

[shazeep]

i think it should at least be considered that we have a lot of indications that what FDR said was dead on; "Presidents are selected, not elected." The potus does not depend upon the popular vote anyway, by law!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i think it should at least be considered that we have a lot of indications that what FDR said was dead on; "Presidents are selected, not elected." The potus does not depend upon the popular vote anyway, by law!

I would take that to mean that people are "swayed" or "lead" to who the powers that be want elected. That was very apparent with Fox News and Mitt Romney. So, I can agree with FDR on that.

It's also interesting how much Hitler and Mussolini agreed with FDR as well. "Mr. Roosevelt marches straight to his objectives over Congress, lobbies, and the bureaucracy." - Hitler. Sounds like someone else we currently have in the White House.

[Walks_in_islam]

What i really like about Cruz is his representation of the Chinese Shandong Rubber Company in the patent infringement lawsuit against them. His stand as representative of a foreign company who stole intellectual property from an American company really tells me that though he stands for Israel and commie chinese he does not stand for America, American jobs, or for me.

Thank goodness he and his commie Chinese thieving clients lost both the case and the appeal. THAT was a win for America that found Cruz on the wrong side.

Representing commies against American workers is called aiding the enemy. Cruz is a traitor.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

What i really like about Cruz is his representation of the Chinese Shandong Rubber Company in the patent infringement lawsuit against them. His stand as representative of a foreign company who stole intellectual property from an American company really tells me that though he stands for Israel and commie chinese he does not stand for America, American jobs, or for me.

Thank goodness he and his commie Chinese thieving clients lost both the case and the appeal. THAT was a win for America that found Cruz on the wrong side.

Representing commies against American workers is called aiding the enemy. Cruz is a traitor.

1) Ted Cruz was a private lawyer, working in a major law firm, on a team of lawyers who were handling this case. Ted Cruz did not handle the trial, nor did he even argue the appeal. The most Ted Cruz did with this case was to help edit the appellate briefs.

2) The "American" company isn't even an American company. The businessman is an American, but a check of the case shows that he stated under oath he's partnered with a Chinese company, GTC which manufactures all his products. His company, per his statement under oath, "does no manufacturing whatsoever."

Cruz isn't a traitor. Your post is false and misleading.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

1) Ted Cruz was a private lawyer, working in a major law firm, on a team of lawyers who were handling this case. Ted Cruz did not handle the trial, nor did he even argue the appeal. The most Ted Cruz did with this case was to help edit the appellate briefs.

2) The "American" company isn't even an American company. The businessman is an American, but a check of the case shows that he stated under oath he's partnered with a Chinese company, GTC which manufactures all his products. His company, per his statement under oath, "does no manufacturing whatsoever."

Cruz isn't a traitor. Your post is false and misleading.

Thank you, David. Your facts here are exactly right as this issue has been hashed and rehashed before.

And here is our bold Senator standing up for the Constitution once again against a new Attorney General who plans to carry on in the same way as her predecessor.

Ted Cruz SLAMS Republican majority in the Senate for allowing Lynch nomination

(video imbed)

He also adds that not a single Republican can vote for such a nomination and be consistent with their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-sl...ch-nomination/

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

1) Ted Cruz was a private lawyer, working in a major law firm, on a team of lawyers who were handling this case. Ted Cruz did not handle the trial, nor did he even argue the appeal. The most Ted Cruz did with this case was to help edit the appellate briefs.

2) The "American" company isn't even an American company. The businessman is an American, but a check of the case shows that he stated under oath he's partnered with a Chinese company, GTC which manufactures all his products. His company, per his statement under oath, "does no manufacturing whatsoever."

Cruz isn't a traitor. Your post is false and misleading.

Let's take a look together at what Cruz will take money for.

Businessmen who plead guilty to bribery. The businessman was Robert Mericle, who bribed two judges to give minors harsher sentences in the infamous “kids for cash” system. Why? To make money for his private juvenile detention center. Cruz lost the case, but he took home hundreds of thousands of Mericle's money

In another case, Cruz represented Moog, a company that fired a spokesperson for refusing to promote its pain control pump Accufuser for nonapproved purposes. Cruz argued in appeals court that the trial jury didn't fully analyze whether the company made the request. The appeals court found the evidence for illegal misconduct to be overwhelming, and Cruz lost that case too.

Cruz also made money from a case he argued in December 2011 on behalf of a Chinese tire company against charges that it illegally took blueprints from Florida businessman Jordan Fishman. Cruz failed to disprove the accusations. Last June, an appeals court upheld a $26 million jury verdict in favor of Fishman.

On the issue of the Chinese tire company -

In 2006, Jordan Fishman, an American inventor who designs mining tires, discovered that his patented designs had been stolen by an employee and were being used by two international tire distributors, the Al Dobowi Group of Dubai and Shandong Linglong of China.

In October 2009, Fishman filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the two companies in U.S. District Court in Virginia. Fishman won the $26 million suit which led the two companies to appeal the ruling, calling on lawyers from the international firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where Cruz worked as an appellate lawyer, for legal counsel.

What was his role?

The technical term for Cruz's role is "counsel of record." According to legal definitions listed on the Cornell Law School website and others, lawyers who act as counsel of record are responsible for the representation of the client, regardless of whether they ever appear in a courtroom on behalf of that client. In an interview, Cruz said he has never appeared in any courtroom in regard to this case.

What did he do?

When his firm became involved, Cruz described his role as relatively minor: He says he edited the appellate briefs while the actual appeal was argued by three other lawyers.

He edited the briefs, briefs that other lawyers took to an appellate court to argue that it is in fact OK for a Chinese firm to steal intellectual property from the United States.

Edited: (def) Cruz took his little law-school trained fingers and wrote, in convoluted legalese, "Dear Judges: There is nothing wrong with a foreign company stealing intellectual property from a United States citizen and here are my stupid arguments as to why it is OK.

All three of the above were cases that Cruz lost. Not even close.

So to summarize:

Cruz, in writing, and before the courts, took money to say that it is OK to:

1. Bribe judges to give minors longer sentences so that the for-profit prison system can gain financial benefit
2. Fire an employee for refusing to market a pain pump for unapproved purposes so that a drug company can gain financial benefit
3. Steal intellectual property from the United States so that a foreign company can gain financial benefit.

As you say, it is a private law firm. Private law firms can pick and choose what and who they represent based on principle alone.

We need a president who does not offer American principles (and in one case American kids) for cash. We also need a winner, not a loser.