Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
You don't understand the case, the statute, or the reason for the judgement.
That is why I suggested you take time to review them.
The judgement has already been made that fraud was committed. So you are a little behind.
by a clearly biased judge driven by a ambitious liberal cunt who campaigned on a "Get Trump!" platform and this her "politically motivated" campaign promise,
you believe this nonsense for one reason only .. you dislike Trump
so stop with the two sentence vague DA NILES and answer one simple question
WHO DID TRUMP DEFRAUD?
the forum awaits your reply
some background for u on this nonsense bullshit
(AP) — Letitia James fixated on Donald Trump as she campaigned for New York attorney general, branding the then-president a “con man” and ″carnival barker” and pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”Sep 28, 2023
to you .. she's a "freedom fighter" to me she's a liberal cunt misusing her authority to advance her political agenda
The purpose of the statute is to grab revenue for the state of New York and to score political points for the attorney general. It was used to sue Exxon for allegedly failing to disclose risks associated with global warming to shareholders. New York extracted billions for the state's coffers from banks and insurance companies with Section 63(12). Elliott Spitzer used it to turbocharge his political career. If you want to claim fraud with scanty evidence then 63(12)'s your friend. You only have to prove the defendant engaged in "persistent deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions."
Google it and you'll see there are attorneys and others who dislike Trump but believe Letitia James is really stretching, going for $370 million and trying to get Trump's businesses kicked out of New York. The law allows for restitution and damages but is $370 million reasonable considering no one suffered damage? It's also questionable whether the court has the power to kick Trump out of New York, even though Engoron initially set out to do that after he issued his partial summary judgement.
One of the reasons the United States of America is so successful is because we have rule of law. People like you invest and create businesses believing government won't steal from them. This New York statute and the way the AG uses it, for political purposes and to generate revenue, is more indicative of countries where authoritarianism, crony capitalism, or populism predominates.
And yeah, Republicans do this shit too. For example DeSantis and Disney. I think the Democrats are worse though.
The purpose of the statute is to grab revenue for the state of New York and to score political points for the attorney general. It was used to sue Exxon for allegedly failing to disclose risks associated with global warming to shareholders. New York extracted billions for the state's coffers from banks and insurance companies with Section 63(12). Elliott Spitzer used it to turbocharge his political career. If you want to claim fraud with scanty evidence then 63(12)'s your friend. You only have to prove the defendant engaged in "persistent deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions."
Google it and you'll see there are attorneys and others who dislike Trump but believe Letitia James is really stretching, going for $370 million and trying to get Trump's businesses kicked out of New York. The law allows for restitution and damages but is $370 million reasonable considering no one suffered damage? It's also questionable whether the court has the power to kick Trump out of New York, even though Engoron initially set out to do that after he issued his partial summary judgement.
One of the reasons the United States of America is so successful is because we have rule of law. People like you invest and create businesses believing government won't steal from them. This New York statute and the way the AG uses it, for political purposes and to generate revenue, is more indicative of countries where authoritarianism, crony capitalism, or populism predominates.
And yeah, Republicans do this shit too. For example DeSantis and Disney. I think the Democrats are worse though.
Excellent post; agree 100%.
For starters, how many real estate developers have you ever known who haven't claimed some rather "blue-sky" valuations when pitching deals to investors and lenders? There have been plenty of guys in Dallas who, for decades, have been something along the lines of junior varsity versions of "The Donald." And I've never heard of any of them being hauled before a court of law, only to find a judge capriciously trying to deny them the right to continue operating their businesses, and to separate them from something on the order of 15-20% of their net worth to boot.
Further, if Donald had committed fraudulent acts of a sufficiently egregious nature as to warrant this level of attention by the New York State attorney general, don't you think any of several lenders would have brought an action against the Trump Organization by now, and that it would have been very well publicized?
Anyone who is even passingly familiar with finance knows very well that lenders, especially large lenders of the sort who loaned against Trump properties, conduct rigorous due diligence and are in a better position than anyone to know what the hell the market values of these assets are.
Perhaps most ridiculous of all is that if the AG's office were actually interested in protecting these "naive" lenders from being duped by a sharp operator like Donald, why would they seek to force Donald to disgorge a high percentage of his net worth; an amount that he almost certainly cannot raise without offering many of his holdings at reduced prices in a difficult market? After all, wouldn't that be likely to put downward pressure on Donald's holdings and potentially increase the risk that some of the loans could dip into non-performing status, even if they weren't likely to do so absent the need to liquidate some assets?
None of this is remotely justified or makes any sense, unless your goal is to pull every kitchen sink out of every plumbing supply house in America and throw it at him.
And I say this as someone who (to say the least) isn't much of a fan of Donald.
Judge For Trump Trial Revealed To Be Kangaroo In A Powdered Wig
NEW YORK, NY — Several eagle-eyed observers reportedly noticed something strange about the arraignment judge as Trump arrived in court this afternoon. According to sources, the judge looks suspiciously like a kangaroo wearing a powdered wig.
"I'm here to ensure these proceedings are fair and impartial," said the judge as he hopped up to the bench. "Now as I read the counts, I will ask the legal team to confirm how the defendant will plea."
"Hey! That's a kangaroo!" said Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene obnoxiously from the back of the room before being dragged off by other security kangaroos who were standing guard. "And why is he wearing a powdered wig? This isn't England! Let me go!"
"No one is above the rule of law," continued the judge after the short interruption. "I vow to conduct these proceedings with all the sacred, lawful dignity of my office until Trump is imprisoned or executed--preferably both."
At publishing time, Trump had been seen trying to get the charges dropped by bribing the judge with a sack of oats and carrots.
Judge For Trump Trial Revealed To Be Kangaroo In A Powdered Wig
NEW YORK, NY — Several eagle-eyed observers reportedly noticed something strange about the arraignment judge as Trump arrived in court this afternoon. According to sources, the judge looks suspiciously like a kangaroo wearing a powdered wig.
"I'm here to ensure these proceedings are fair and impartial," said the judge as he hopped up to the bench. "Now as I read the counts, I will ask the legal team to confirm how the defendant will plea."
"Hey! That's a kangaroo!" said Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene obnoxiously from the back of the room before being dragged off by other security kangaroos who were standing guard. "And why is he wearing a powdered wig? This isn't England! Let me go!"
"No one is above the rule of law," continued the judge after the short interruption. "I vow to conduct these proceedings with all the sacred, lawful dignity of my office until Trump is imprisoned or executed--preferably both."
At publishing time, Trump had been seen trying to get the charges dropped by bribing the judge with a sack of oats and carrots.
LOL!
At least the the AG took on a harder law to put in court than an easier one of tax fraud. Guess the repubs forgot that their saying that the demos do the easy thing and can't govern or for that fact, practice jurisdiction.
