Can a Leftist Tugtard explain what Trump did that merits a $454 million seizure of assets?
Comments
-
This is beyond a reach.
-
LOL Schneiderman was another political hack "male feminist." He had to resign after the NYer exposed that he beat women.
-
Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. It's actually one of the reasons behind New York's law and multiple similar state laws.
-
In this case, Trump is not the vendor and no consumer was harmed. Trump isn't claiming that JP Morgan is a predatory lender. Other than that, the dazzler is comparing apples to dog sh*t. The question was did any other large real estate developer get fined hundreds of millions for defaulting on a mortgage. The answer so far appears to be know. Once again the dazzler didn't buy dinner before the strawman ass phucking started.
-
You're free to ask any irrelevant questions you want to, of course. This isn't a trial.
-
Ah, but there was a trial. You still haven't told us what the actual damages were on the loans and what the cases you cited have to do with a borrower who paid back the loans.
-
You need to read much more carefully.
-
The dogged display of stupidity and ignorance from @HHusky is always a fun read.
He’s thisclose to a meltdown after getting his head kicked in again. Captain Cut/Paste has always liked to refute his own defense with his supporting links he doesn’t read.
-
"N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12). As an initial matter, defendants' claim that section 63(12) is limited to consumer protection actions is simply incorrect. The New York *300 Attorney General has repeatedly used section 63(12) to secure relief for persons who are not consumers in cases that are not consumer protection actions. See, e.g., People by Vacco v. Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C., 877 F. Supp. 143, 144, 146-47 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (action on behalf of hearing impaired New Yorkers harmed by discrimination in the provision of medical services); People v. Lexington Sixty-First Assocs., 38 N.Y.2d 588, 381 N.Y.S.2d 836, 345 N.E.2d 307 (1976) (action on behalf of tenants and investors harmed by illegal scheme for cooperative conversion); State v. Fashion Place Assocs., 224 A.D.2d 280, 638 N.Y.S.2d 26, 28 (1st Dep't 1996) (action on behalf of tenants harmed by defendant's denial of rent-stabilized leases and misrepresentations to tenants); People by Abrams v. Hamilton, 125 A.D.2d 1000, 511 N.Y.S.2d 190 (4th Dep't 1986) (action on behalf of female employees harmed by sex discrimination); People ex rel. Vacco v. World Interactive Gaming Corp., 185 Misc.2d 852, 714 N.Y.S.2d 844, 853 (N.Y.Sup.1999) (action on behalf of investors harmed by securities law violations)." (emphasis added)
New York v. Feldman, 210 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) -
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
