Can a Leftist Tugtard explain what Trump did that merits a $454 million seizure of assets?
Comments
-
Go ahead and state those reasons.
-
I don't know where you practice law, but posting a bond to stay collection of an amount more than twice as large is a win everywhere else.
-
It's usually a 10% bond with guarantors or bondsman in every state that I'm familiar with, but I'm not sure what the going rate is for witchhunts in New York
-
No, it isn't a "10% bond" usually, if ever. The bond is usually for the full amount, plus anticipated interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
If we take him at his word, Daddy couldn't an insurer or guarantor for the amount of the judgment.
-
175 million still falls under excessive punishment.
-
-
We are still awaiting your analysis of the ratio of actual damages to the $454 million. And what other New York real estate developer who actually defaulted on a mortgage had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. You being such a promoter of equal justice under the law certainly must have something at hand, otherwise you look like a political hack like the prosecutor and judge who actually likes that Trump is targeted for political reasons.
-
Still waiting for you to frame the issues correctly, Gasbag. Was your early departure from law school your choice?
Trump’s claim that statute 63(12) has “never been used before” is false, with the New York AG using the law to bring lawsuits against such parties as a leasing company, e-cigarette company JUUL Labs and a predatory lender company. The Trump Organization case isn’t even the first time 63(12) has been used against Trump and his businesses, as former AG Eric Schneiderman previously sued Trump University under the statute, which resulted in a $25 million settlement in 2018.
-
Good on you to admit that it’s been used only when consumers were harmed.
-
You seem to assume loans wouldn't have been made and opportunities wouldn't have been available to others had Daddy not obtained them instead through his multiple frauds.
-
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.
-
"Daddy's too big to fail!", screeched Bob_C.
-
No idea exactly what he is worth, but go ahead and have the government fine a bank 10-20% of their value, payable within 30 days and just see what happens.
-
And the daddy tell
-
The dazzler is such a capitalists. So JP Morgan is so unsophisticated that with all their real attorneys, MBAs and real estate investment bankers that Trump stole their loan money away from some undetermined borrower who didn't get a loan. Trump got loans at the market price. The market determined the loan amount to Trump and the terms as did the market for every other borrower. There was no damage to the public. If you look at the dazzler's cited cases, they all have specific damaged parties.
-
-
States rights
anarchistlibertarian says NY can't choose to punish business fraud when the victims are unidentified.We don't know, of course, who precisely lost opportunities Daddy obtained through his frauds.
-
Yeah, Libertarians are really asking for more government intervention in financial transactions between two willing parties. Jesus Christ.
-
On the 60th Anniversary of the Beatles coming to America, Race channels his inner 13-year-old girl.
Daddy's rich!!!
-
Meltdown
-
So no evidence. That's what I thought
