MelloDawg
New Fish
You’re right, but for the wrong reasons.
Can a Leftist Tugtard explain what Trump did that merits a $454 million seizure of assets?
- Thread starter EverettChris
- Start date
Go ahead and state those reasons.
HHusky
New Fish
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
HHusky
New Fish
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.
HHusky
New Fish
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.
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.
Last edited:
Good on you to admit that it’s been used only when consumers were harmed.
HHusky
New Fish
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
HHusky
New Fish
You're free to ask any irrelevant questions you want to, of course. This isn't a trial.
Last edited:
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.
HHusky
New Fish
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.
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.
HHusky
New Fish
"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)
New York v. Feldman, 210 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
Last edited:
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.