(10-10-2023 11:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

Thanks for the clarification #s. You did a good job for the most part above.

I'd clarify a few small points.

1. There *have* been overreaches by some DOJ with respect to the Trump camp. Most notably Strzok (mentioned above), and the related overreach with the Page FISA affidavits.

2. Had Trump not fired Comey, the predicate for a possibility of 'obstruction' that was in play by the Mueller investigation would have never been an issue. Mueller looked into that. Mueller cleared Trump of Russiagate (which was the right call), but punted on obstruction (dont know if that was the right call, but Mueller was well within reason to look into it. Not smart of Trump to give him the opening).

3. Impeachment 1 was a *political* overreach.

4. Trump should have been convicted of impeachment 2. Not for inciting, but for sitting on his ass throwing food at the wall when he couldnt get the vote delayed more, all the while doing *nothing* as a Commander in Chief to address the ongoing riot.

As for the bolded -- I am not 'certain'. But there is plenty of evidence to indicate that crimes were committed. And, not my problem that Trump was stupid enough to jump into those actions pell mell. If Trump is found guilty -- it is a result of his own actions and own stupidity. If Trump presents additional evidence that shows he is a 'victim' -- then he is free to present it. And if sufficient I have zero problem changing my mind on my current position.

5. I have zero issue with the charges at MAL. If Trump presents evidence that refutes what is known about the issue, I am free to change my mind. It seems highly evident that Trump obstructed justice in a number of ways in that issue. I have no issue charging someone who intentionally lies and does not fully comply with a subpoena, among many other instances of that behavior.

6. I have zero issue with the charges by J6 for his role in allegedly trying to usurp several state elections, and have their slates declared for him by the VP by fiat. If Trump presents evidence that refutes what is known about the issue, I am more than happy to change my mind. Ditto for the Fulton Co. indictment.

7. I think Bragg both overcharged, and stretched the law quite a bit to get his charges in. And, in addition, Bragg may very well have a serious issue with SoL. All in all, dont think these should be on the table at all.

8. Jean Carroll cases -- dont know, dont care. I do know that Trump presented *zero* evidence to refute Carroll's case. In a civil setting some vs none gets a verdict against you. Those are the cards Trump himself played there.

So guilty until proven innocent. Spoken like a true totalitarian. You sure don't sound libertarian.

Not what I said, is it?

Actually 'the facts that we have lead me to believe' coupled with 'If evidence comes to light that refutes what is known about the issue, I am more than happy to change my mind.'

You seriously fked that reading test up.

(10-08-2023 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-08-2023 01:16 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, your Texas example is flatly ridiculous as a comparison and you know it. It’s just saddening that you believe anyone here would be ignorant enough to buy it. Why didn’t you just say Bernie Madoff and Trump are the same? It would have been equally valid, as in not valid at all.

First - I can show you harm in your example.
Second - I can show direct impact on the citizens (or residents) of Texas in your example.
Third - I’m willing to bet an actual complaint was filed in your reference case with the state by an affected party.

You can show none of these in the Trump case.

The Colonia example is an exact example of an instance of standalone fraud.

Not meant to be an exact perfect fact pattern. But a great instance of AG intervention in standalone fraud.

I take it you think standalone fraud should be tolerated? I have zero issue with AG action in standalone fraud. There *is* a societal interest in policing such fraud. You seem to think such fraud as victimless, and I guess you condone it? Sounds like a stupid justification. I'm not the one saying "golly gee willikers.... lie all you want as a borrower. No harm no foul."

Yeah, that's a great stance.

Question for you: what other firms of fraud do you think we should overlook just 'because"?

Edited to add: wasnt at a place I could type easily previously. Fuller explanation follows ---

A state, any state, has a fundamental and vested interest in ensuring that *no* fraud (of any sort) occurs. Fraud can be combatted in two manners -- one by private action (where an aggrieved party makes a claim for damages); or another by the state in a standalone action (where the measure of hit by the fraud perpetrator is the amount of profit they made, and/or the loss of right to conduct business in the state).

One simply cannot argue that a party has a right to lie to a lender about their financial status to obtain loans, or to obtain better terms on loans. The issue *you* look at is whether the private counterparty sustains damage. Maybe they do, maybe they dont.

The issue is whether the state as an actor will condone fraud in the loan process, or whether they will police it. If the state allows it to happen, then by default more people will engage in it. In the aggregate, more fraud in the loan application process *is* harmful to business in a state -- any state.

Your stance is apparently the above -- the state should overlook that fraud. Thus impliedly you support allowing people to generate profit using fraud and artifice as the basis. Are you comfortable with that? Im not.

In response, a state pursues a standalone claim -- if someone persistently engages in fraudulent acts, and does them in the context of business, a state has the option and power to perform the following --- a) strip the fraud perpetrator from doing business in the state, and/or b) penalize them in the amount that they profited from such fraudulent activity.

Instead of impliedly endorsing persistent fraud by simply not pursuing it, a state has a full option to the above --- and when the latter course in taken the state takes steps to keep anyone who pursues persistent fraud from benefitting from that fraud, *and* maybe strips them of their license to do business in that state.

I dont see anything wrong in the state pursuing those actions.

If you believe a state should simply allow anyone to profit from persistent fraudulent activity, you have every right to think that.

As a banker, I would assume that you understand that a borrower has an underlying obligation to be truthful in loan activity. An obligation that is independent in nature. If you believe a state should stand idly by and allow persons who persistently engage in fraud related to that activity to profit from that activity --- again, you have every right to support the idea that the state should sit on the sidelines.

My drothers is that the state actually try to inhibit that fraud activity.

As a banker, I know to never trust what I am told and verify everything. Everybody thinks their business plan is great. Everyone thinks their idea of foolproof. Everyone thinks their property is worth a fortune.

When they told me these things I never thought “wow, they are attempting to defraud me”. They are simply working their side and I am working mine.

With that said, I dealt with plenty of real fraud over my 30+ years in banking. I’ll give you a great example that impacted a lot of banks (not mine because I do my homework). I worked in Louisville in the 90s. There was a development firm that everyone was dying to bank. They were doing great projects in rapidly expanding and desired locations. The gravy was that one of the guarantors was filthy rich, mid 9 figures (over half liquid) and would personally guarantee the loans. It was old family money and one of the most known families in the city.

However, here’s how it went bad. Turns out all that money he showed on his financial statement was actually tied to a 3rd generation, last to die, trust. The only two remaining members of the trust were this guy and his aunt who was 25 years older than him, about 90 years old. The last one alive got the money instead of just the generous annual payout.

The guy represented that the money was his. A reasonable assumption, but not accurate. I think the trust paid him 4-5 million a year, so he wasn’t inconsequential without it, but if he died first the bank would have no access to the trust proceeds.

I got the trust documents because I requested copies of his brokerage statements and they showed the stock being held by a trust. I read the documents and discovered the catch. I decided not to present the loan request for approval because they wanted above market leverage based on the strength of guarantor support, which was, in reality, tenuous.

I give this example because I believe you would consider it most like the Trump case. Do I really consider it fraud? Actually, not really. The guy had every reasonable assumption that he would outlive a 90 year old woman in poor health. He had the income stream from the trust so his association to the trust obviously existed. The only way it was a lie is if he died before his aunt and the truth was easily obtained in the due diligence process.

I made a business decision based on the unlikely occurrence that he may die first, other banks took a different stance. He just happened to die first, leaving the other banks with over leveraged collateral and ensuing write downs.

To me fraud is intentional with the goal of illicit gain at the expense of another. It’s not a difference of opinion or perspective.

(10-11-2023 01:17 AM)banker Wrote:  

(10-08-2023 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-08-2023 01:16 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, your Texas example is flatly ridiculous as a comparison and you know it. It’s just saddening that you believe anyone here would be ignorant enough to buy it. Why didn’t you just say Bernie Madoff and Trump are the same? It would have been equally valid, as in not valid at all.

First - I can show you harm in your example.
Second - I can show direct impact on the citizens (or residents) of Texas in your example.
Third - I’m willing to bet an actual complaint was filed in your reference case with the state by an affected party.

You can show none of these in the Trump case.

The Colonia example is an exact example of an instance of standalone fraud.

Not meant to be an exact perfect fact pattern. But a great instance of AG intervention in standalone fraud.

I take it you think standalone fraud should be tolerated? I have zero issue with AG action in standalone fraud. There *is* a societal interest in policing such fraud. You seem to think such fraud as victimless, and I guess you condone it? Sounds like a stupid justification. I'm not the one saying "golly gee willikers.... lie all you want as a borrower. No harm no foul."

Yeah, that's a great stance.

Question for you: what other firms of fraud do you think we should overlook just 'because"?

Edited to add: wasnt at a place I could type easily previously. Fuller explanation follows ---

A state, any state, has a fundamental and vested interest in ensuring that *no* fraud (of any sort) occurs. Fraud can be combatted in two manners -- one by private action (where an aggrieved party makes a claim for damages); or another by the state in a standalone action (where the measure of hit by the fraud perpetrator is the amount of profit they made, and/or the loss of right to conduct business in the state).

One simply cannot argue that a party has a right to lie to a lender about their financial status to obtain loans, or to obtain better terms on loans. The issue *you* look at is whether the private counterparty sustains damage. Maybe they do, maybe they dont.

The issue is whether the state as an actor will condone fraud in the loan process, or whether they will police it. If the state allows it to happen, then by default more people will engage in it. In the aggregate, more fraud in the loan application process *is* harmful to business in a state -- any state.

Your stance is apparently the above -- the state should overlook that fraud. Thus impliedly you support allowing people to generate profit using fraud and artifice as the basis. Are you comfortable with that? Im not.

In response, a state pursues a standalone claim -- if someone persistently engages in fraudulent acts, and does them in the context of business, a state has the option and power to perform the following --- a) strip the fraud perpetrator from doing business in the state, and/or b) penalize them in the amount that they profited from such fraudulent activity.

Instead of impliedly endorsing persistent fraud by simply not pursuing it, a state has a full option to the above --- and when the latter course in taken the state takes steps to keep anyone who pursues persistent fraud from benefitting from that fraud, *and* maybe strips them of their license to do business in that state.

I dont see anything wrong in the state pursuing those actions.

If you believe a state should simply allow anyone to profit from persistent fraudulent activity, you have every right to think that.

As a banker, I would assume that you understand that a borrower has an underlying obligation to be truthful in loan activity. An obligation that is independent in nature. If you believe a state should stand idly by and allow persons who persistently engage in fraud related to that activity to profit from that activity --- again, you have every right to support the idea that the state should sit on the sidelines.

My drothers is that the state actually try to inhibit that fraud activity.

As a banker, I know to never trust what I am told and verify everything. Everybody thinks their business plan is great. Everyone thinks their idea of foolproof. Everyone thinks their property is worth a fortune.

When they told me these things I never thought “wow, they are attempting to defraud me”. They are simply working their side and I am working mine.

With that said, I dealt with plenty of real fraud over my 30+ years in banking. I’ll give you a great example that impacted a lot of banks (not mine because I do my homework). I worked in Louisville in the 90s. There was a development firm that everyone was dying to bank. They were doing great projects in rapidly expanding and desired locations. The gravy was that one of the guarantors was filthy rich, mid 9 figures (over half liquid) and would personally guarantee the loans. It was old family money and one of the most known families in the city.

However, here’s how it went bad. Turns out all that money he showed on his financial statement was actually tied to a 3rd generation, last to die, trust. The only two remaining members of the trust were this guy and his aunt who was 25 years older than him, about 90 years old. The last one alive got the money instead of just the generous annual payout.

The guy represented that the money was his. A reasonable assumption, but not accurate. I think the trust paid him 4-5 million a year, so he wasn’t inconsequential without it, but if he died first the bank would have no access to the trust proceeds.

I got the trust documents because I requested copies of his brokerage statements and they showed the stock being held by a trust. I read the documents and discovered the catch. I decided not to present the loan request for approval because they wanted above market leverage based on the strength of guarantor support, which was, in reality, tenuous.

I give this example because I believe you would consider it most like the Trump case. Do I really consider it fraud? Actually, not really. The guy had every reasonable assumption that he would outlive a 90 year old woman in poor health. He had the income stream from the trust so his association to the trust obviously existed. The only way it was a lie is if he died before his aunt and the truth was easily obtained in the due diligence process.

I made a business decision based on the unlikely occurrence that he may die first, other banks took a different stance. He just happened to die first, leaving the other banks with over leveraged collateral and ensuing write downs.

To me fraud is intentional with the goal of illicit gain at the expense of another. It’s not a difference of opinion or perspective.

I appreciate the example.

But there are distinct differences in the Trump issue present, imo.

1) You mentioned 'reasonable assumption' above. Actually mentioned it twice. With a one off action (i.e. there is no pattern), that is actually a reasonable assumption. I would agree. And in the circumstances above, I can understand the conclusion of a lack of intent.

With Trump, the breadth of the actions tends, at least for me, to weigh against both 'reasonable assumption' and a lack of intent (I will come back to lack of intent later). And the testimony that is coming out directly weighs against both.

Yesterday, the ex-CFO, and co-defendant, testified as a hostile witness, and admitted to both including material false valuations in the SFCs, *and* and also testified actual knowledge of the discrepancies in the SFCs. His testimony continues today.

On Friday, the ex-controller testified that Eric Trump directly told him to value the Seven Springs development as including 7 homes (mansions, depending on the news source) that werent even built. Among a number of other issues of direct knowledge. Including inclusion of his direct testimony that the CFO directly asked him to commit various acts of fraud, including tax fraud. (and for the record, persistent tax fraud is one of the counts in the current civil trial).

McConney (the ex-controller) also testified that he and the CFO, at the behest of Trump and his sons, increased the the value of multiple golf clubs by adding what they considered the 'Trump name' brand premium.

The state attorney produced multiple annual SFCs that explicitly state: “The goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant financial value that has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement.” (A direct quote)

McConney confirmed he was aware that disclaimer was on the annual financial statements.

Of course there will be much more testimony, and the Trump defense case hasnt been reached at all, to be fair. But these dont strike me a 'reasonable assumptions'. And to be fair, the defense cross of the ex-CFO has yet to take place.

Another difference is that in a state enforcement action, the issue isnt a 'one off'. One of the main issues is whether there is pattern of deception or misrepresentation. And, when there is a pattern, there isnt just the issue of 'an element met' -- that pattern also goes to the reasonableness of the totality of actions as a whole, at least to me.

I can see where it would be highly improper to bring this thing to an enforcement action with a one-off item like you had. Especially with the streak of a reasonable assumption (by all parties) as you describe. But that is not what the facts and evidence is taking (at least for me) in this issue.

Thanks for the very civil, and very in depth conversation.

And thanks for the insights and background from a viewpoint that is highly pertinent. And it is much appreciated (after a private back and forth via PM with another) that you are not making whole assumptions out of thin air.

(10-11-2023 01:17 AM)banker Wrote:  With that said, I dealt with plenty of real fraud over my 30+ years in banking. I’ll give you a great example that impacted a lot of banks (not mine because I do my homework). I worked in Louisville in the 90s. There was a development firm that everyone was dying to bank. They were doing great projects in rapidly expanding and desired locations. The gravy was that one of the guarantors was filthy rich, mid 9 figures (over half liquid) and would personally guarantee the loans. It was old family money and one of the most known families in the city.

I think you may have buried the lede with this here.

Seems like you admit banks will do things just to gain high profile clients...like a trump...and therefore might not apply the same standards as they would another client.

And just a reminder again, this case is not about whether any third party was damaged. It's a civil case for lying on forms filed with the State.

(10-11-2023 07:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 01:17 AM)banker Wrote:  With that said, I dealt with plenty of real fraud over my 30+ years in banking. I’ll give you a great example that impacted a lot of banks (not mine because I do my homework). I worked in Louisville in the 90s. There was a development firm that everyone was dying to bank. They were doing great projects in rapidly expanding and desired locations. The gravy was that one of the guarantors was filthy rich, mid 9 figures (over half liquid) and would personally guarantee the loans. It was old family money and one of the most known families in the city.

I think you may have buried the lede with this here.

Seems like you admit banks will do things just to gain high profile clients...like a trump...and therefore might not apply the same standards as they would another client.

And just a reminder again, this case is not about whether any third party was damaged. It's a civil case for lying on forms filed with the State.

One of the counts is that, and that is being tried right now.

The SJ count was simply a pattern of fraud (a standalone enforcement action) based on simply using the SFCs in business, not for filing them with New York.

There are remaining counts of tax fraud, insurance fraud, falsification of business records, issuing a false financial statement, and various civil conspiracy counts, all of which are being tried currently. Some of these remaining counts require a materiality component, and should have some reference to third parties.

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

There's an old saying, "all lawyers are liars". Like 33rd degree masons, they took a oath to lie to you.

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

This.

(10-11-2023 10:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

This.

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

Totally agree with your assessment of Tanq.

I picked up on his fantasy land idea that our top Government is even handed some time ago. I’ve even beat him over the head repeatedly with remove Trump insert another name and see if it passes the smell test. His make believe world and of course hatred of Trump allows him to spew legalese in defense of something everyone with eyes can see is dirty. Unless you are in the GET TRUMP camp. Tang really must wear rose colored glasses and suffers from blind eye syndrome when it comes to administering the law.

He has a LET THEM EAT CAKE Marie Antoinette attitude towards others as he pearl clutches his interpretation of the law.

I have lawyers as friends but none rival Tanq in the legal system is the Gold Standard. All have told me laws are written in ways that there are another set of books to try to decipher their meaning. In other words how I see fit.

That is why there are higher courts. It’s a sad pathetic joke and our country would be better off if half of the attorneys in this country were disbarred and none were allowed to serve in DC.

Lawyers (Bureaucrats) place grievous burdens on people that ought not be and yet not on themselves. Sound familiar LUKE

A dose of common sense and a reality check would do Tanq a world of good. Oh yeah, high minded stubborn Azz Mule attitude doesn’t do much for him either.

Laymen interpretation

DSM interpretation is another novel in itself

(10-11-2023 10:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 10:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

This.

I clicked on this thread again to see if there was any news. I blame myself. I should know better.

(10-11-2023 12:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I clicked on this thread again to see if there was any news. I blame myself. I should know better.

Yea.. Basically now everyone has their pants around their ankles and see how they measure up.

(10-11-2023 12:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I clicked on this thread again to see if there was any news. I blame myself. I should know better.

Why? The trial is currently ongoing. There should be some reporting on it you can easily find via your trusted search engine.

Tanq has provided some updates on what is currently going on here recently as well. But that probably didn't stick out as he tends to have some long posts.

(10-11-2023 12:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I clicked on this thread again to see if there was any news. I blame myself. I should know better.

In short, no. LeTanq, LeTit, and LeJudge all still believe Maralargo is only worth $25million.

(10-11-2023 02:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 12:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I clicked on this thread again to see if there was any news. I blame myself. I should know better.

In short, no. LeTanq, LeTit, and LeJudge all still believe Maralargo is only worth $25million.

Keep harping, falsely, on that one detail which is likely the tiniest part of the equation. It's what you do after all.

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

It’s very hard to convince someone to accept something they know is a lie. These cases are only being brought by politically motivated democrats. In areas and with judges where they know they have a favorable chance of winning however absurd the charges are. Not to mention the outrageous penalties they desire to saddle the Trump organization with. This Tanq character knows this because the most outrageous one is obviously garbage that not even he can risk going all in on. This particular case he is obsessed with is purely opinion. And any sane person knows who possesses the most accurate opinion and it sure as hell isn’t this fruitcake judge or this corrupt politician AG. Trump has not injured any lender nor run a criminal real estate company. Or has he injured the Sate of New York. The only entity he has injured is the democrats….. and the weak woke that can’t handle someone who will fight back.

I hear no one forgot to check a box for a jury trial. Didn't someone tell us they forgot to check that box for a jury trial?

a government employee and a "lawyer"

(10-11-2023 03:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I hear no one forgot to check a box for a jury trial. Didn't someone tell us they forgot to check that box for a jury trial?

Quote:"The AG checked off non-jury, and there was no motion for a jury," Engoron said about the process in Trump's case -- but he added that if a motion for a jury trial had been filed, he would have rejected it because the attorney general asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

Kind of exactly what I posted -- she could have checked the box, she could have argued for the jury.

But somehow her client thought there would be a jury, which is the first problem.