(10-12-2023 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  NEW UPDATE FROM JUDGE: ENGORON ADMITS HE WAS WRONG

Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims. Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comments of “nobody asked for” a jury trial on Wednesday following the false reports, arguing the claim “keeps coming up”. He explained that New York Attorney General Letitia James “clearly checked off non-jury” before the proceedings began.



https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/12/...its-judge/

Like I said, keep this thread at the top.

(10-12-2023 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I love that the 'defense' to a politically targeted legal system is to 'not run afoul of the laws they wrote that allow them to target political opponents anyone who engages in persistent fraud'.


With that logic, if black people don't want to get shot by racist cops, then need to not have malfunctioning tail lights.

Fixed your a priori rhetoric for you Ham.

Speaking of logic (and rhetoric), maybe you should educate us on *who* wrote the particular fraud laws in play, and the history of *how* they were written to target "political opponents". Or is that just an example of exaggerative lip flapping?

As to the second comment -- try this more realistic one one:

"if fraudsters dont want to get their fing business licenses pulled, or be subject to disgorgement fines, they need not pursue persistent fraud in their business dealing."

I guess you think fraud is a speeding ticket, and prosecutors are racist cops. Got it.

I think that second restatement is tad more realistic than your not-so-on point rant in the second part of your post. Cmon Ham, you are *much* better than that exceedingly shoddy example of cheesy rhetoric you put out there.

I'm not really interested in continuing to engage with bull-headed people... but I will point out a few things.... where you can't argue with what I say so you reword it and then argue with that.

Its pointless to argue with a stupidly bad analogy. And a stretch of fact on top of it.

I am rewording it to be factually correct, and not shallow ass rhteoric. Given the 'who wrote' language you employ -- arguably false even.

You are pissy that I reworded it -- got it. Here is the issue without the rewording -- your comment is one of the most rhetorically stupid comments I have read in a ling time. Feel better?

Quote:1) they didn't target ANYONE who engages in fraud.

As I told you before -- call Judge Engoron and tell him that. Seems there is an opinion to the contrary that cuts straight against your rather ignorant false comment.

You jumping up and down flapping your arms and fuming doesnt change the above.

Or just make fatuously false comments as quoted directly above.

I gave

Quote: That's demonstrably false. They targeted their political opponent. The AG ran specifically on that platform... and you just ignore it...

Nope. Had she come to the table with thin soup -- I would be in your camp. I am not going to blind myself to the facts presented.

It is one thing to say 'I am going to go after Trump', and lay in with thin stretches like Bragg. It is another to develop the testimony from the CFO, controller, and bank partners of Trump as to the underlying charge.

Bummer that Trump apparently pulled this stuff -- but he did those actions all on his lonesome. Big difference to me between 'ginning up a case to come through on a campaign line' and 'developing a case strong enough for summary judgement that comes through on a campaign line'.

Sorry you are pissed that Trump lied through his fing teeth on his financials prior to L. James ever being around. Kind of funny to watch though.

Quote:2) Doesn't matter who wrote the law.

Funny, you said just the opposite in your original rant.

Quote:What matters is whether or not the people currently executing it are doing so in good faith or not... just like the racist cop. It doesn't matter who wrote the law about tail-lights... what matters to a just society is if the cop is looking for 'anyone' who has malfunctioning tail-lights, or just black people

As I said -- too fing bad that Trump had the stuff in his closet that James not only could make a case out of, but got a summary judgement on.

If Trump didnt have that stuff in his closet, I would be in the same boat with you. But, well........ that isnt the case. I take it you havent bothered with the tesimony of the CFO, the controller, and the banks inthe last few days. Neat stuff there, and great fodder for the remaining counts of fraud.

But Ill just let you fret and fume with half assed analogies, and maybe 1/4 facts -- you excel at that.

Quote:The thing about making up your own versions of what other people say or think and arguing with that is that it is like shadow boxing. Your opponent is masterfully skilled, knowing every response to every movement you make, able to protect himself from your most vicious attacks, and yet somehow you are always able to easily defeat them and feel good about yourself. But that's not reality.

What did I make up, Ham? You said 'those who wrote this to go after their political opponents', di you not? It sounds *great* rhetorically, but just a tad of classical logic makes it really stupid.

Quote:The racist cop: Tail light analogy is spot on. Note that I never said he didn't have a broken tail-light. I just said he was specifically targeted because of his race... and the tail light was just the 'reason' that he found to do what he intended to do anyway.

Damn, I know a place that was targeted because they were drug sellers. And funnily, they were charged with drug selling. That is *so* bad. So unjust. Lolz.

Get back to your empty rants, Ham.

(10-12-2023 04:22 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:27 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I love that the 'defense' to a politically targeted legal system is to 'not run afoul of the laws they wrote that allow them to target political opponents'.


With that logic, if black people don't want to get shot by racist cops, then need to not have malfunctioning tail lights.

Good point.

Stretching that analogy a bit further, it is the legal equivalent of the burka approach - - i.e., Arab men cannot possibly be expected to control themselves around women. So it is incumbent on women to cloak themselves entirely - - or else they will be responsible for what may happen.

How terrible it is that fraud laws are used when the subject is fraud.

The horror.

How unjust.

Gotcha.

How terrible is it that women be expected to cloak themselves in public? It is just the laws of Sharia being used.

How terrible is it that Uigher slaves be expected to make shoes for their Chicom masters? It is just the laws of Red China being used.

How terrible is it that Palestinians feel a need to brutally attack Israeli innocents? It is just the mission statement of the elected government being used.

. . . . .

For someone who professes to have a high respect for the "law", tanq., you seem to have some pretty loose standards when it comes to for politically targeted prosecutions. The New York AG literally ran on a promise to bring a take down a specific individual. For me, that does start to a approach an "unjust" "horror".

Does it not bother you even a little? Or is it okay because the laws are just being "used"?

If the case being developed didnt indicate fraud, Id be in your camp.

Seems to me she ran on it, found a truck load of supporting **** in Trump's closet, then made good on a campaign promise.

As an example -- I dont have an issue with a precinct that 'targets' a person they thing is a drug seller. If they investigate and find drugs, I have zero issue with those sellers being charged.

If they investigate, and dont find stuff, and charge anyway -- that is a terrible thing to do.

She investigated. She found some good stuff. She charged. Boo fing hoo.

Not only did she make charge on multiple counts, she got a summary judgement on one. And they all survived at least two motions to dismiss at various stages, they pretty much survived Trumps own summary judgement.

And in that process two counts were tossed, and all the counts were amended to remove Ivanka as a defendant for legal reasons.

Yep, real slipshod.

(10-12-2023 04:31 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  NEW UPDATE FROM JUDGE: ENGORON ADMITS HE WAS WRONG

Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims. Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comments of “nobody asked for” a jury trial on Wednesday following the false reports, arguing the claim “keeps coming up”. He explained that New York Attorney General Letitia James “clearly checked off non-jury” before the proceedings began.



https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/12/...its-judge/

Like I said, keep this thread at the top.

He also said that he didnt say Maralargo was only worth $18million, despite the $18-$36million valuation being in his ruling. He'll probably want to go back and edit those comments out as well.

(10-12-2023 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  NEW UPDATE FROM JUDGE: ENGORON ADMITS HE WAS WRONG

Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims. Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comments of “nobody asked for” a jury trial on Wednesday following the false reports, arguing the claim “keeps coming up”. He explained that New York Attorney General Letitia James “clearly checked off non-jury” before the proceedings began.



https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/12/...its-judge/

The AG checking the 'no jury' box isnt the end of it as you seemingly make it to be above.

Only one party needs to 'check the jury box' for a jury trial to be considered. And Allina could have 'checked the jury box', and could have made a motion for it if the judge tossed it. And then nothing prevented her from arguing that motion.

The fact that there was no jury at the outset absolutely means that both sides *chose* non-jury. In that case, either Trump specifically chose to agree to a bench trial, or Habba never talked to her client about it and chose that route herself.

(10-12-2023 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:22 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:27 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I love that the 'defense' to a politically targeted legal system is to 'not run afoul of the laws they wrote that allow them to target political opponents'.


With that logic, if black people don't want to get shot by racist cops, then need to not have malfunctioning tail lights.

Good point.

Stretching that analogy a bit further, it is the legal equivalent of the burka approach - - i.e., Arab men cannot possibly be expected to control themselves around women. So it is incumbent on women to cloak themselves entirely - - or else they will be responsible for what may happen.

How terrible it is that fraud laws are used when the subject is fraud.

The horror.

How unjust.

Gotcha.

How terrible is it that women be expected to cloak themselves in public? It is just the laws of Sharia being used.

How terrible is it that Uigher slaves be expected to make shoes for their Chicom masters? It is just the laws of Red China being used.

How terrible is it that Palestinians feel a need to brutally attack Israeli innocents? It is just the mission statement of the elected government being used.

. . . . .

For someone who professes to have a high respect for the "law", tanq., you seem to have some pretty loose standards when it comes to for politically targeted prosecutions. The New York AG literally ran on a promise to bring a take down a specific individual. For me, that does start to a approach an "unjust" "horror".

Does it not bother you even a little? Or is it okay because the laws are just being "used"?

If the case being developed didnt indicate fraud, Id be in your camp.

Seems to me she ran on it, found a truck load of supporting **** in Trump's closet, then made good on a campaign promise.

As an example -- I dont have an issue with a precinct that 'targets' a person they thing is a drug seller. If they investigate and find drugs, I have zero issue with those sellers being charged.

If they investigate, and dont find stuff, and charge anyway -- that is a terrible thing to do.

She investigated. She found some good stuff. She charged. Boo fing hoo. Not only did she make charge on multiple counts, she got a summary judgement on one. And they all survived at least two motions to dismiss at various stages, they pretty much survived Trumps own summary judgement.

And in that process two counts were tossed, and all the counts were amended to remove Ivanka as a defendant for legal reasons.

Yep, real slipshod.

Your comments have Police State attitude from what I'm reading. "If the case being developed didnt indicate fraud"
She had no Case to start with all she had was his name.

"'targets' a person they thing(k) is a drug seller." Wow they think someone is breaking the law so let open up an investigation. You know LE have all this extra time on their hands.

The other day someone asked you a question if you believed this was politically motivated. You said you didn't know. But today you come out with this statement. I bet you're hell on the dance floor.

Seems to me she ran on it then made good on a campaign promise.

(10-12-2023 05:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  NEW UPDATE FROM JUDGE: ENGORON ADMITS HE WAS WRONG

Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims. Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comments of “nobody asked for” a jury trial on Wednesday following the false reports, arguing the claim “keeps coming up”. He explained that New York Attorney General Letitia James “clearly checked off non-jury” before the proceedings began.



https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/12/...its-judge/

The AG checking the 'no jury' box isnt the end of it as you seemingly make it to be above.

Correct. The end of it was the judge finally had to own up to his blatant mistake and removed it from the record. Because until he had done that, stupid moronic numbnuts kept making mention that Trump's attorney didnt check the box.

(10-12-2023 06:40 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:22 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:27 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Good point.

Stretching that analogy a bit further, it is the legal equivalent of the burka approach - - i.e., Arab men cannot possibly be expected to control themselves around women. So it is incumbent on women to cloak themselves entirely - - or else they will be responsible for what may happen.

How terrible it is that fraud laws are used when the subject is fraud.

The horror.

How unjust.

Gotcha.

How terrible is it that women be expected to cloak themselves in public? It is just the laws of Sharia being used.

How terrible is it that Uigher slaves be expected to make shoes for their Chicom masters? It is just the laws of Red China being used.

How terrible is it that Palestinians feel a need to brutally attack Israeli innocents? It is just the mission statement of the elected government being used.

. . . . .

For someone who professes to have a high respect for the "law", tanq., you seem to have some pretty loose standards when it comes to for politically targeted prosecutions. The New York AG literally ran on a promise to bring a take down a specific individual. For me, that does start to a approach an "unjust" "horror".

Does it not bother you even a little? Or is it okay because the laws are just being "used"?

If the case being developed didnt indicate fraud, Id be in your camp.

Seems to me she ran on it, found a truck load of supporting **** in Trump's closet, then made good on a campaign promise.

As an example -- I dont have an issue with a precinct that 'targets' a person they thing is a drug seller. If they investigate and find drugs, I have zero issue with those sellers being charged.

If they investigate, and dont find stuff, and charge anyway -- that is a terrible thing to do.

She investigated. She found some good stuff. She charged. Boo fing hoo. Not only did she make charge on multiple counts, she got a summary judgement on one. And they all survived at least two motions to dismiss at various stages, they pretty much survived Trumps own summary judgement.

And in that process two counts were tossed, and all the counts were amended to remove Ivanka as a defendant for legal reasons.

Yep, real slipshod.

Your comments have Police State attitude from what I'm reading. "If the case being developed didnt indicate fraud"
She had no Case to start with all she had was his name.

"'targets' a person they thing(k) is a drug seller." Wow they think someone is breaking the law so let open up an investigation. You know LE have all this extra time on their hands.

The other day someone asked you a question if you believed this was politically motivated. You said you didn't know. But today you come out with this statement. I bet you're hell on the dance floor.

Seems to me she ran on it then made good on a campaign promise.

The timeline might tell something different.

James made the comments of 'looking into' Trumps real estate holdings in Sept 2018. She also made comments in that same timeframe abut believing Trump had obstructed justice.

What also happened in April 2018 is when Trump backed the bus over Michael Cohen. And May-June 2018 is when Cohen pretty much turned state's witness against Trump. In fact James specifically noted the 'obstruction' comments were aimed at the Trump - Cohen - Stormy issue.

In fact, most of Trump's NY state woes come *directly* from Cohen information -- the Trump organization felony conviction (and CFO Weisselberg's as well) on fraud charges, Bragg's background for the NY DA indictments, and this civil lawsuit.

I would hazard a guess that James had a heckuva set of information from Cohen dealing with Trump at that particular time. Up to and including direct information on the present issues re: the fraud civil case. In fact Cohen personally relates on his podcast his communications with the NY AG in 2018.

Did you forget that Trump backed the bus over Cohen and Cohen sang like a bird to the NY AG, the NY City DA, and the SDNY US Attorney at that point in time?

I think there is plenty out there to denote that James may not have simply 'announced' her view on potentially looking at Trump simply in a vacuum. And there is plenty to indicate a whole storm of stuff specifically in NY in the 2018 timeframe swirling around Trump and his NY dealings at that point in time.

Or simply look to the at least two state investigations in early 2018 relating to Trump and: a) tax fraud; and b) fraud around the potential misuse of the Donald Trump Foundation 'charity'. And I specifically put sarcastic air quotes around 'charity' there.

(10-12-2023 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:34 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 01:16 PM)450bench Wrote:  Another ridiculous post.

This woman, the prosecutor, has been videotaped at least a dozen times over the last 3 years, talking about how she will “get Trump” “throw him in jail,” calls him “an illegitimate President” etc. etc. she used those threats to even run for governor.

This case has no chance of legitimately sticking on the basis of facts but throw in the provable bias of the prosecutor and it’s really over.

Maybe you should call up Judge Engoron and tell him your conclusions.

Or, should I send you the number of the NY First Appellate Division, so you can call them up and tell them that you have already decided for them. Im sure they will hop right on it when Muscle Man tells them what is going on.

As for videotapes of AGs stating things about how they hope to clean up stuff, Im sure the history is replete with that as well.

Again, if trump can put on evidence that the **** that his own CFO, his own controller, and his own long term banking partner testified to were wholly untruthful and wholly unreliable -- I'll join you in your 'she said she was gonna do stuff' crusade.

Looks like a week into this there is a lot behind that door she opened, though.

But please scream and jump up and down without ever bothering with the testimony and evidence *at trial*. Not that I expect that scintilla or rational thought from you in the first place.

Hypocrite on, ambulance boy. This case has no chance, now or in any appellate court.

Just like all the rest of the stuff you clowns have thrown against the wall, trying to convince yourselves “yeah, we got him now.”

Losers.

(212) 340-0400
https://www.nycourts.gov/Courts/AD1/Cour...ions.shtml
Contact info for the First appellate Division, New York.
Contact them and tell them of your new found discoveries, muscle man.

Im sure they will find your ranting here persuasive.

And I suggest you actually read my comments, instead of 'rant/slobber'. Trump has every opportunity to confront the evidence here. I'll wait until he does before having an opinion on *his* liability or not.

Jeezus Krist. Does it take a mention of 'roids or ripped male anatomy to actually make you read something and comprehend it?

At the front of it, there seems to be lot there about potential fraud. But maybe not to tards who really dont bother to read anything about it except the things they pull garble down their gullet as they read their favorite blog posts.

In the meantime, why dont you contact the NY courts above and let them know youve solved it for them.

I guess it’s only ok for you to have an opinion. Apparently I can’t voice mine, according to you.

Another reason you truly define narcissism.

Anybody with a semblance of intelligence can see the flaws, that should be criminal in and of themselves, in the prosecution of this total fabrication of a case.

If this goes to a higher court in the appeal process, the prosecution will be disbarred and possibly the judge.

(10-12-2023 08:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:34 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 01:16 PM)450bench Wrote:  Another ridiculous post.

This woman, the prosecutor, has been videotaped at least a dozen times over the last 3 years, talking about how she will “get Trump” “throw him in jail,” calls him “an illegitimate President” etc. etc. she used those threats to even run for governor.

This case has no chance of legitimately sticking on the basis of facts but throw in the provable bias of the prosecutor and it’s really over.

Maybe you should call up Judge Engoron and tell him your conclusions.

Or, should I send you the number of the NY First Appellate Division, so you can call them up and tell them that you have already decided for them. Im sure they will hop right on it when Muscle Man tells them what is going on.

As for videotapes of AGs stating things about how they hope to clean up stuff, Im sure the history is replete with that as well.

Again, if trump can put on evidence that the **** that his own CFO, his own controller, and his own long term banking partner testified to were wholly untruthful and wholly unreliable -- I'll join you in your 'she said she was gonna do stuff' crusade.

Looks like a week into this there is a lot behind that door she opened, though.

But please scream and jump up and down without ever bothering with the testimony and evidence *at trial*. Not that I expect that scintilla or rational thought from you in the first place.

Hypocrite on, ambulance boy. This case has no chance, now or in any appellate court.

Just like all the rest of the stuff you clowns have thrown against the wall, trying to convince yourselves “yeah, we got him now.”

Losers.

(212) 340-0400
https://www.nycourts.gov/Courts/AD1/Cour...ions.shtml
Contact info for the First appellate Division, New York.
Contact them and tell them of your new found discoveries, muscle man.

Im sure they will find your ranting here persuasive.

And I suggest you actually read my comments, instead of 'rant/slobber'. Trump has every opportunity to confront the evidence here. I'll wait until he does before having an opinion on *his* liability or not.

Jeezus Krist. Does it take a mention of 'roids or ripped male anatomy to actually make you read something and comprehend it?

At the front of it, there seems to be lot there about potential fraud. But maybe not to tards who really dont bother to read anything about it except the things they pull garble down their gullet as they read their favorite blog posts.

In the meantime, why dont you contact the NY courts above and let them know youve solved it for them.

I guess it’s only ok for you to have an opinion. Apparently I can’t voice mine, according to you.

Another reason you truly define narcissism.

Anybody with a semblance of intelligence can see the flaws, that should be criminal in and of themselves, in the prosecution of this total fabrication of a case.

If this goes to a higher court in the appeal process, the prosecution will be disbarred and possibly the judge.

'total fabrication of a case' -- welllllll...... there is at least three summary judgement opinions that disagree with that, and 4 motions to dismiss.

So lets weigh that ---

on one side you have survival of 7 effective 'get rid of the things', and one 'its so on point we dont need to try this and can decide this on the facts on one side, by a 20 year judge, who also served 3 years on the appellate bench ---

and on the other we have '450benchPressGuy' flexing his biceps, and yelling at the top of his lungs "total fabrication of a case', 'no chance', and repeats 'no chance'.

Which one do *you* think has a bit more behind it? Seeking your opinion of course..... (I'll take it you didnt call Judge Engoron... maybe you should....)

(10-12-2023 03:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I love that the 'defense' to a politically targeted legal system is to 'not run afoul of the laws they wrote that allow them to target political opponents anyone who engages in persistent fraud'.


With that logic, if black people don't want to get shot by racist cops, then need to not have malfunctioning tail lights.

Fixed your a priori rhetoric for you Ham.

Speaking of logic (and rhetoric), maybe you should educate us on *who* wrote the particular fraud laws in play, and the history of *how* they were written to target "political opponents".

As to the second comment -- try this more realistic one one:

"if fraudsters dont want to get their business licenses pulled, or be subject to disgorgement fines, they need not pursue persistent fraud in their business dealing."

Please continue with paper thin rhetoric though.

News to me. I didn’t know he had been found guilty of “persistent fraud”. However it is probably a foregone conclusion with this so called judge.

Someone is deeply invested in this scherade. Why? I don’t know but probably someone got their feelings hurt somewhere along the way. Or maybe someone just has to prove to everyone he is the smartest guy in the room.

(10-12-2023 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:27 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I love that the 'defense' to a politically targeted legal system is to 'not run afoul of the laws they wrote that allow them to target political opponents'.


With that logic, if black people don't want to get shot by racist cops, then need to not have malfunctioning tail lights.

Good point.

Stretching that analogy a bit further, it is the legal equivalent of the burka approach - - i.e., Arab men cannot possibly be expected to control themselves around women. So it is incumbent on women to cloak themselves entirely - - or else they will be responsible for what may happen.

How terrible it is that fraud laws are used when the subject is fraud.

The horror.

How unjust.

Since when has a difference in opinion been fraud?
Since this corrupt political prosecutor decided it was.

(10-12-2023 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 03:34 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 01:16 PM)450bench Wrote:  Another ridiculous post.

This woman, the prosecutor, has been videotaped at least a dozen times over the last 3 years, talking about how she will “get Trump” “throw him in jail,” calls him “an illegitimate President” etc. etc. she used those threats to even run for governor.

This case has no chance of legitimately sticking on the basis of facts but throw in the provable bias of the prosecutor and it’s really over.

Maybe you should call up Judge Engoron and tell him your conclusions.

Or, should I send you the number of the NY First Appellate Division, so you can call them up and tell them that you have already decided for them. Im sure they will hop right on it when Muscle Man tells them what is going on.

As for videotapes of AGs stating things about how they hope to clean up stuff, Im sure the history is replete with that as well.

Again, if trump can put on evidence that the **** that his own CFO, his own controller, and his own long term banking partner testified to were wholly untruthful and wholly unreliable -- I'll join you in your 'she said she was gonna do stuff' crusade.

Looks like a week into this there is a lot behind that door she opened, though.

But please scream and jump up and down without ever bothering with the testimony and evidence *at trial*. Not that I expect that scintilla or rational thought from you in the first place.

Hypocrite on, ambulance boy. This case has no chance, now or in any appellate court.

Just like all the rest of the stuff you clowns have thrown against the wall, trying to convince yourselves “yeah, we got him now.”

Losers.

(212) 340-0400
https://www.nycourts.gov/Courts/AD1/Cour...ions.shtml
Contact info for the First appellate Division, New York.
Contact them and tell them of your new found discoveries, muscle man.

Im sure they will find your ranting here persuasive.

And I suggest you actually read my comments, instead of 'rant/slobber'. Trump has every opportunity to confront the evidence here. I'll wait until he does before having an opinion on *his* liability or not.

Jeezus Krist. Does it take a mention of 'roids or ripped male anatomy to actually make you read something and comprehend it?

At the front of it, there seems to be lot there about potential fraud. But maybe not to tards who really dont bother to read anything about it except the things they pull garble down their gullet as they read their favorite blog posts.

In the meantime, why dont you contact the NY courts above and let them know youve solved it for them.

Now that rant was grade school caliber for sure. Nicely done, Clarence.

(10-12-2023 05:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  NEW UPDATE FROM JUDGE: ENGORON ADMITS HE WAS WRONG

Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims. Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comments of “nobody asked for” a jury trial on Wednesday following the false reports, arguing the claim “keeps coming up”. He explained that New York Attorney General Letitia James “clearly checked off non-jury” before the proceedings began.



https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/12/...its-judge/

The AG checking the 'no jury' box isnt the end of it as you seemingly make it to be above.

Only one party needs to 'check the jury box' for a jury trial to be considered. And Allina could have 'checked the jury box', and could have made a motion for it if the judge tossed it. And then nothing prevented her from arguing that motion.

The fact that there was no jury at the outset absolutely means that both sides *chose* non-jury. In that case, either Trump specifically chose to agree to a bench trial, or Habba never talked to her client about it and chose that route herself.

Bummer. Keep digging.

(10-12-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its pointless to argue with a stupidly bad analogy. And a stretch of fact on top of it.

The only person who thinks its a bad analogy is you, because it lays bare 'our' side and that doesn't work for you... so you have to change it.

Quote:I am rewording it to be factually correct, and not shallow ass rhteoric. Given the 'who wrote' language you employ -- arguably false even.

I'm going to do you a solid and save you from saying something I'm sure you would regret.

It is NOT factually correct that a racist cop who targets black people for enforcement is somehow justified in doing so by the 'guilt' of the black people.

Quote:Here is the issue without the rewording -- your comment is one of the most rhetorically stupid comments I have read in a ling time. Feel better?

Lol... a tough guy with a keyboard. Bring it.

Quote:1) they didn't target ANYONE who engages in fraud.

As I told you before -- call Judge Engoron and tell him that. [/quote]

Why don't you go and suck his dick since you think he's so amazing? I mean, that's about as pertinent a suggestion.

Quote:Nope. Had she come to the table with thin soup -- I would be in your camp. I am not going to blind myself to the facts presented.

Gotcha... It's okay to engage in political attacks or racism as long as they are actually breaking the law. As I've repeatedly said... I never GET to the facts of the case, because all that matters to me is that the 'system' is corrupt.

Quote:2) Doesn't matter who wrote the law.

Funny, you said just the opposite in your original rant.
[/quote]

Oh my god. You're really making yourself look like an idiot.

They (the AG and judge) did not write the law... 'they' the legislature did... but 'they' the government, of which the legislature, AG and judge are all a part are all servants of 'we' the people.

I'm embarrassed for you that you are so intent on being 'right' that you're okay with looking like a moron.

Quote:What matters is whether or not the people currently executing it are doing so in good faith or not... just like the racist cop. It doesn't matter who wrote the law about tail-lights... what matters to a just society is if the cop is looking for 'anyone' who has malfunctioning tail-lights, or just black people

As I said -- too fing bad that Trump had the stuff in his closet that James not only could make a case out of, but got a summary judgement on.

[/quote]

As usual, you ignore what I say and stick to your talking points.

Hint.. a racist cop executing a valid warrant on someone breaking the law on occassion causes that criminal to walk free because of their application of the law. Same concept... and you just ignore it.

Quote:If Trump didnt have that stuff in his closet, I would be in the same boat with you.

No you wouldn't... because I have never once argued that Trump was innocent. Not once. I've never gotten to that part because IMO, the judge and AG have acted inappropriately.

Quote:What did I make up, Ham? You said 'those who wrote this to go after their political opponents', di you not? It sounds *great* rhetorically, but just a tad of classical logic makes it really stupid.

You do not make a complete quote here and that doesn't say anything I mean, so I suspect I did NOT write what you accuse me of here.

They, the government or as I said, the legal system has numerous parts of which the AG and Judge are only a part... but 'they' the government wrote a law that 'they' the government are enforcing, prosecuting and adjudicating. Only to a complete idiot must that 'they' be the same identical people.

Quote:Damn, I know a place that was targeted because they were drug sellers. And funnily, they were charged with drug selling. That is *so* bad. So unjust. Lolz.

Okay... you did this to yourself...

Let the forum be on notice that Tanq just compared 'being black' to 'being drug sellers'.

Seriously Tanq, step back from the crack pipe before you say something that you can't step back from. Being black is not a crime so targeting someone because they are black is not AT ALL the same thing as targeting them because they are drug dealers.

Quote:How terrible is it that women be expected to cloak themselves in public? It is just the laws of Sharia being used.

How terrible is it that Uigher slaves be expected to make shoes for their Chicom masters? It is just the laws of Red China being used.

How terrible is it that Palestinians feel a need to brutally attack Israeli innocents? It is just the mission statement of the elected government being used.

. . . . .

For someone who professes to have a high respect for the "law", tanq., you seem to have some pretty loose standards when it comes to for politically targeted prosecutions. The New York AG literally ran on a promise to bring a take down a specific individual. For me, that does start to a approach an "unjust" "horror".

Does it not bother you even a little? Or is it okay because the laws are just being "used"?

He's okay with it because the target is Trump... and that apparently the AG (before she was AG) was able to adjudicate Trump's guilt without the need for an investigation, judge OR jury.

(10-12-2023 09:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its pointless to argue with a stupidly bad analogy. And a stretch of fact on top of it.

The only person who thinks its a bad analogy is you, because it lays bare 'our' side and that doesn't work for you... so you have to change it.

Quote:I am rewording it to be factually correct, and not shallow ass rhteoric. Given the 'who wrote' language you employ -- arguably false even.

I'm going to do you a solid and save you from saying something I'm sure you would regret.

It is NOT factually correct that a racist cop who targets black people for enforcement is somehow justified in doing so by the 'guilt' of the black people.

Quote:Here is the issue without the rewording -- your comment is one of the most rhetorically stupid comments I have read in a ling time. Feel better?

Lol... a tough guy with a keyboard. Bring it.

Quote:1) they didn't target ANYONE who engages in fraud.

As I told you before -- call Judge Engoron and tell him that.

Why don't you go and suck his dick since you think he's so amazing? I mean, that's about as pertinent a suggestion.

Quote:Nope. Had she come to the table with thin soup -- I would be in your camp. I am not going to blind myself to the facts presented.

Gotcha... It's okay to engage in political attacks or racism as long as they are actually breaking the law. As I've repeatedly said... I never GET to the facts of the case, because all that matters to me is that the 'system' is corrupt.

Quote:2) Doesn't matter who wrote the law.

Funny, you said just the opposite in your original rant.
[/quote]

Oh my god. You're really making yourself look like an idiot.

They (the AG and judge) did not write the law... 'they' the legislature did... but 'they' the government, of which the legislature, AG and judge are all a part are all servants of 'we' the people.

I'm embarrassed for you that you are so intent on being 'right' that you're okay with looking like a moron.

Quote:What matters is whether or not the people currently executing it are doing so in good faith or not... just like the racist cop. It doesn't matter who wrote the law about tail-lights... what matters to a just society is if the cop is looking for 'anyone' who has malfunctioning tail-lights, or just black people

As I said -- too fing bad that Trump had the stuff in his closet that James not only could make a case out of, but got a summary judgement on.

[/quote]

As usual, you ignore what I say and stick to your talking points.

Hint.. a racist cop executing a valid warrant on someone breaking the law on occassion causes that criminal to walk free because of their application of the law. Same concept... and you just ignore it.

Quote:If Trump didnt have that stuff in his closet, I would be in the same boat with you.

No you wouldn't... because I have never once argued that Trump was innocent. Not once. I've never gotten to that part because IMO, the judge and AG have acted inappropriately.

Quote:What did I make up, Ham? You said 'those who wrote this to go after their political opponents', di you not? It sounds *great* rhetorically, but just a tad of classical logic makes it really stupid.

You do not make a complete quote here and that doesn't say anything I mean, so I suspect I did NOT write what you accuse me of here.

They, the government or as I said, the legal system has numerous parts of which the AG and Judge are only a part... but 'they' the government wrote a law that 'they' the government are enforcing, prosecuting and adjudicating. Only to a complete idiot must that 'they' be the same identical people.

Quote:Damn, I know a place that was targeted because they were drug sellers. And funnily, they were charged with drug selling. That is *so* bad. So unjust. Lolz.

Okay... you did this to yourself...

Let the forum be on notice that Tanq just compared 'being black' to 'being drug sellers'.

Seriously Tanq, step back from the crack pipe before you say something that you can't step back from. Being black is not a crime so targeting someone because they are black is not AT ALL the same thing as targeting them because they are drug dealers.

Quote:How terrible is it that women be expected to cloak themselves in public? It is just the laws of Sharia being used.

How terrible is it that Uigher slaves be expected to make shoes for their Chicom masters? It is just the laws of Red China being used.

How terrible is it that Palestinians feel a need to brutally attack Israeli innocents? It is just the mission statement of the elected government being used.

. . . . .

For someone who professes to have a high respect for the "law", tanq., you seem to have some pretty loose standards when it comes to for politically targeted prosecutions. The New York AG literally ran on a promise to bring a take down a specific individual. For me, that does start to a approach an "unjust" "horror".

Does it not bother you even a little? Or is it okay because the laws are just being "used"?

He's okay with it because the target is Trump... and that apparently the AG (before she was AG) was able to adjudicate Trump's guilt without the need for an investigation, judge OR jury.
[/quote]

But when she does we got this judge. Just coincidence I’m sure.

The guy’s a punch line at parties.

His TDS has made him unable to see the forest for the trees.

To hang your hat on this judge and this prosecutor illustrates just that.

No jury either? Lolololol…what the state, via these two buffoons, is trying to do to Trump is criminal and their careers will be over if/when an appellate court gets the case.

(10-12-2023 09:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its pointless to argue with a stupidly bad analogy. And a stretch of fact on top of it.

The only person who thinks its a bad analogy is you, because it lays bare 'our' side and that doesn't work for you... so you have to change it. [

Quote:I am rewording it to be factually correct, and not shallow ass rhteoric. Given the 'who wrote' language you employ -- arguably false even.

I'm going to do you a solid and save you from saying something I'm sure you would regret.

It is NOT factually correct that a racist cop who targets black people for enforcement is somehow justified in doing so by the 'guilt' of the black people.

Maybe read -- my comment was the 'arguabley false' referred to your comment on 'who wrote'

Im not making a comment on what you are jumping up and down with above.

Quote:

Quote:Here is the issue without the rewording -- your comment is one of the most rhetorically stupid comments I have read in a ling time. Feel better?

Lol... a tough guy with a keyboard. Bring it.

Changing a civil fraud prosecution of a person who seemingly has performed acts of fraud to a comment on cops pulling over blacks is simply stupid, Ham.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:1) they didn't target ANYONE who engages in fraud.

As I told you before -- call Judge Engoron and tell him that.

Why don't you go and suck his dick since you think he's so amazing? I mean, that's about as pertinent a suggestion.

Im noting that that judge knows just a little fing more than Ham in the respect of whom might be engaged in NY 63(12) fraud.

But please get so mad at that note that, compared to a jurist of 20+ years, that you probably dont know **** from shinola over your conclusory statement above about the case in front of him.

Im sorry that I noted those very small differences. Enough to get a 'suck his dick' from you. Bravo. I guess your ego doesnt like the singular fact of that. Bummer.

You: broad ill based conclusory statement.
Me: maybe you should tell the guy having 20 years intricate experience with the subject who just dealt with the issue
You: why don’t you go suck his dick….

Did I get that sequence correct Ham? Lolz. Quite the display there…..

Quote:

Quote:Nope. Had she come to the table with thin soup -- I would be in your camp. I am not going to blind myself to the facts presented.

Gotcha... It's okay to engage in political attacks or racism as long as they are actually breaking the law.

Racism? Nice job pulling **** out of the air now. Lol. What other random **** are you you going to run with next?

And the answer to your comment above is that it is *great* false premise. Bravo again. And not anything near of what I said.

From my perspective, it looks like James said 'I will investigate Trump" -- mainly because Michael Cohen was singing like a soprano to every LE in NY at that time. She seemingly *did* investigate -- and seemingly found a whole trove of stuff. Imagine that.

If she laid into Trump with the thin stuff that Bragg did, Id be singing your tune. She really didnt. I dont know how you can pull what you just noted out of the above -- but you did. Imagine that. And racism to boot. Lol.

Quote:As I've repeatedly said... I never GET to the facts of the case, because all that matters to me is that the 'system' is corrupt.

Glad to know you are willingly ignorant of the facts then. Seems about right considering the gist of many of our recent conversations.

Noce to know you dont give a **** about the facts. Yay. (I guess).

Quote:

Quote:2) Doesn't matter who wrote the law.

Funny, you said just the opposite in your original rant.

Oh my god. You're really making yourself look like an idiot.

They (the AG and judge) did not write the law... 'they' the legislature did... but 'they' the government, of which the legislature, AG and judge are all a part are all servants of 'we' the people. [/quote]

Are you now trying to defend you shallow **** statement about 'they wrote the law to simply charge political opponents'? Lolz.

Quote:I'm embarrassed for you that you are so intent on being 'right' that you're okay with looking like a moron.

Im not the bloke that waxed eloquently about using a law that they wrote 'simply to use against political opponents' or some si8milar asinine rhetorical garbage. And here we are. Please plow that field some more.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:What matters is whether or not the people currently executing it are doing so in good faith or not... just like the racist cop. It doesn't matter who wrote the law about tail-lights... what matters to a just society is if the cop is looking for 'anyone' who has malfunctioning tail-lights, or just black people

As I said -- too fing bad that Trump had the stuff in his closet that James not only could make a case out of, but got a summary judgement on.

As usual, you ignore what I say and stick to your talking points.

Ill type this really slowly for you --- the 'anyone' got caught with his financial pants around his feet. No matter how much you try and make it a heroic victimization. Lol.

Quote:

Quote:If Trump didnt have that stuff in his closet, I would be in the same boat with you.

No you wouldn't... because I have never once argued that Trump was innocent. Not once. I've never gotten to that part because IMO, the judge and AG have acted inappropriately.

Lolz. Ham the Great OPINES that the 20+ year jurist acted inappropriately. The WORLD must make note. Lolz.

The same Ham the Great that really doesnt know **** from shinola abut NY public enforcement actions, let alone much else of the NY legal system. Double lolz.

And gets so mad about that difference between the judges level of expertise and his, says something about ‘suck his dick’. Triple lolz.

Quote:

Quote:What did I make up, Ham? You said 'those who wrote this to go after their political opponents', di you not? It sounds *great* rhetorically, but just a tad of classical logic makes it really stupid.

You do not make a complete quote here and that doesn't say anything I mean, so I suspect I did NOT write what you accuse me of here.

They, the government or as I said, the legal system has numerous parts of which the AG and Judge are only a part... but 'they' the government wrote a law that 'they' the government are enforcing, prosecuting and adjudicating. Only to a complete idiot must that 'they' be the same identical people.

I am glad to know that the NY law was written to go after (someone's) political opponents. We still cant get the (someone) straight, mainly because it is a load of utter bull**** -- but Ham keeps digging. And in true Ham fashion he lashes out at getting his own specious rhetorical crap called out. Yay.

Quote:

Quote:Damn, I know a place that was targeted because they were drug sellers. And funnily, they were charged with drug selling. That is *so* bad. So unjust. Lolz.

Okay... you did this to yourself...

Let the forum be on notice that Tanq just compared 'being black' to 'being drug sellers'.

Not at all, I made a completely independent scenario. Leave it to you for the kneejerk specious crap. Good grief.

If one knows there is a place (any place) that are drug sellers, one shouldnt be surprised that places like that attract notice. And one shouldnt be surprised that drugs just might be sold there.

And lordy, how terrible and bad and unjust when one knows of a series of wrongs that one targets those wrongs.

And lordy, how terrible and bad and unjust when one charges those wrongs when those wrongs are substantiated. How bad, how terrible. Poor poor drug sellers.

By the way, you do know Cohen was talking to every every NY LE mechanism abut Trump in 2018, right?

Quote:Seriously Tanq, step back from the crack pipe before you say something that you can't step back from. Being black is not a crime so targeting someone because they are black is not AT ALL the same thing as targeting them because they are drug dealers

Dude, you are the one making that magic leap. Another instance of HAM pulling rando **** out the air. Yay again.

Quote:He's okay with it because the target is Trump... and that apparently the AG (before she was AG) was able to adjudicate Trump's guilt without the need for an investigation, judge OR jury.

It is fairly clear to see that Cohen talked a lot in 2018. To the extent that at least 3 agencies, federal and state based, started investigations in that year. Do you think James is deaf, dumb, and blind?

And Ham, you conveniently leave out the other points I have made previously -- a) Trump has every opportunity to bring forth evidence he didnt do it, and I will be happy to consider it, and if sufficient I will join you in castigating James; and b) I have been conssitent that the Bragg case against Trump is fairly specious.

PS: tough three days of testimony against yor guy. My guess is you dont follow it because you are sticking your fingers in your ears?

Good ole Clarence believes a judge of 20 years can’t be corrupt, knows all and is equal to Solomon. I posit a judge of 20 years is more likely to be dirty. He’s learned what he can get away with and knows who the players are.
But you do you Clarence. Another 50,000 words and you just might convince someone other than Tommy Bois.