(10-17-2023 09:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Trump makes himself a big target and y'all try to call foul when he is hit.

Only when he became a Republican did he become a target, and everyone knows it. The Clinton Foundation is a target, but they are on the right (Left) side. The Clintons own nothing. Their "Foundation" owns everything.

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:39 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Query: Is this really the case where law enforcement should be expending this amount of resources? I mean, are there no murders or assaults or theft or real crimes with actual victims in this jurisdiction?

You think no financial crime should be prosecuted ever, more Republican law and order.

Nope.

Never said anything even remotely close to that, and you owe me an apology for misstating my comments.

I am willing to bet there have been numerous cases of actual financial fraud, where somebody was actually defrauded out of actual money, that have been pushed to the back burner to free up resources for a political hatchet job.

Hell yes, financial crimes should be punished, but they should be prioritized based on the amount of money stolen from the victim, not the political identity of the alleged wrongdoer. On that basis, this case should be very firmly at the back of the queue, or not in the queue at all.

The left is big for not prosecuting victimless crimes. As a libertarian, so am I. These acts are clearly victimless. It’s whether they are crimes at all that’s questionable.

Don't owe you ****.

There are a few people on here who like to just make up **** so they can "respond" however they want. Not at all surprising that you are among them.

(10-16-2023 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the 'royal edict was your issue that one must take your statement of your not supporting Trump even in light of your unceasing defense of Trump. And I contrasted your edict of that with your continued rash and incorrect generalization of my stance -- even in light of my express comments in fact that were to the contrary.

Really Tanq? Put down the bottle. You quite literally said the same thing 4 times in a row.... and then you lie again, putting words in my mouth that I have never used. Even if I had, that would still put me in the majority of this forum. Hardly a royal edict.

As to your express comments to the contrary....
You can SAY whatever you want... but the reality is that you have quite literally said (paraphrasing but close enough) "I would agree with you, except that Trump is guilty' and that 'the prosecution didn't force him to lie'. Both of these statements and anything like them are doing precisely what i have accused you of... reading right to left... where the guilt of the accused justifies the (choose your adjective... opinions will vary.... overly-aggressive, illegal, unprecedented... etc) actions taken to prosecute and prove that guilt.

This is as I've stated a mantra of libertarians, old school conservatives and even many liberals... and applies regardless of WHOM the accused is.

The AG abandoned this belief because her party and constituents were aligned against him for political purposes... she assumed his guilt long before she even had an accusation of this crime. You have abandoned that belief because as you stated... 'Nobody forced him to lie'. Either way, it is the presumed guilt of the person that justifies their actions.... So you can ***** about my wording all you want.... but the facts speak for themselves.

As for your accusation of me, again.... if you say that about me, you must also believe that about Numbers....

Quote:As to the italicized --- that sounds great. I suggest you actually look at some issues when you do so.

Again, what part of 'I am skeptical of the integrity of the prosecution... and I want that critically vetted before I even delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused.' is not clear to you? I was merely presenting ways that 'what he says' could easily misrepresent the actual situation. He made statements as if they were universal truths and they simply are not.

Said simply, since words seem to befuddle you...
(Among other things the judge said that were not true...) It is NOT true that there is only one way to present the square footage of a property... and it is NOT true that 'tax valuations' remotely represent the value of (especially) income producing property. The judge presented these things as EVIDENCE of fraud... and they are not.

Quote:If you want to look 'critically', please do. Nothing in here or in our PMs indicates your have done anything more than look at rhetorical one liners in your pursuit of 'critical examination', to be honest.

When your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail. Your opinion above is more a reflection of your own perspective, and not of mine.

(10-17-2023 12:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Query: Is this really the case where law enforcement should be expending this amount of resources? I mean, are there no murders or assaults or theft or real crimes with actual victims in this jurisdiction?

Of course not, unless your goal is to impact the political arena and not to 'protect the public interest'. She literally ran on prosecuting Trump... not on prosecuting murderers.

But once again, beware....

(10-17-2023 08:24 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 08:17 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:39 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Query: Is this really the case where law enforcement should be expending this amount of resources? I mean, are there no murders or assaults or theft or real crimes with actual victims in this jurisdiction?

You think no financial crime should be prosecuted ever, more Republican law and order.

For overstating the value of an asset? If this was always pursued the same way as this Trump case is, there are not enough lawyers and courts to keep up - meaning this happens ALL THE TIME. I am more than OK with pursuing Trump, but don't single him out, pursue all of them when it happens.

Banks lend money to get it paid back with interest. The bank lent to Trump and Trump paid them back. He met the terms of the contract.

As a violation of whatever goes, this is not much different to rounding down instead of rounding up on your tax returns. Everybody does that - you are understating your income by doing so - that is cheating too... should everyone be audited, fined/arrested for that crime too?

So by your logic it will never be time to go after trump since not everyone gets caught. Doesn't actually seem like you are more than okay with it.

When was the last time you heard of ANYONE being indicted for this heinous crime?

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:39 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Query: Is this really the case where law enforcement should be expending this amount of resources? I mean, are there no murders or assaults or theft or real crimes with actual victims in this jurisdiction?

You think no financial crime should be prosecuted ever, more Republican law and order.

Nope.

Never said anything even remotely close to that, and you owe me an apology for misstating my comments.

I am willing to bet there have been numerous cases of actual financial fraud, where somebody was actually defrauded out of actual money, that have been pushed to the back burner to free up resources for a political hatchet job.

Hell yes, financial crimes should be punished, but they should be prioritized based on the amount of money stolen from the victim, not the political identity of the alleged wrongdoer. On that basis, this case should be very firmly at the back of the queue, or not in the queue at all.

The left is big for not prosecuting victimless crimes. As a libertarian, so am I. These acts are clearly victimless. It’s whether they are crimes at all that’s questionable.

Don't owe you ****.

have you finally learned your lesson, Owl #s?!

ref: sig line 4 - it's all they deserve in return ... they drive to destruction at the lowest form of cognitive ability ... they're no different than Hamas...

(10-17-2023 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So again, if the bank gave him the money, got paid, along with the partners, what's the issue?

Particularly since the fact that the properties generated sufficient cash flow to pay off the debt means that the properties were not over valued.

And if a property did not generate the predicted cash flow, and the Trump organization ponied up the cash to pay the loan, then there goes intent.

Yep, all of that just further proves that this all nothing more than a partisan political circus act. I can guarantee you not many in this thread know the difference between NOI, Net Income, cap rate, and property value. That's been made clear as day, so far in this thread. No banker I know, and I was one for years, takes for face value of whatever property value is put on a PFS or loan application. No bank does that, that I'm aware of.

(10-17-2023 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So again, if the bank gave him the money, got paid, along with the partners, what's the issue?

Particularly since the fact that the properties generated sufficient cash flow to pay off the debt means that the properties were not over valued.

And if a property did not generate the predicted cash flow, and the Trump organization ponied up the cash to pay the loan, then there goes intent.

Yep.

Trump is the person at issue here, but these facts would apply to anyone.... and absolutely would cause anyone looking to finance a business based on projected cashflows to think twice if they could be accused of 'fraud' even if the venture worked out.

I mean seriously... this is quite literally the business model for every single AirBnB purchase, every 'flip', every 'buy to rent', every 'TikTok made me do it' buyer etc... buy it for what it is worth today.... borrow against what you think you can make it worth.... so is it REALLY protecting the lending market for 'the little guy who can't defend himself'?

(10-17-2023 09:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Trump makes himself a big target and y'all try to call foul when he is hit.

This completely misses the point.

Trump's transgressions are (reportedly) so heinous that simple, basic laws should hit him. I mean that seriously and would be more than happy to have him go down for such crimes... as I have said. He is MUCH more valuable to my personal cause as a martyr, replaced by someone perhaps like Ramaswami (whom I like, but am still a bit unsure of) who embodies (at least by word) many of the positives, without nearly as many negatives.... and more... I'd see some serious coat-tails not necessarily 'for' Trump supporting Republicans, but against the backlash to them.... much like how Biden won.

The fact that he is a huge target is actually his attraction... because he isn't doing what Hillary or Biden did. He might be pissing in your boots, but just as he did in the debates with Hillary... he isn't telling you that its raining... he simply says, the laws allow him to.

If you don't want it to happen, then change the law.

Instead of changing the laws... I suspect because 'they' really don't want the laws to change.... the government (some people within it) is/are simply going after the one who is admitting that he has pissed in your boots.... so that those who are telling you it is raining can keep doing so.... and yet despite all this... they STILL aren't having a ton of success. Before anyone starts... yes, they may well ultimately 'take him out'.... but this really should have been much easier than it has been.... IF the laws did what we all I believe think they do.... but obviously do not.

(10-17-2023 10:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Trump makes himself a big target and y'all try to call foul when he is hit.

This completely misses the point.

Trump's transgressions are (reportedly) so heinous that simple, basic laws should hit him. I mean that seriously and would be more than happy to have him go down for such crimes... as I have said. He is MUCH more valuable to my personal cause as a martyr, replaced by someone perhaps like Ramaswami (whom I like, but am still a bit unsure of) who embodies (at least by word) many of the positives, without nearly as many negatives.... and more... I'd see some serious coat-tails not necessarily 'for' Trump supporting Republicans, but against the backlash to them.... much like how Biden won.

The fact that he is a huge target is actually his attraction... because he isn't doing what Hillary or Biden did. He might be pissing in your boots, but just as he did in the debates with Hillary... he isn't telling you that its raining... he simply says, the laws allow him to.

If you don't want it to happen, then change the law.

Instead of changing the laws... I suspect because 'they' really don't want the laws to change.... the government (some people within it) is/are simply going after the one who is admitting that he has pissed in your boots.... so that those who are telling you it is raining can keep doing so.

no level of explanatory intellect, nor logic, can fix these sheeple on a bbs ... it's an exercise in futility ... the latter is what drives nuts zongo, well, 'nuts' ...

(10-17-2023 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So again, if the bank gave him the money, got paid, along with the partners, what's the issue?

Particularly since the fact that the properties generated sufficient cash flow to pay off the debt means that the properties were not over valued.

And if a property did not generate the predicted cash flow, and the Trump organization ponied up the cash to pay the loan, then there goes intent.

But the testimony of the Deutsche Bank official runs counter to what you say.

You would be correct when loan 1 is tied *only* to 1 property. The cash flow value of that property would be determinable in that manner.

That isnt the case in the loans that have been noted under testimony.

Deutsche Bank: Trump tried to get a loan using the collateral of the property. We balked at that. Trump did an end run to the private wealth end of the bank that extended the loan -- based on his personal guaranty.

In the course of the loan, Trump agreed to covenants that said if his personal value dropped beneath X, the ADB loan was called.

His CFO and controller both testified to juicing the property values underlying his financial statement to meet that covenant.

Not just juicing values -- explicit lies in the statement.

For example -- an explicit comment in the financial statements saying 'there is no brand premium included in any valuation'. Elicited testimony from the CFO and controller elicited both testimony *and* communications saying to jack up the values of properties by anywhere from 15% to 30% based on 'owned by a President'. All in direct conflict with the statements in the financial statements -- and which were used to maintain the loan from being called due to a breach of covenant.

Kind of hard to squeeze those actions into a 'cash flow' theory as you do above.

It is simple lying. Lying to DB about valuations to keep the loan alive. Lying about the valuations explicitly in a second manner by stating in the SFCs that 'there is no 'brand premium' included in the valuations'.

The issues arent 'it could have been based on a cash flow based on a direct loan that encombered the properrty with no other outside factor.'

The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So again, if the bank gave him the money, got paid, along with the partners, what's the issue?

Particularly since the fact that the properties generated sufficient cash flow to pay off the debt means that the properties were not over valued.

And if a property did not generate the predicted cash flow, and the Trump organization ponied up the cash to pay the loan, then there goes intent.

But the testimony of the Deutsche Bank official runs counter to what you say.

You would be correct when loan 1 is tied *only* to 1 property. The cash flow value of that property would be determinable in that manner.

That isnt the case in the loans that have been noted under testimony.

Deutsche Bank: Trump tried to get a loan using the collateral of the property. We balked at that. Trump did an end run to the private wealth end of the bank that extended the loan -- based on his personal guaranty.

In the course of the loan, Trump agreed to covenants that said if his personal value dropped beneath X, the ADB loan was called.

His CFO and controller both testified to juicing the property values underlying his financial statement to meet that covenant.

Not just juicing values -- explicit lies in the statement.

For example -- an explicit comment in the financial statements saying 'there is no brand premium included in any valuation'. Elicited testimony from the CFO and controller elicited both testimony *and* communications saying to jack up the values of properties by anywhere from 15% to 30% based on 'owned by a President'. All in direct conflict with the statements in the financial statements -- and which were used to maintain the loan from being called due to a breach of covenant.

Kind of hard to squeeze those actions into a 'cash flow' theory as you do above.

It is simple lying. Lying to DB about valuations to keep the loan alive. Lying about the valuations explicitly in a second manner by stating in the SFCs that 'there is no 'brand premium' included in the valuations'.

The issues arent 'it could have been based on a cash flow based on a direct loan that encombered the properrty with no other outside factor.'

The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

I admire your continued effort, but Jim Jones' followers will still drink the Kool-Aid.

(10-17-2023 11:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So again, if the bank gave him the money, got paid, along with the partners, what's the issue?

Particularly since the fact that the properties generated sufficient cash flow to pay off the debt means that the properties were not over valued.

And if a property did not generate the predicted cash flow, and the Trump organization ponied up the cash to pay the loan, then there goes intent.

But the testimony of the Deutsche Bank official runs counter to what you say.

You would be correct when loan 1 is tied *only* to 1 property. The cash flow value of that property would be determinable in that manner.

That isnt the case in the loans that have been noted under testimony.

Deutsche Bank: Trump tried to get a loan using the collateral of the property. We balked at that. Trump did an end run to the private wealth end of the bank that extended the loan -- based on his personal guaranty.

In the course of the loan, Trump agreed to covenants that said if his personal value dropped beneath X, the ADB loan was called.

His CFO and controller both testified to juicing the property values underlying his financial statement to meet that covenant.

Not just juicing values -- explicit lies in the statement.

For example -- an explicit comment in the financial statements saying 'there is no brand premium included in any valuation'. Elicited testimony from the CFO and controller elicited both testimony *and* communications saying to jack up the values of properties by anywhere from 15% to 30% based on 'owned by a President'. All in direct conflict with the statements in the financial statements -- and which were used to maintain the loan from being called due to a breach of covenant.

Kind of hard to squeeze those actions into a 'cash flow' theory as you do above.

It is simple lying. Lying to DB about valuations to keep the loan alive. Lying about the valuations explicitly in a second manner by stating in the SFCs that 'there is no 'brand premium' included in the valuations'.

The issues arent 'it could have been based on a cash flow based on a direct loan that encombered the properrty with no other outside factor.'

The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

I admire your continued effort, but Jim Jones' followers will still drink the Kool-Aid.

He's a lone voice in the wilderness and only cares about the truth and the law!

(10-17-2023 10:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:As to the italicized --- that sounds great. I suggest you actually look at some issues when you do so.

Again, what part of 'I am skeptical of the integrity of the prosecution... and I want that critically vetted before I even delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused.' is not clear to you? I was merely presenting ways that 'what he says' could easily misrepresent the actual situation. He made statements as if they were universal truths and they simply are not.

And you made asinine assumptions about what the judge said in your rush to the 'could be'. Again, without bother t o actual underlying facts in the record. Again - -maybe the 'facts in the record' as opposed to a slurry of Ham- 'whadabout my garage, and whadabout my outdoor space'.

*You* made a jacktard comment without even looking into what he relied upon, or why the judicial notice was made. Just a fast and furious bit of Ham 'maybes and could bes'. No -- that is *far* from making a critically vetted comment from your quarter.

Wash rinse and repeat for a number of issues in that regard.

Quote:Said simply, since words seem to befuddle you...
(Among other things the judge said that were not true...) It is NOT true that there is only one way to present the square footage of a property...

Said simply, because issues seem to befuddle you-- you didnt have (and probably still dont have) a fing clue what the judge relied upon in the judicial notice of sq ft.

But leave it to you to regale us with the hand waving you perform on the issue, amusingly bereft of the actual facts in the issue.

As for your asshat comment about 'words befuddling' -- I guess you didnt clue in that the issue presented isnt 'which way it is presented'. The issue is that Trump claimed 30k sq ft over three complete floors. The issue in that Trump only *has* one floor, based from multiple official sources.

So please dont lecture me about 'words seem to befuddle me' when you have an abject problem in that issue, and since you have an abject problem of backing up your thin rhetoric one liners with actual facts.

Quote:and it is NOT true that 'tax valuations' remotely represent the value of (especially) income producing property. The judge presented these things as EVIDENCE of fraud... and they are not.

Among other issues. But in true Ham fashion you fixate on that and denote one sub-portion of one item in isolation -- pretty laughable approach.

Quote:

Quote:If you want to look 'critically', please do. Nothing in here or in our PMs indicates your have done anything more than look at rhetorical one liners in your pursuit of 'critical examination', to be honest.

When your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail. Your opinion above is more a reflection of your own perspective, and not of mine.

Coming from the guy that still doesn't understand the basis of the sq ft issue and the hows and whys of how the judge made a determination there -- again that is pretty laughable Ham.

Once you actually stop fixating on one tiny iota in isolation and repeteing the mantra and truism of that item in isolation -- I wouldnt make the comment above.

Or, maybe, if you simply took the time or an erg of effort beyond the thin, rhetorical statements you make that you think are so world important -- maybe I wouldnt make the comments above.

Just a thought.

Quote:Of course not, unless your goal is to impact the political arena and not to 'protect the public interest'. She literally ran on prosecuting Trump... not on prosecuting murderers.

But once again, beware....

She ran on investigating Trump. With the underlying presumption that if he found stuff to prosecute -- she would. Given the Cohen background at the time and the information Cohen has provided, seems reasonable to investigate items that a fixer to the Trump Organization is providing. How terrible, how horrible.

At least you have retreated off your 'she ran with the promise to CONVICT Trump', which was somehow a response based in the civics definition of 'convict', mind you.

(10-17-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:As to the italicized --- that sounds great. I suggest you actually look at some issues when you do so.

Again, what part of 'I am skeptical of the integrity of the prosecution... and I want that critically vetted before I even delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused.' is not clear to you? I was merely presenting ways that 'what he says' could easily misrepresent the actual situation. He made statements as if they were universal truths and they simply are not.

And you made asinine assumptions about what the judge said in your rush to the 'could be'. Again, without bother t o actual underlying facts in the record. Again - -maybe the 'facts in the record' as opposed to a slurry of Ham- 'whadabout my garage, and whadabout my outdoor space'.

*You* made a jacktard comment without even looking into what he relied upon, or why the judicial notice was made. Just a fast and furious bit of Ham 'maybes and could bes'. No -- that is *far* from making a critically vetted comment from your quarter.

Wash rinse and repeat for a number of issues in that regard.

Quote:Said simply, since words seem to befuddle you...
(Among other things the judge said that were not true...) It is NOT true that there is only one way to present the square footage of a property...

Said simply, because issues seem to befuddle you-- you didnt have (and probably still dont have) a fing clue what the judge relied upon in the judicial notice of sq ft.

But leave it to you to regale us with the hand waving you perform on the issue, amusingly bereft of the actual facts in the issue.

As for your asshat comment about 'words befuddling' -- I guess you didnt clue in that the issue presented isnt 'which way it is presented'. The issue is that Trump claimed 30k sq ft over three complete floors. The issue in that Trump only *has* one floor, based from multiple official sources.

So please dont lecture me about 'words seem to befuddle me' when you have an abject problem in that issue, and since you have an abject problem of backing up your thin rhetoric one liners with actual facts.

Quote:and it is NOT true that 'tax valuations' remotely represent the value of (especially) income producing property. The judge presented these things as EVIDENCE of fraud... and they are not.

Among other issues. But in true Ham fashion you fixate on that and denote one sub-portion of one item in isolation -- pretty laughable approach.

Quote:

Quote:If you want to look 'critically', please do. Nothing in here or in our PMs indicates your have done anything more than look at rhetorical one liners in your pursuit of 'critical examination', to be honest.

When your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail. Your opinion above is more a reflection of your own perspective, and not of mine.

Coming from the guy that still doesn't understand the basis of the sq ft issue and the hows and whys of how the judge made a determination there -- again that is pretty laughable Ham.

Once you actually stop fixating on one tiny iota in isolation and repeteing the mantra and truism of that item in isolation -- I wouldnt make the comment above.

Or, maybe, if you simply took the time or an erg of effort beyond the thin, rhetorical statements you make that you think are so world important -- maybe I wouldnt make the comments above.

Just a thought.

Quote:Of course not, unless your goal is to impact the political arena and not to 'protect the public interest'. She literally ran on prosecuting Trump... not on prosecuting murderers.

But once again, beware....

She ran on investigating Trump. With the underlying presumption that if he found stuff to prosecute -- she would. Given the Cohen background at the time and the information Cohen has provided, seems reasonable to investigate items that a fixer to the Trump Organization is providing. How terrible, how horrible.

At least you have retreated off your 'she ran with the promise to CONVICT Trump', which was somehow a response based in the civics definition of 'convict', mind you.

Cohen was found guilty of lying. Do you understand, as an attorney, what issues she is going to have relying on anything from him?

Also, do you have an update on the $25million valuation for maralargo? Is the "Jury Trial Box" still in play?

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Don't owe you ****.

Yes, you do, for lying about me.

(10-17-2023 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Don't owe you ****.

Yes, you do, for lying about me.

Again have never and will never owe you ****.

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Don't owe you ****.

Yes, you do, for lying about me.

Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

(10-17-2023 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Don't owe you ****.

Yes, you do, for lying about me.

Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

Not lies, also make me.

(10-17-2023 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Don't owe you ****.

Yes, you do, for lying about me.

Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

The truth is not in him. He knows no difference between the truth and a lie, nor does he care.

(10-17-2023 08:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:39 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

Quote:Query: Is this really the case where law enforcement should be expending this amount of resources? I mean, are there no murders or assaults or theft or real crimes with actual victims in this jurisdiction?

You think no financial crime should be prosecuted ever, more Republican law and order.

Best to just ignore grandpa. He left the side of reason and sanity a few years ago.

Well it’s wonderful the adults and the side of reason is back in control. The world is such a wonderful place under their control. Only a couple of all out wars and mass murders happening now and according to one of those adults the Middle East is calmer than ever before. Utopia I say….