Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I provided a video where a judge in a court of law said pretty much the same thing that I said. You do not get much better support than that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump ordered to pay nearly 355 million in NY fraud case.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Your video about the "sovereign citizen" has nothing to do with the claim that I linked to. You said:
which was in response to this:
She was talking about what would happen if Trump was unable to do business in New York.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are conflating two different conversations.
Yes, I know what she was talking about in that conversation. You do not even seem to remember what you post half of the time.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The point is that your evasion shows your dishonesty.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you messed up again. There was no evasion. She should have asked what her unjustified assumptions were instead of repeating them.
Being rude and wrong is a very bad combination. People will automatically not go into depth with a person that is like that because there is no point in doing so.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Describing how you are being dishonest isn't messing up when my objective is to show people the truth about you.
You evaded by talking about something irrelevant - the fact that you knew what Laniakea was talking about.
She didn't make any unjustified assumptions. She asked you a question that began with "Do you assume...."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I was never dishonest. If you do not understand something you should ask questions politely.
No, I had more than one conversation going on. You mixed them up. Let me remind you, you disagreed with me about statutory and common law. I made a claim where I explained how you were wrong. You said that I could never support that claim and I immediately posted the video that supported me and refuted you involving a real judge in a real court of law Eventually you somehow conflated that discussion with another that I was having. How you did that, I do not know.
Incorrect she aske me a question that had an unjustified assumption in it. She could have asked me what her unjustified assumption was. You could have, but now if you want an answer you will need to apologize first. There was nothing dishonest in any of my posts. No one showed any "truth" about me.
I do not think that you have made one correct point in all of today's conversation here. You have only made personal attacks against others.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I've already shown how you were dishonest in my previous post.
No, I didn't mix them up. Anyone can check what I linked to when I was talking about a specific claim related to the question of your honesty.
Yes.
I wasn't wrong.
Your video was about a so-called sovereign citizen. Why would that have anything to do with what I said about common law?
No, I didn't conflate them. Anyone can check the first link in this post and the one that it links to in order to verify that.
As I've said before, she did not make an unjustified assumption. I've previously asked you what that assumption was and you would not answer the question.
No, I don't need to do anything. Your dishonesty is obvious.
The facts of this post show that to be false.
You mean F1fan and his false claim against me? It's interesting that he was the one who described you as being honest.
Santos was elected before his constituents knew that he was gay or a pathological liar. Once his lies were exposed, criminal investigations ensued leading to indictment and being tossed out of the House.
That's your opinion. You called Trump successful and the courts called it fraud.
As for successful, he inherited several hundred million dollars and a real estate enterprise, he declared bankruptcy multiple times, had his university and charity shut down, and actually lost money owning casinos. That last one ought to be impossible. His book was a fraud, and his reality TV persona was a fraud. He grifted the American taxpayer to support his golf weekends at golf resorts including putting up his secret service detail. He has been doing nothing but losing since November 2020, and now he will lose his wealth and freedom. Trump's entire life is fraud and other crime. None of that sounds like success to me unless your goal is to cheat others.
I haven't heard talk of any business closing except the Trump Organization, which had a handful of employees and was a criminal enterprise run by a crime family and a handful of people including both Weisselberg and Cohen who have been convicted of crimes. As I understand it, the properties will be sold either by Trump or the courts if Trump doesn't do it himself, and the new owners will be the ones paying the salaries of those working those properties.
Yes, unfair enrichment through deception. That's what fraud is.
Yes, but the so-called sovereign citizens are themselves self-contradictory. Have you heard them? They'll tell you that they're not a person and that operating a motor vehicle isn't driving if they're not doing business. It's an amazing phenomenon. These people keep losing at roadside traffic stops, where their windows are frequently busted out and they are dragged out of their vehicles and arrested, and in courtrooms, where they are frequently incarcerated for being in contempt of court, yet they are still trying to drive around without tags or drivers' licenses and producing meaningless documents for the authorities.
Well, we do know that's what Trump said when telling an obvious fib about a NATO country -- that Russia could "do whatever the hell they want" to that country because "you gotta pay your bills!"
This, from the guy who has shafted more lawyers than Shakespeare. ( “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Said by Dick the Butcher in Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part II.) And declared bankruptcy 6 times to get out of paying what he owed.
well, Judge Engoron explained it in considerable detail, for anyone who cares to read the judgement.
That, too, is explained thoroughly in the linked judgement in post #339.
@F1fan also puts forward a plausible explanation in post #114:
Code:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/trump-ordered-to-pay-nearly-355-million-in-ny-fraud-case.275721/post-8452492
Thanks.
Obviously you would not have offered the document had you not studied it and convinced yourself that it was a pertinent response to my question, so would you mind letting me know the relevant pages?
"The Expert Witnesses" beginning on page 46, and "Specific Assets on the SFCs" beginning on page 60.
That is a long read!
Here is a basic explanaation of how and when Trump has to pay his three civil losses:
www.politico.com
Trump claimed in a deposition that he had in excess of $400 million in cash, which if true would still not be enough to pay his debts. It would be difficult for him to use political money to pay personal fines due to campaign laws. He is facing more legal costs in the criminal cases and there is a question whether his base is willing to donate money just to pay lawyers. His fund raising is slowing down, and his base might be thinking he is a lost cause.
In any event it seems likely he will have to sell assets, or use them as collateral for loans (which would be dumb since it will only cost more in the long run). Buyers know he is desperate and can get fire sale deals. Anyone willing to loan him money will surely demand high interent due to the risk of him unable to generate income.
What I will be looking at the next few weeks is if Trump is successful in squeezing money from his base. Historically there is a spike in fund raising after bad news. The difference here is that this isn't an indictment or arrest which could see him get out of it, this is a loss with a huge price tag. Will his followers really want to sacrifice their bank accounts just to pay for his losses?
Can Trump pay? What if he doesn’t? Here’s what to know about Trump’s massive civil judgments.
He’s now on the hook for nearly a half-billion dollars across three civil cases. These are the rules for when and how he must pay.
Trump claimed in a deposition that he had in excess of $400 million in cash, which if true would still not be enough to pay his debts. It would be difficult for him to use political money to pay personal fines due to campaign laws. He is facing more legal costs in the criminal cases and there is a question whether his base is willing to donate money just to pay lawyers. His fund raising is slowing down, and his base might be thinking he is a lost cause.
In any event it seems likely he will have to sell assets, or use them as collateral for loans (which would be dumb since it will only cost more in the long run). Buyers know he is desperate and can get fire sale deals. Anyone willing to loan him money will surely demand high interent due to the risk of him unable to generate income.
What I will be looking at the next few weeks is if Trump is successful in squeezing money from his base. Historically there is a spike in fund raising after bad news. The difference here is that this isn't an indictment or arrest which could see him get out of it, this is a loss with a huge price tag. Will his followers really want to sacrifice their bank accounts just to pay for his losses?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, as usual you made an unsupported claim.
Yes you did. We had been talking about the fact that criminal courts are statue courts. You were posting your "common law" sov cit nonsense again. For some odd reason you do make quite a few sovereign citizen arguments.
no.
Yes you were.
LMAO!! You forgot again!! It does not get much better. I had pointed out that courts of law were more often courts of statute law these days. Common law has been replaced again and again by statute laws which formalize the old common laws. I supported that with quotes from the judge on the trial. you had "because I say so". We went on and I stated that criminal courts are courts of law these days, you gave the that sov cit nonsense of "common law". Again it was a "because I said so" claim of yours that you could not and did not support. I said that I could not support my case. That was when I posted the video that you did not watch. You still may not have watched it.
You linked back to my claims about that discussion.
Where did you ever ask that? Show a post.
Actually you do. You cannot just claim that someone is dishonest. Now I could say that same about you, but I think that the truth is that you just do not have a clue. And you refuse to learn from your errors. Does that make you dishonest? No, just incredibly wrong.
Your unsupported opinions are not "facts". We really need to go over the basics of debating some day.
He made no false claim about you. Do you think that he could not support that claim?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I also linked his complete decision. I have already found it useful once.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is another option that he could probably accomplish. He could pay what he can now. And work out a plan with the judge that he agreed to to oversee how his company spends money in New York and make a plan to pay his debts so he does not have to sell at fire sale prices.Here is a basic explanaation of how and when Trump has to pay his three civil losses:
Can Trump pay? What if he doesn’t? Here’s what to know about Trump’s massive civil judgments.
He’s now on the hook for nearly a half-billion dollars across three civil cases. These are the rules for when and how he must pay.
Trump claimed in a deposition that he had in excess of $400 million in cash, which if true would still not be enough to pay his debts. It would be difficult for him to use political money to pay personal fines due to campaign laws. He is facing more legal costs in the criminal cases and there is a question whether his base is willing to donate money just to pay lawyers. His fund raising is slowing down, and his base might be thinking he is a lost cause.
In any event it seems likely he will have to sell assets, or use them as collateral for loans (which would be dumb since it will only cost more in the long run). Buyers know he is desperate and can get fire sale deals. Anyone willing to loan him money will surely demand high interent due to the risk of him unable to generate income.
What I will be looking at the next few weeks is if Trump is successful in squeezing money from his base. Historically there is a spike in fund raising after bad news. The difference here is that this isn't an indictment or arrest which could see him get out of it, this is a loss with a huge price tag. Will his followers really want to sacrifice their bank accounts just to pay for his losses?
I am sure that he will see that is the reasonable and honorable thing to do
