Ebionite
Well-Known Member
What experts have denied that a conflict of interest exists?
-
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
I note that you skipped answering the question about SZ's honesty.
He has excellent integrity, truthfulness, and reasoning skills.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Do you struggle with reading comprehension? You're arguing against the findings of the Court. If you can't fathom what experts that indicates, I can't help you.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
But you won't comment on the specific case that I linked to, right?
Unlike you I don’t masquerade as a licensed attorney.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
A court can't judge itself. If you don't think that collecting a salary is a form of financial interest then there's no point in trying to reason with you.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
W
If you do learn to reason, get back to me.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I don’t masquerade as a licensed attorney. Looks like your honesty is on a par with SZ, which would explain why you endorsed him.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I'm not they one denying the obvious about drawing a salary.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
No, you just deny reality in general from the sounds of it.
Again, you're whinging to the wrong person, my post is an excerpt from the case. If you disagree with the ruling then take it up with Engoran. I'm sure he'd have no difficulty schooling you on the matter.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
In reality people like to get paid rather than not.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
You're not saying anything of value, nor even enough for anyone to play along for snits n' giggles.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Any you think that your denial is of value to anyone? Can you say "hypocrite"?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not how the burden of proof works.
What experts are that denied that you went to Russia and killed that rival of Putin. Obviously you are guilty.
That is the sort of "reasoning" that you just used.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. He implied that there were experts who opposed my position:
"You seem to think you know better than the actual experts in this case, claiming a conflict of interest where there is none."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, she simply corrected you on your misuse of the "clean hands" policy. Their pay does not rely upon how much they fine people. And it ws not even a fine. Do you not know what "disgorgement" is? You could have at least looked it up.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
And we should just take your word for it, right? ***Staff edit***
Last edited by a moderator:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know. Honest people are quite often boring.
Last edited by a moderator: