CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 25K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Opinion link: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/calendar/AppsMots/2025/apps/20250821/2023-04925, et ano..pdf

IMG_9062.jpeg
IMG_9063.jpeg


What a mess. On to the Court of Appeals.
Click to expand...
I like Justice Friedman, especially his comment that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated they could have sued him themselves, and none did. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will adapt his position. In any event, Trump just had over a half a billion in fines wiped away due to an unconstitutional disgorgement order by the Trump hating trial court. Who cares about the injunction? Does Trump really care about serving on any boards of NY companies in the immediate future?

No matter how you slice it, it's a damn good day for Trump.
 
Ramrouser said:
I like Justice Friedman, especially his comment that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated they could have sued him themselves, and none did.
Click to expand...
This is false. The whole point of laws like this one is that lenders often feel as though they cannot sue people in power. Not just lenders -- any contract claimant. Look at what Trump is doing now. Who is going to sue him and then feel the wrath? This was a big problem in city government during the machine politics era, and IIRC this law was part of the reform that reduced the corruption in cities. Cities always have trouble protecting against corruption, because there are so many opportunities and they can be hard to detect.

That's why it falls to public authorities to police the public good.
 
Ramrouser said:
I like Justice Friedman, especially his comment that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated they could have sued him themselves, and none did. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will adapt his position. In any event, Trump just had over a half a billion in fines wiped away due to an unconstitutional disgorgement order by the Trump hating trial court. Who cares about the injunction? Does Trump really care about serving on any boards of NY companies in the immediate future?

No matter how you slice it, it's a damn good day for Trump.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? An appellate decision upholding Trump's liability for fraudulently cooking his company's books is a "damn good day" for Trump? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you say things like that?
 
Ramrouser said:
Doesn’t seem like a big deal although I’ve never set foot in a Cracker Barrel.
Click to expand...

A significant part my job requires traveling to manufacturing/processing facilities in very remote/rural areas. It can be difficult to find a decent meal, but there is usually a CB and a Hampton Inn on many a rural exit throughout the SE US, where I do most of my traveling. The food isn’t gonna wow you…but it is decent and consistent.
 
superrific said:
This is false. The whole point of laws like this one is that lenders often feel as though they cannot sue people in power. Not just lenders -- any contract claimant. Look at what Trump is doing now. Who is going to sue him and then feel the wrath? This was a big problem in city government during the machine politics era, and IIRC this law was part of the reform that reduced the corruption in cities. Cities always have trouble protecting against corruption, because there are so many opportunities and they can be hard to detect.

That's why it falls to public authorities to police the public good.
Click to expand...
Except his lenders had no reason to sue him since their loans were repaid in full. I've always had a hard time understanding the purpose of the lawsuit (other than lawfare) because it's not like the AG was protecting some consumers from Trump's companies (no victim). Deutsche Bank is a sophisticated big boy who could independently determine the value of Trump's assets in order to determine whether to lend him money and would never blindly rely upon any of his financial statements. It is perfectly capable of entering into a voluntary commercial transaction without the protection of the State.
 
TigerBTM said:
A significant part my job requires traveling to manufacturing/processing facilities in very remote/rural areas. It can be difficult to find a decent meal, but there is usually a CB and a Hampton Inn on many a rural exit throughout the SE US, where I do most of my traveling. The food isn’t gonna wow you…but it is decent and consistent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, didn't mean to dump on it because I'm not a food snob. I was just relaying I was generally unfamiliar with the decor of the restaurant.
 
lawtig02 said:
Wait, what? An appellate decision upholding Trump's liability for fraudulently cooking his company's books is a "damn good day" for Trump? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you say things like that?
Click to expand...
I would imagine you would like to make the phone call to your client reporting that you just received the decision of the appellate court for the brief you filed and the court just wiped away a 500M fine imposed against you. But, unfortunately, the divided court left standing the civil fraud judgment which prevents you from serving on a corporate board of a New York corporation for the next few years while you're President of the United States.
 
Ramrouser said:
Except his lenders had no reason to sue him since their loans were repaid in full. I've always had a hard time understanding the purpose of the lawsuit (other than lawfare) because it's not like the AG was protecting some consumers from Trump's companies (no victim). Deutsche Bank is a sophisticated big boy who could independently determine the value of Trump's assets in order to determine whether to lend him money and would never blindly rely upon any of his financial statements. It is perfectly capable of entering into a voluntary commercial transaction without the protection of the State.
Click to expand...
So you don’t believe in the law. Do you know how many people would sc banks for loans and pay them back if they had the chance…but laws exist for a reason.

They can manage risk correctly if he just tells the truth.

Why do you think he lied? do you think you should be able to provide banks false information for loans yourself too?
 
Ramrouser said:
I would imagine you would like to make the phone call to your client reporting that you just received the decision of the appellate court for the brief you filed and the court just wiped away a 500M fine imposed against you. But, unfortunately, the divided court left standing the civil fraud judgment which prevents you from serving on a corporate board of a New York corporation for the next few years while you're President of the United States.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. I'd be on the verge of vomiting while making that call. Because I lost, and my client would know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top