NY State v. Trump, Spawn of Trump, and Trump Foundation (Civil Case)

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13295
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#26

Post by Kendra » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:17 am


User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32623
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#27

Post by Addie » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:07 am

The Atlantic - Bob Bauer: The Disastrous Legal Implications of the Trump Foundation’s Activities

The New York attorney general’s complaint tells the tale of a charity that flouted in every conceivable way the legal prohibition on 501(c)(3) campaign activity.
Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#28

Post by p0rtia » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:23 am

Maybenaut wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:09 pm
They must not have read the same complaint I did. The complaint I read talked about using charitable donations to further the campaign. And it talked about the failure to hold any board meetings. And it talked about appointing officers without telling them.

But it’s all good, because there were little to no expenses. :roll:
:mememe:

The response wasn't directed to the complaint your read. It was directed to Cult45. It's another shovelful of shit added to the shit mountain they're building to prove to the Cult that it's all a WITCH HUNNNNNNT!!!

The MSM now seems aware of this approach, which comes off as gaslighting to the rest of us, and have stopped wondering why all the lies and shit. But they haven't worked their way to accepting that it's really really bad. Personally, I believe that the crime family's plan is incite violence from the Cult when push comes to shove.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#29

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:42 am

Dan1100 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:39 pm
GreatGrey wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:31 pm
So, will the Trumps move for removal to Federal Court, and then say the Prez can’t be sued while in office?
On what grounds? A New York non-for-profit Corp being sued by the State of New York over violation of New York charity law?
Grounds, he don't need no stinkin' grounds, he's LaRump.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32623
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#30

Post by Addie » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:22 pm

Bloomberg - Noah Feldman
Temptation Lies Inside Trump Foundation’s ‘Empty Shell’

What can the latest lawsuit tell us about the president’s businesses?


The lawsuit filed last week by the New York State attorney general’s office makes it clear that Donald Trump and his family treated the Donald J. Trump Foundation not as a legitimate charity, but as a pass-through vehicle that benefited Trump, his businesses and his presidential campaign.

The key phrase in the lawsuit is “empty shell,” which is lawyer-ese for a corporation that does nothing, has no purpose, and exists merely as a piece of paper and a bank account.

If the idea of the empty shell corporation is fresh in your mind, that might be because we learned in May that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, also created and used a shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, to receive payments from companies seeking access to Trump. ...

The common denominator here is the use of a company as an alter ego for an individual – essentially an all-purpose vehicle for doing whatever you want behind a corporate veil. That’s sometimes legally permissible for a limited liability corporation. It’s definitely not legal for a nonprofit charity, which is why the New York lawsuit was filed.
Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#31

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:01 pm

8-)
Addie wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:22 pm
Bloomberg - Noah Feldman
Temptation Lies Inside Trump Foundation’s ‘Empty Shell’

What can the latest lawsuit tell us about the president’s businesses?


The lawsuit filed last week by the New York State attorney general’s office makes it clear that Donald Trump and his family treated the Donald J. Trump Foundation not as a legitimate charity, but as a pass-through vehicle that benefited Trump, his businesses and his presidential campaign.

The key phrase in the lawsuit is “empty shell,” which is lawyer-ese for a corporation that does nothing, has no purpose, and exists merely as a piece of paper and a bank account.

If the idea of the empty shell corporation is fresh in your mind, that might be because we learned in May that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, also created and used a shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, to receive payments from companies seeking access to Trump. ...

The common denominator here is the use of a company as an alter ego for an individual – essentially an all-purpose vehicle for doing whatever you want behind a corporate veil. That’s sometimes legally permissible for a limited liability corporation. It’s definitely not legal for a nonprofit charity, which is why the New York lawsuit was filed.
And this comes as a surprise to absolutely anyone, particularly in NY????? Matbe some soybean farmer in the Midwest who thinks LaRump has got their back while his soyean crop just achieved negative value.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2917
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#32

Post by Turtle » Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:41 pm

I doubt the TF gave any more than a couple million to actual charity. He wasn't going to give anything to the veterans orgs until he realized he made that promise in public and there were too many people asking for the receipts. This is a guy who used to wander into charity events when they were giving the big checks on stage and stand up there for the photo op when he had nothing to do with that charity.

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#33

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:04 pm

Kendra wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:17 am
In Germany this would be a clear crime para 266 StGb "Untreue " = "breach of trust " and a crime in France as well. Isn't that the case in NJ ? (Edit) NY!.
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#34

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:20 pm

Carl von Ossietsky wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:04 pm
Kendra wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:17 am
In Germany this would be a clear crime para 266 StGb "Untreue " = "breach of trust " and a crime in France as well. Isn't that the case in NJ ?
There are probably some US crimes that would apply, with the exact ones depending on the creativity of the prosecutor. But it's often simpler to pursue civil and/or administrative remedies, depending on the nature of the offense, available evidence, etc. (Different burdens of proof apply in different proceedings.)
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#35

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:51 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:20 pm
Carl von Ossietsky wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:04 pm
Kendra wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:17 am
In Germany this would be a clear crime para 266 StGb "Untreue " = "breach of trust " and a crime in France as well. Isn't that the case in NJ ?
There are probably some US crimes that would apply, with the exact ones depending on the creativity of the prosecutor. But it's often simpler to pursue civil and/or administrative remedies, depending on the nature of the offense, available evidence, etc. (Different burdens of proof apply in different proceedings.)
In the Resistance you better do not look for simple remedies. Go for the kill (Nadt).

Edit

And what more than this simple piece of paper do you need as proof?
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

Jcolvin2
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#36

Post by Jcolvin2 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:07 pm

After the transactions which went to benefit non-charitable Trump entities came under scrutiny, the Foundation was repaid for several of the expenditures, plus interest. The interest amounts are relatively small. In the case of Fisher House, the effective interest rate is less than 0.94%/year; for the Greenberg transaction it is less than 0.5%/year; and for the DC Preservation Society it is less than 0.6%/year. While the methodology employed for coming up with these rates is not immediately obvious to me (maybe short term AFR? the Foundation's internal rate of return), these interest rates do not appear to resemble the terms that parties operating at arm's length would have agreed to.

(The "applicable interest" on the NALT transaction seems to be tied to a statutory rate of 1%/year.)

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#37

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:14 pm

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:07 pm
After the transactions which went to benefit non-charitable Trump entities came under scrutiny, the Foundation was repaid for several of the expenditures, plus interest. The interest amounts are relatively small. In the case of Fisher House, the effective interest rate is less than 0.94%/year; for the Greenberg transaction it is less than 0.5%/year; and for the DC Preservation Society it is less than 0.6%/year. While the methodology employed for coming up with these rates is not immediately obvious to me (maybe short term AFR? the Foundation's internal rate of return), these interest rates do not appear to resemble the terms that parties operating at arm's length would have agreed to.

(The "applicable interest" on the NALT transaction seems to be tied to a statutory rate of 1%/year.)
Does paying back make the crime go away?
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8043
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#38

Post by RVInit » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:23 pm

I think it's generally established that a sitting president may not be indicted, I'm guessing that is why this is a civil action, no? It's too damn bad nobody thought to indict the Great Catastrophe before the election. There is plenty there, I'm sure.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#39

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:27 pm

RVInit wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:23 pm
I think it's generally established that a sitting president may not be indicted, I'm guessing that is why this is a civil action, no? It's too damn bad nobody thought to indict the Great Catastrophe before the election. There is plenty there, I'm sure.
Why indict a Carnival Barker? It was so easy making fun of him. He enjoys the revenge every second of his life.
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44267
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#40

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:28 pm

RVInit wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:23 pm
I think it's generally established that a sitting president may not be indicted, I'm guessing that is why this is a civil action, no? It's too damn bad nobody thought to indict the Great Catastrophe before the election. There is plenty there, I'm sure.
Ronald Rotunda wrote a 54 page memo when helping out Ken Starr to the effect Clinton could be indicted. I’d enjoy reading it.

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#41

Post by Dan1100 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:33 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:28 pm
RVInit wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:23 pm
I think it's generally established that a sitting president may not be indicted, I'm guessing that is why this is a civil action, no? It's too damn bad nobody thought to indict the Great Catastrophe before the election. There is plenty there, I'm sure.
Ronald Rotunda wrote a 54 page memo when helping out Ken Starr to the effect Clinton could be indicted. I’d enjoy reading it.
I think "generally established" is a little strong when no court has ever ruled on the issue. I think that "it is the position of the Justice Department that it (and that includes Mueller) cannot indict a sitting President" is closer to accurate.

If I am not mistaken, the Justice Department also said the President couldn't be sued, until the Supreme Court said he could.
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#42

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:38 pm

When you don't try you will never know who is right. It may soon be too late to start fighting "tooth and nails " when all your tooth and nails have been torn out as a measure to fight terrorism.

Don't worry - you will still be allowed to report on Gavin Seim (perhaps the most popular thread on the Fogbow lately) .
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8043
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#43

Post by RVInit » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:39 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:33 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:28 pm
RVInit wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:23 pm
I think it's generally established that a sitting president may not be indicted, I'm guessing that is why this is a civil action, no? It's too damn bad nobody thought to indict the Great Catastrophe before the election. There is plenty there, I'm sure.
Ronald Rotunda wrote a 54 page memo when helping out Ken Starr to the effect Clinton could be indicted. I’d enjoy reading it.
I think "generally established" is a little strong when no court has ever ruled on the issue. I think that "it is the position of the Justice Department that it (and that includes Mueller) cannot indict a sitting President" is closer to accurate.

If I am not mistaken, the Justice Department also said the President couldn't be sued, until the Supreme Court said he could.
Thanks for the correction. It actually makes me feel somewhat better. Then again...who am I kidding.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26669
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#44

Post by bob » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:39 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:33 pm
I think that "it is the position of the Justice Department that it (and that includes Mueller) cannot indict a sitting President" is closer to accurate.
And, of course, the AGoNY* is not bound by the DOJ's opinion.

I think New York's position is bound more by quantum of proof issues. But that may change as (as they say) more is revealed.


* Agony, get it??!?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#45

Post by Dan1100 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:48 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:39 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:33 pm
I think that "it is the position of the Justice Department that it (and that includes Mueller) cannot indict a sitting President" is closer to accurate.
And, of course, the AGoNY* is not bound by the DOJ's opinion.

I think New York's position is bound more by quantum of proof issues. But that may change as (as they say) more is revealed.


* Agony, get it??!?
It's not binding on the D.C. Federal Grand Jury either, but there is no one to tell them that.

If only there was an aged out stripper/porn star who could go on TV and tell the Grand Jury to ignore what Mueller tells them and indict Trump anyway. (mostly :sarcasm: )
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#46

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:50 pm

RVInit wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:23 pm
I think it's generally established that a sitting president may not be indicted, I'm guessing that is why this is a civil action, no? It's too damn bad nobody thought to indict the Great Catastrophe before the election. There is plenty there, I'm sure.
I think "believed" is a better choice of words rather than "established". There is NOTHING that I am aware of other than a Justice Dept "opinion", nothing in the Constitution that has been pointed out. Maybe get to find out.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#47

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:52 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:39 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:33 pm
I think that "it is the position of the Justice Department that it (and that includes Mueller) cannot indict a sitting President" is closer to accurate.
And, of course, the AGoNY* is not bound by the DOJ's opinion.

I think New York's position is bound more by quantum of proof issues. But that may change as (as they say) more is revealed.


* Agony, get it??!?
Concur, although there may also be statute of limitations issues.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#48

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:05 pm

Forget about these issues and just indict. Drag him into the Agora. Try. Fight. Before it is too late.
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#49

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:08 pm

Carl von Ossietsky wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:05 pm
Forget about these issues and just indict. Drag him into the Agora. Try. Fight. Before it is too late.
Riiiiiiiiight. Because there would be no ill effects at all from either an acquittal or a dismissal on technical grounds.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: NY State v. Trump et al

#50

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:16 pm

You are already at the bottom of the hole. Any ill effects can't hurt you anymore. So you have to grab any straw and try to make it into a rope.
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

Post Reply

Return to “The Resistance”