Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14359
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#76

Post by RTH10260 »

:twisted: let the face SLAPPing begin :lol:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#77

Post by bob »

Foggy wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:38 am He did it to disclose home addresses of all the defendants. He wants you to go to their houses and fuck them up. If you won't do it, someone else will. It's all about doxxing his enemies in a legal way.
Yep. Klayman does this as well: Uses the courts to publish sensitive information or outright lies. All from the safety of his mailbox office.

* * *
SuzieC wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:45 pmWho is left to sue?
Again referencing Klayman, anyone who might say a mean thing about her or her client. Klayman lurves to sue people for defamation over the reporting about him. And, again, the goal isn't to win, but to harass and punish.


Stripping away all the RICO!!!! decorations, at bottom this is a (time-barred) defamation suit. Clinton and her allies are alleged to have said untrue things about the plaintiff (in 2016). As if "public figure" and "actual malice" don't exist.
Image ImageImage
Lansdowne
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:49 pm

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#78

Post by Lansdowne »

SuzieC wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:45 pm Who is left to sue?
Phoenix520 wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:59 pm David Cay Johnson, Maggie Halbermann, Robert Costa, Bob Woodward…
Does Mary Trump fit into that list?

It would be fun to have a Trump v. Trump case to comment on.
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#79

Post by Greatgrey »

Foggy wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:38 am He did it to disclose home addresses of all the defendants. He wants you to go to their houses and fuck them up. If you won't do it, someone else will. It's all about doxxing his enemies in a legal way.
Iz being addressed…

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4919
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#80

Post by p0rtia »

Inexplicably? I used to call this type of cheap, inaccurate, cowardly reportage "normalizing malign acts" and "confusing neutrality with neutralizing".

This is the media gaslighting America.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#81

Post by Foggy »

Greatgrey wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 4:15 pm Iz being addressed…
... but I don't have a smiley of a barn door being closed after the horsie got out. :crying:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
roadscholar
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Renaissance Mechanic
Contact:

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#82

Post by roadscholar »

Suranis wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:33 pm If he just believed in his own greatness he would be Marlon Brando - not giving a fuck what anyone thought of him.

But he does not. So he makes people applaud him say he is great, desperately tries to hang out with big men, talks about how people like him and have emotional outbursts, proves he really won an election, take revenge to make himself the alpha again at every slight, sues people who say he is just a millionaire, etc.
Hence one of my first favorite monikers for him:

"Trumplethinskin"
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#83

Post by Slim Cognito »

change approved.jpg
change approved.jpg (172.38 KiB) Viewed 2766 times
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#84

Post by bob »

Repeached Florida Man wrote:We filed this great case, we've got a judge* that was appointed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. How do you think that's going to go? This shit can only happen to me.**

* Donald Middlebrooks.

** And Larry Klayman. ;)
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14359
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#85

Post by RTH10260 »

For Republican judges, maybe filing in TX would have been the better option :twisted:
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#86

Post by noblepa »

RTH10260 wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 3:48 pm For Republican judges, maybe filing in TX would have been the better option :twisted:
But then they wouldn't have the nexus, however tenuous (or downright irrelevant) that at least some of the plaintiffs or defendants live in the state.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#87

Post by Gregg »

bob wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:31 pm
Repeached Florida Man wrote:We filed this great case, we've got a judge* that was appointed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. How do you think that's going to go? This shit can only happen to me.**

* Donald Middlebrooks.

** And Larry Klayman. ;)
Image
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3706
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#88

Post by keith »

Greatgrey wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:07 pm Twelve years old, but …..

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/f ... story.html

HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#89

Post by noblepa »

keith wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 pm HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
True, but who in the secondary mortgage market would buy a mortgage that was precluded from foreclosure? If such a clause is in the mortgage agreement, it must be honored by any buyer. If its not in the document, it doesn't exist.

Even if he can't foreclose, he have every right to refuse to remove the lien until the debt had been paid. That means that the client can't sell the house without paying him.
jcolvin2
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:56 am
Verified:

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#90

Post by jcolvin2 »

noblepa wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:25 pm
keith wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 pm HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
True, but who in the secondary mortgage market would buy a mortgage that was precluded from foreclosure? If such a clause is in the mortgage agreement, it must be honored by any buyer. If its not in the document, it doesn't exist.

Even if he can't foreclose, he have every right to refuse to remove the lien until the debt had been paid. That means that the client can't sell the house without paying him.
If the lien is contingent upon the lawyer's actual success in litigation (in getting some portion of the client's liability to the bank eliminated), I don't see the problem with having a lien secure the lawyer's contingent fee.

Whether the amount of the contingent fee was reasonable in relation to the actual benefit received by the client is a different question. During a time of declining home values where many individual's liabilities exceeded their assets, the fee may have been high if the combined liens (bank's and lawyer's) approached or exceeded the property's value. The property would still be fully encumbered; the only difference being that a portion would be owed to the lawyer rather than the bank.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#91

Post by noblepa »

jcolvin2 wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 9:12 pm
noblepa wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:25 pm
keith wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 pm HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
True, but who in the secondary mortgage market would buy a mortgage that was precluded from foreclosure? If such a clause is in the mortgage agreement, it must be honored by any buyer. If its not in the document, it doesn't exist.

Even if he can't foreclose, he have every right to refuse to remove the lien until the debt had been paid. That means that the client can't sell the house without paying him.
If the lien is contingent upon the lawyer's actual success in litigation (in getting some portion of the client's liability to the bank eliminated), I don't see the problem with having a lien secure the lawyer's contingent fee.

Whether the amount of the contingent fee was reasonable in relation to the actual benefit received by the client is a different question. During a time of declining home values where many individual's liabilities exceeded their assets, the fee may have been high if the combined liens (bank's and lawyer's) approached or exceeded the property's value. The property would still be fully encumbered; the only difference being that a portion would be owed to the lawyer rather than the bank.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the lawyer having a lien to secure the contingent fee. But someone said that the lawyer promised not to foreclose on the debt, even in the event that the client stopped paying. That is what I was talking about. If the agreement contained a clause precluding foreclosure, I doubt if the secondary market would touch it, but it could complicate the sale of the client's home. If the agreement does not contain that clause and the client is relying on the lawyer's verbal promise not to foreclose, he is a fool. As the say, a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper its written on.
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3706
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#92

Post by keith »

noblepa wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:18 pm If the agreement contained a clause precluding foreclosure, I doubt if the secondary market would touch it
Which was no impediment to the CDS abuse going on in the early 2000's. Shitty mortgages were bundled into CDS and then rated AAA.

Nobody cared about the quality of the mortgage being bundled, they just wanted to keep feeding the CD numbers and giving FALSE quality ratings.

You know this.
Has everybody heard about the bird?
Mr brolin
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Occupation: Chief Blame Officer
Verified: ✅ as vaguely humanoid

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#93

Post by Mr brolin »

keith wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:35 am
noblepa wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:18 pm If the agreement contained a clause precluding foreclosure, I doubt if the secondary market would touch it
Which was no impediment to the CDS abuse going on in the early 2000's. Shitty mortgages were bundled into CDS and then rated AAA.

Nobody cared about the quality of the mortgage being bundled, they just wanted to keep feeding the CD numbers and giving FALSE quality ratings.

You know this.
Don't........ :sick: I was involved with LBHI (Lehman Brothers Holding Inc) and LAMCO (Legacy Asset Management COmpany) that were spun up after the Lehman bankruptcy to manage and liquidate the bad assets.

I spent a lot of time explaining to some folks that "No, I wasn't one of the ebil Banksters wot took your money" and explaining at Mickey Mouse level what CDO's, MBA's, Sub Prime and CDS's were and how they got taken by a rapacious bunch of thieving swine, profit humping lemmings, snake oil salesmen and magical thinking, abetted by credit rating agencies that should have all been put up against a wall and don't get me started on Fannie May, Freddie Mac and the rest....... :cantlook:
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#94

Post by filly »

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#95

Post by RVInit »

He may have two big problems. 1. Hillary Clinton declined to use this information in any of her campaigning and none of it came to light until after the election. And 2. It was Trump's own administration that undertook the investigation.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#96

Post by Reality Check »

RVInit wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:22 pm He may have two big problems. 1. Hillary Clinton declined to use this information in any of her campaigning and none of it came to light until after the election. And 2. It was Trump's own administration that undertook the investigation.
Two? I think there are a butt load. :rotflmao:
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#97

Post by raison de arizona »

Pope Hat flagged this quote:
Image
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Gene Kooper
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:04 pm

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#98

Post by Gene Kooper »

"legally bumptious"

Ooh! I'm stealing that.
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#99

Post by Phoenix520 »

That’s a favorite of his. :P
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

#100

Post by Uninformed »

Thought this is the best thread for this.

“Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure”:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/3 ... e-00021910
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”