Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
- RTH10260
- Posts: 14796
- 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)
let the face SLAPPing begin
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
Yep. Klayman does this as well: Uses the courts to publish sensitive information or outright lies. All from the safety of his mailbox office.
* * *
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.
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
Does Mary Trump fit into that list?Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:59 pm David Cay Johnson, Maggie Halbermann, Robert Costa, Bob Woodward…
It would be fun to have a Trump v. Trump case to comment on.
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
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.
This is the media gaslighting America.
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 9647
- 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)
... but I don't have a smiley of a barn door being closed after the horsie got out.
The more I learn about this planet, the more improbable it all seems.
- roadscholar
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Occupation: Renaissance Mechanic
- Contact:
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
Hence one of my first favorite monikers for him: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.
"Trumplethinskin"
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
- Slim Cognito
- Posts: 6636
- 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)
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.
- RTH10260
- Posts: 14796
- 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)
For Republican judges, maybe filing in TX would have been the better option
- 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)
bob wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:31 pmRepeached 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.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- keith
- Posts: 3789
- 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)
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?Greatgrey wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:07 pm Twelve years old, but …..
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/f ... story.html
Has everybody heard about the bird?
- noblepa
- Posts: 2458
- 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)
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.
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
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.noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:25 pmTrue, 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.
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.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2458
- 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)
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.jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 9:12 pmIf 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.noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:25 pmTrue, 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.
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.
- keith
- Posts: 3789
- 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)
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?
-
- Posts: 414
- 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)
Don't........ 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.keith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:35 amWhich 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.
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.......
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
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
--Colin Kaepernick
- Reality Check
- Posts: 2241
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
- Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
- Contact:
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
Two? I think there are a butt load.
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 18453
- 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)
Pope Hat flagged this quote:
“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
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:04 pm
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
"legally bumptious"
Ooh! I'm stealing that.
Ooh! I'm stealing that.
- Phoenix520
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
- Verified: ✅
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
That’s a favorite of his.
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
- Location: England
Re: Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)
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
“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?