Great news for me (1 Viewer)

jpl458

Active member
Local time
Today, 12:41
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
910
As long as you are absolutely sure that in none of the cases there was any justification for not paying for the service.

Again I ask - should I have paid the lawyer I fired for cause? Should the middle man have had to pay me even though his client didn't pay him?

I don't know what the situations were in all of the lawsuits and I'm not reading the transcripts so I'm never going to be able to make a valid assessment. I wonder how many lawsuits GM or Microsoft or CitiCorp are involved in annually. There are hundreds of open suits involving Microsoft. I stopped counting at 260. Are they also evil? How many times have they been sued for violations of patents or trademarks? They must just be thieves stealing from the little people. Microsoft is just one company. Trump has multiple companies.
I am describing first hand information, not hoping that it is correct. No matter what you say, it will not alter that which actually happened. He has been involved in litigation over 3,500 times, and most of the suits were absurd.

Here is an excerpt that explains his M.O.

Cohn really taught Trump everything he knows about waging what I call asymmetrical warfare, weaponizing the law and using litigation as a means to attain the various objectives that he had. They met in a bar in 1973 just after Trump had been named as a defendant along with his father in a race discrimination in housing suit brought by the Justice Department. Trump had a number of lawyers, and normally a suit like that ends quickly with a consent decree with the defendant agreeing that he or she won’t discriminate anymore without accepting or admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint.

Cohn had a different recipe for going forward. He liked to beat the system. He’d been indicted three times by the legendary prosecutor Robert M. Morgenthau, and he’d been acquitted three times. Cohn’s recipe was fight, and he taught Trump the tools he used. No. 1 is if you’re charged with anything, counterattack. Rule No. 2 is if you’re charged with anything, try to undermine your adversary. Rule No. 3 is work the press. Rule No. 4 is lie. It doesn’t matter how tall a tale it is, but repeat it again and again. Rule No. 5 is settle the case, claim victory and go home. And that’s exactly what happened in the race discrimination case.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 20:41
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,265
And that’s exactly what happened in the race discrimination case.
Or in other words, the prosecution did not find Trump guilty.
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 15:41
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,738
So, in your opinion, if Trump is accused of a crime, he is automatically guilty even if a court found him innocent. OK, you're entitled to your opinion.
PS, who's the guy in Jail in these quotes?

For the third time I ask - should I have paid the lawyer I fired for cause? He never actually did anything but talk to me and discus our initial conversation with a mutual friend. Should the middle man have had to pay me even though his client didn't pay him just because he ran out of money? No one had any quarrel with my work. In fact, they loved it.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 15:41
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,826
For the third time I ask - should I have paid the lawyer I fired for cause? He never actually did anything but talk to me and discus our initial conversation with a mutual friend.
It would depend upon your retainer agreement, however it doesn't sound like you had one as it was an initial conversation.
It also doesn't rise to the level of an employee/ employer relationship so you wouldn't have fired him per se, you would have broken the contract. A breach of client confidentiality may be a valid reason to break the contract however there are some exceptions.

Should the middle man have had to pay me even though his client didn't pay him just because he ran out of money?
Most certainly. His cash flow problems are not your problem. He hired you, you performed, he owes you. You should have sued him.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 15:41
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,738
It would depend upon your retainer agreement
We did have a verbal agreement. Even if we had a signed agreement, his breach of my confidence goes unpunished? would I have had to include that particular clause in our agreement or should it have been a given?

Was the breach OK because it was me and I don't deserve the lawyer/client protections (Trump doesn't so I'm guessing I don't either) or would it have also been OK if your lawyer breached your confidence because you don't deserve to have confidential discussions with a lawyer either.

The question had two parts.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 20:41
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,265
Settling the case implies guilt, not innocence. Fox settled and paid a ton.
Settling doesn't imply anything. If the prosecution is convinced they would win, why would they settle? The accused can settle for a variety of reasons, some being economic.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 15:41
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,826
If the prosecution is convinced they would win, why would they settle?
Because the defendant/respondent agreed to what the prosecution/ plaintiff was looking for. In that case, trump org agreed to a number of conditions and requirements to ensure their compliance with the law.
 

jpl458

Active member
Local time
Today, 12:41
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
910
I agree with Moke123. In the case of Fox News they settled because if the trial went to judgement, then they would probably have to pay more. Plus it reduced court costs.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 15:41
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,738
Settlement happens all the time with or without agreeing to fault/guilt. It costs a lot of money to prosecute or defend a lawsuit. In many cases involving money, the lawyers are the only ones with a profit. So, people weigh the costs and settle if defending is more costly.

trump org agreed to a number of conditions and requirements to ensure their compliance with the law.
You keep blaming Trump personally for any actions committed by anyone in his employ. Yes, generally the head of the organization sets the tone but employees are not required to break the law to follow the spirit of the advice. If their employer tells them to break the law, they should resign and be vocal about it. I'm not sure we have any cases of that happening. If laws were broken, they were broken by employees by choice due to over exuberance or perhaps ignorance.

Is Biden responsible for the crimes being committed by his subordinates? Only in cases where he orders them to break laws such as his specific instructions to not enforce our borders (north or south). It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to ENFORCE the laws of the land. They don't get to choose which laws to enforce just as you don't get to choose which laws to obey. When the Executive Branch chooses which laws to enforce and which to ignore, it is the responsibility of Congress to come down on them like a hammer. Or, maybe be convinced that the law is bad or unenforceable, in which case it should be cancelled or replaced. Congress has failed us miserably in this context and so has the Supreme Court. The point of the three branches are checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its authority, the other two need to reign it in. Or, at least that was the intention of the Constitution.

Is Trump responsible for employees of the FBI who committed crimes by lying to the FISA court and hiding the existence of the HB laptop? He most certainly never told his FBI or DOJ employees to lie. They did it of their own volition. They didn't actually get punished though. We had a "show" settlement with a hand slap. The actual perpetrators of the crimes got away with it.

Trump's problem is that he says the "quiet" things. These are the thoughts that run through your mind constantly but normally your filter stops them from coming out of your mouth. Instead of persecuting him for this, you should rejoice because while Trump was President, it was probably the only time in modern history where we actually knew what the President actually thought about most things. Not only did these "quiet" things come out of his mouth, they also came out on Twitter. His penchant for name calling makes him look like an 8 year old school yard bully. However, it seemed to have the effect of keeping "strongmen" around the world from stepping out. Now they are rolling over Biden who is as weak and compromised as it comes. Even the left is withdrawing their support. They somehow have to deal with the problem of "Harris" because she can't be on the ticket as the Presidential candidate. The Dems can't possibly manufacture enough bogus votes to make it seem like she beat Trump.

I don't know anyone who agrees with every one of Trump's positions. In fact, there are three things that I will NEVER forgive him for. But, none of this should rise to hatred but it does and hence we have TDS. So, Trump is alive and well and living in your head;) And even though he failed us in several cases, it wasn't for greed as it is for Biden, so I will vote for him again in 2024. I trust that he knows his mistakes and will change his strategy for draining the swamp.
 
Last edited:

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 20:41
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,265
Because the defendant/respondent agreed to what the prosecution/ plaintiff was looking for. In that case, trump org agreed to a number of conditions and requirements to ensure their compliance with the law.
It depends how you define what they were looking for and the scope. The prosecution was looking for a conviction, but if they settle they don't get it. I see settling as a backup plan, but that can apply to both parties.

In many cases, I see settling as a potential for injustice. I've seen lots of documentaries where say Mr X from Alabama gets accused of something and then ends up settling to avoid a potentially long jail term. But they may be innocent and just want to avoid the risk of that long jail term, so they settle for something shorter. I can't imagine how many of those in jail are innocent.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 20:41
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,265
I agree with Moke123. In the case of Fox News they settled because if the trial went to judgement, then they would probably have to pay more. Plus it reduced court costs.
I agree with you (for once!). They settle because there is a higher downside risk if they don't settle. I am not saying they would probably have to pay more, but there is certainly a risk. And sometimes you just have to avoid a larger downside as it could seriously harm your business. It is a bit like being bitten by a zombie. You have to hack your own leg off because the consequences of not doing so are even worse. :eek:
 

jpl458

Active member
Local time
Today, 12:41
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
910
Settlement happens all the time with or without agreeing to fault/guilt. It costs a lot of money to prosecute or defend a lawsuit. In many cases involving money, the lawyers are the only ones with a profit. So, people weigh the costs and settle if defending is more costly.


You keep blaming Trump personally for any actions committed by anyone in his employ. Yes, generally the head of the organization sets the tone but employees are not required to break the law to follow the spirit of the advice. If their employer tells them to break the law, they should resign and be vocal about it. I'm not sure we have any cases of that happening. If laws were broken, they were broken by employees by choice due to over exuberance or perhaps ignorance.

Is Biden responsible for the crimes being committed by his subordinates? Only in cases where he orders them to break laws such as his specific instructions to not enforce our borders (north or south). It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to ENFORCE the laws of the land. They don't get to choose which laws to enforce just as you don't get to choose which laws to obey. When the Executive Branch chooses which laws to enforce and which to ignore, it is the responsibility of Congress to come down on them like a hammer. Or, maybe be convinced that the law is bad or unenforceable, in which case it should be cancelled or replaced. Congress has failed us miserably in this context and so has the Supreme Court. The point of the three branches are checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its authority, the other two need to reign it in. Or, at least that was the intention of the Constitution.

Is Trump responsible for employees of the FBI who committed crimes by lying to the FISA court and hiding the existence of the HB laptop? He most certainly never told his FBI or DOJ employees to lie. They did it of their own volition. They didn't actually get punished though. We had a "show" settlement with a hand slap. The actual perpetrators of the crimes got away with it.

Trump's problem is that he says the "quiet" things. These are the thoughts that run through your mind constantly but normally your filter stops them from coming out of your mouth. Instead of persecuting him for this, you should rejoice because while Trump was President, it was probably the only time in modern history where we actually knew what the President actually thought about most things. Not only did these "quiet" things come out of his mouth, they also came out on Twitter. His penchant for name calling makes him look like an 8 year old school yard bully. However, it seemed to have the effect of keeping "strongmen" around the world from stepping out. Now they are rolling over Biden who is as weak and compromised as it comes. Even the left is withdrawing their support. They somehow have to deal with the problem of "Harris" because she can't be on the ticket as the Presidential candidate. The Dems can't possibly manufacture enough bogus votes to make it seem like she beat Trump.

I don't know anyone who agrees with every one of Trump's positions. In fact, there are three things that I will NEVER forgive him for. But, none of this should rise to hatred but it does and hence we have TDS. So, Trump is alive and well and living in your head;) And even though he failed us in several cases, it wasn't for greed as it is for Biden, so I will vote for him again in 2024. I trust that he knows his mistakes and will change his strategy for draining the swamp.
Happy Thanksgiving, Pat
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 12:41
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,752
Deutsche Bank managing director who approved Trump's loan testifies on Trump's behalf ;)


Deutsche Bank managing director who was involved in approving loans to the Trump Organization for several of its most prominent properties, testified as a defense witness. Williams said that before making the loans, Deutsche Bank did its own due diligence on Trump's net worth and the values of his properties. When a Trump lawyer asked, "Is the bank capable of reaching its own judgment based on the evaluation it makes of the guarantor's financial condition?" Williams answered, "Certainly, yes."

Then Williams said, "As part of our due diligence, we subject a client's asset value to adjustments. It's part of our underwriting process. We apply it to every client regardless of what's reported." Trump's lawyer asked: "Is a difference of opinion in asset values between the client and the bank a disqualifying factor to extend credit?" Williams answered, "No." The lawyer asked why not. Williams answered, "It's just a difference of opinion."
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 15:41
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,738
Most (not all) of the charges/complaints against Trump are differences of opinion. One of the impeachments was based on the opinion of a "listener" on a phone conversation that Trump's statements were "a crime"

This case is just a joke. Trump needs redress when he wins. He needs to be compensated for his time, the time of his staff, and the money they paid to the lawyers for starters. Then there needs to be punitive damages sufficient enough to stop aggressive, biased prosecutors from pursuing a political agenda. And there should be personal penalties for the prosecutor since this case was personal for her. She ran her entire election campaign on it.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 12:41
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,752
Judge rules Trump defrauded banks, insurers as he built his real estate empire
Politics Sep 26, 2023 4:43 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP) — A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.
Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

"A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud"

Engoron comments were made on Sep 26th the trial was set for Oct 2

7 days before the trial set was to begin, Judge Engoron ruled Donald Trump guilty of fraud. Why bother with the dog and pony show?

Here I thought you were innocent until the State proves it's case with evidence. Unless I'm missing something.

This will be overturned on the grounds of lunacy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom