Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is awesome. Weaponized government, meet weaponized private industry.
Of course you do, you no different than the cancel culture libs. All snowflakesI support this 100%
Boycott: We aren't buying your product or using your services until you reverse a decision we don't agree with.Of course you do, you no different than the cancel culture libs. All snowflakes
You’re right.Of course you do, you no different than the cancel culture libs. All snowflakes
Bring back BSCBoycott: We aren't buying your product or using your services until you reverse a decision we don't agree with.
Cancel Culture: We aren't buying your product, using your services and nobody else should either and you're a bad person and we are going to do illegal stuff like doxx you and try to our very best to put you out of business by any means necessary.
This is why we think you're a chess playing pigeon.
Whatever happened to him or did he just morph into somebody else?Bring back BSC
He at least made me think every once and awhile
Poor Cavuto's asshole looks puckered AF. I hate that guy. 😂
He couldn’t handle his masturbatory thread being locked and took his talents to one of the other dozen burners/free forums.Whatever happened to him or did he just morph into somebody else?
FoxNews sucks.Poor Cavuto's asshole looks puckered AF. I hate that guy. 😂
Even if it was fiction, it was at least entertaining. Letter guy and all. 😂Bring back BSC
He at least made me think every once and awhile
You need to ask your buddy about this NY lawsuit where there are no victims. Money borrowed and paid back. WTF is exactly the plaintiff here again? This is a political witchhunt. If Trump overvalued his properties, then he paid way too much in taxes. I am no attorney but don't you need to have economic damages to sue someone for fraud? Please report back Lord Sock, and phone a friend, 😁Boycott: We aren't buying your product or using your services until you reverse a decision we don't agree with.
Cancel Culture: We aren't buying your product, using your services and nobody else should either and you're a bad person and we are going to do illegal stuff like doxx you and try to our very best to put you out of business by any means necessary.
This is why we think you're a chess playing pigeon.
Roger that.You need to ask your buddy about this NY lawsuit where there are no victims. Money borrowed and paid back. WTF is exactly the plaintiff here again? This is a political witchhunt. If Trump overvalued his properties, then he paid way too much in taxes. I am no attorney but don't you need to have economic damages to sue someone for fraud? Please report back Lord Sock, and phone a friend, 😁
I’ll leave a more complete answer to sock’s contact, but I believe it’s a legal principle called disgorgement.You need to ask your buddy about this NY lawsuit where there are no victims. Money borrowed and paid back. WTF is exactly the plaintiff here again? This is a political witchhunt. If Trump overvalued his properties, then he paid way too much in taxes. I am no attorney but don't you need to have economic damages to sue someone for fraud? Please report back Lord Sock, and phone a friend, 😁
Taxpayers, I mean illegal immigrants.Who gets the money Trump is supposed to pay?
Even if it was fiction, it was at least entertaining. Letter guy and all. 😂
What does it mean when the boards biggest snowflake calls others...a snowflake? I think it cancels itself out?You’re right.
We should just let a state confiscate $355MM for absolutely no reason and do nothing so you don’t call anyone a snowflake.
This isn’t cancelling someone for not using the correct pronouns, this is fighting communist seizures of assets for political purposes. But as a fascist liberal I wouldn’t expect you to get that.
In a way, it’s actually good for NYC in the long run.
Yeah its crazy, normally the person/company that was wronged would get the payment, BUT here, ALL the Banks and Insurance Companies are saying Trump did nothing wrong. Hmm ... Strange.Taxpayers, I mean illegal immigrants.
The state AG brought the lawsuit.
This is a lot like civil asset forfeiture. They take it from you and you have to go to court to get it back.I’ll leave a more complete answer to sock’s contact, but I believe it’s a legal principle called disgorgement.
Basically taking advantage of the system by lying and getting excessive profits directly from the lies….in this case excessive inflation of asset valuation to get better interest rates on loans because they were more secure.
It doesn’t require a plaintiff to claim damages. The state can just go after you if they want to. The suit was brought by Letitia James.
And it’s not $354M, it’s $465M. He hit Trump with $100M in back interest. The worst part is Trump has to put the full amount OH with the court to even appeal.
From Jonathan Turley:
“Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio.”
It’s truly communist banana republic stuff.
Which will nearly bankrupt him and make running for President really hard.This is a lot like civil asset forfeiture. They take it from you and you have to go to court to get it back.
He has to put that money in escrow that he doesn't control to even start the appeals process.
We demand total victory. Nothing else will do. If we have to remind you city slicker fags who drives the big rigs and who grows the food, then so be it.Of course you do, you no different than the cancel culture libs. All snowflakes
Seems that requirement that due process requires an excessive bond would be unconstitutional. I would challenge the law and get it before SCOTUS then once the bond requirement it found unconstitutional file the appeal.Which will nearly bankrupt him and make running for President really hard.
I'm not sure it works that way.Seems that requirement that due process requires an excessive bond would be unconstitutional. I would challenge the law and get it before SCOTUS then once the bond requirement it found unconstitutional file the appeal.
Win the appeal which should happen if SCOTUS is on the job. Then counter sue NY for violating his rights with some monetary component for the ban from his own business. Next shutter the NY businesses, let the buildings rot and tax revenue dry up.
He owes them nothing but they owe him a lot.
I'm not sure it works that way.
He's been deemed guilty of breaking a state statute and he only challenges the details of the penalty afterwards? And he was given a "fair" trial, isn't that enough due process for SCOTUS?
Asking these questions ignorant AF about the actual law...
Companies are seeing the writing on the wall in NY and CA. Their banana republic administration of asset seizure is going to be the death of them.
Even the VIEW said it was an exorbitant sum. The VIEW!!You’re right.
We should just let a state confiscate $355MM for absolutely no reason and do nothing so you don’t call anyone a snowflake.
This isn’t cancelling someone for not using the correct pronouns, this is fighting communist seizures of assets for political purposes. But as a fascist liberal I wouldn’t expect you to get that.
In a way, it’s actually good for NYC in the long run.
It’s amazingEven the VIEW said it was an exorbitant sum. The VIEW!!
There was NO victim here. James is a Marxist.
My concern is - he has to park a half a trillion dollars to even have an appellate court hear his appeal.Evidence obtained thru an illegal search is deemed inadmissible by reasons of being poisonous fruit from a poisonous tree.
Every ten years or so some state or another stays all executions while they investigate if the death penalty violates the states constitution or the 8th amendment.
Either could apply if the penalty for a statutory crime is an unreasonable fine it's unconstitutional, or if the penalty on its own is deemed an excessive fine then it is also unconstitutional.
The framework for SCOTUS judicial review, let's see what the appellate court does.