Trump ordered to pay over $350M for business fraud

Yeah, like you did. Only if the statute is ambiguous do you look at legislative history, and the statute at issue is deliberately broad. It's not a consumer proetction statute. Wrong again.

READ IT!

"Some assclown wrote a book about the mean stuff being done to Trump and blahblahblah....". Uh, no. Trump did all the things he's charged with doing, and then some. It's all self-inflicted. He'll reap the "rewards".

 

No, there are not. I've read them, and they don't even say that. Maybe you should read your own cites.

You wasted my time.

 

Which he hasn't read.

 

Read the quote from your article. Do you understand what a disclaimer is?

Where is the quote from Trump on the square footage?

 

They absolutely do. That’s confirmed by the 150 times the statute was used. There was only one “business” cited which wrote college term papers for dishonest students fir cash.

 

I’m encouraging the Orange Rectum to make all of these fantastic arguments on appeal.

 

The statute is a consumer protection law confirmed by the history and precedents. The prosecutor and judge manufactured a bogus case against him. That’s completely obvious.

Harvey Silverglate;

Criminal defense & civil liberties litigator

Of counsel to Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP

Co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

 

READ THE STATUTE!

You don’t seem to understand that the statute doesn’t say that and no case says that. Therefore, it’s not limited to consumer protection. It’s basic. Wrong yet again.

You’re not making any sense.

PS I thought it was only 12 cases! LOL!

 

What does he say? You don’t bother to quote him.

 

Bears repeating. Hell, I think the great law firm of AFM, Kelsoe and Bluesguy should file an amicus brief with these, uh, great arguments!

 

Then quote them.

 

You claim to have read the posts??

 

He wrote the book. You made an unflattering reference to him.

 

He wrote what book, and what does he say? Quote him.

 

Look upthread.

 

He won't. Just like he can't list 12 cases to support his incorrect contention about damages being required.

He can't even cite 1 case.

 

Posted above.

 

Your claim. Your source.

Quote it. Or quit making the claim.

 

It’s now grown to 150 cases, FYI.

 

No, it’s not.

 

Well it's very obvious that you have not been reading the posts.

 

Unfortunately for you, I have been.

How embarrassing.

 

LOL! Busted!

 

Actually you just proved that you haven't read the posts. But I already knew that and so does everyone else paying attention.

 

Just admit that you were caught making **** up, got caught, and move on. This thread has been unkind to you.

Which reminds me of another whopper you posted. You claimed this "professor" (he's actually an adjunct, meaning he's not a real professor) said that the statute only applies to consumer fraud when it plainly also applies to Trump's BS as well. But he said:

Many of us are delighted to see Mr. Trump get his comeuppance. We believe that his “art of the deal” is a version of the long con. Now Ms. James has proven it. She should be credited with a novel and effective use of an existing statute that others overlooked to obtain a result that feels right. But it is worth considering whether, in the quest to get Mr. Trump, many of our public officials may be pressing the law in ways that will outlive the cases against the former president.

I don’t believe that the attorney general’s case is at odds with the law as it exists in New York.

UH OH!