1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Stinky farts of thunder
    Forcing us to chunder

    (Men At Work-Jack)
     
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    New York Executive Law § 63 (12)
    12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise
    demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of
    business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New
    York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order
    enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts,
    directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate
    filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former
    penal law [FN3] or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court
    may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word
    “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to
    defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense,
    false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or
    “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or
    illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any
    separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one
    person.
    In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof
    and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with
    the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason
    of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  3. Scout

    Scout Well-Known Member

    I love that this idiot bragged that he had 400 million in cash.

    The NPR story today is almost comical how this idiot’s bragging about his wealth, under fucking oath, probably helped set the bar for the penalty.

    Oh, you have 400 million in cash and it’s growing everyday? Then 383 shouldn’t be a problem.

    Seriously. This idiot was our president.
     
  4. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  5. DanielSimpsonDay

    DanielSimpsonDay Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  6. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The AG can "allege persistent fraud" against anyone using that totalitarianish statute. ... but there is no burden of proof required. The AG is not required to demonstrate that anyone was defrauded (or even name anyone who has been defrauded), is not required to prove any intent to defraud anyone, and is not required to prove any financial harm to anyone to collect "relief" (which in this case didn't relieve anyone, because the AG didn't name anyone as having been defrauded, so it turned into a ruling where the state gets to take $500 million from someone -- which has the appearance of a shake down, not justice).

    She dug that statute out because she failed in a criminal investigation -- which would have required proof of someone having been defrauded -- and her entire purpose was to go after Trump, and a broad and pliable statute like that gave her the means for her ends.

    I don't see how any country that prides itself on due process and the rule of law, and has a bill of rights protecting people, allows for a statute like that to be used the way it was. In this case, the government alleged fraud against someone somehow without needing to actually prove that anyone was defrauded, without having to name anyone who was defrauded or show any financial harm to anyone. ... and a judge was empowered to just rule it fraud via summary judgment and hit the person with any kind of massive fine he wanted. That is third-world court room stuff that has been glossed over by people. ... because it's Donald Trump and people want to get him so badly that they don't care about the means someone uses to do it. But it's not a good thing just because it fucks Donald Trump. ... it weakens our country and puts at risk all of OUR rights when that kind of kangaroo court stuff happens.
     
    FileNotFound and Azrael like this.
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    The law - on the books in this form since 1956 - was applied here as it was written.

    Too broad and discretionary? Maybe!

    If we don't like a law, we can always vote to change it.
     
  9. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    LOL.

    Mike Pence has less influence in today’s Republican Party than I do.
     
  10. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

  11. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    wicked likes this.
  12. OscarMadison

    OscarMadison Well-Known Member

    Most of us would be a quivering mess of...something. Then again, we have sufficient executive function to know that not only would we be hurt by this, so would our families and anyone with close business or professional ties. Those concerns alone would be overwhelming. To note this is not necessarily to express sympathy.
     
    garrow and Driftwood like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page