"The [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation] law allows defendants to seek a quick dismissal of the case, if they can prove the lawsuits against them have no 'substantial basis in fact and law.' In such cases, the people who brought the suit have to pay the defendant’s legal fees.... Her lawsuit says that Trump defamed her by denying her allegations that he assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.
In the filing, Trump said that Carroll’s sole purpose in filing the suit was to retaliate for truthful comments, 'maliciously inhibiting his free exercise of speech.'... Some experts said Trump’s motion ran counter to the intention of New York’s law.
'The spirit of anti-SLAPP laws are to prevent powerful people from bullying the powerless,' said Evan Mascagni of the Public Participation Project, a national group that advocates for anti-SLAPP laws. 'Was an anti-SLAPP law designed to protect the president of the United States?'... Does the state anti-SLAPP law apply to federal cases, like this one? Does it apply retroactively, to cases filed before the law was passed?"
ADDED: I haven't studied New York's statute or read the filings, but does Trump rely on the truthfulness of his comments? That's the substantive question in issue in the lawsuit — who's telling the truth about whether or not he raped her. Wouldn't it need to be obvious that he and not she is the truthteller for his anti-SLAPP motion to succeed? Shouldn't he just file a counterclaim based on her defaming him by calling him a rapist?
I looked to see if he'd filed a counterclaim, and I see that
it was announced 2 days ago that he will file a counterclaim. That is, he hasn't yet. I'm also seeing there (at Bloomberg) that Trump recently replaced his legal team.
Perhaps the point of the anti-SLAPP motion — with its threat of shifting legal fees — is to motivate Carroll to settle the case. The counterclaim will increase the pressure.
পোস্টগুলি
৮১টি মন্তব্য:
It’s a harassment suit. It gets my ‘lawsuits I hope will lose’ tag…
Trump defamed her by denying her allegations
every time i read this, i just go 'WOW!'
C accuses T of something
T denies C's allegations
C SUES T for refusing to confess
'WOW!'
"The spirit of anti-SLAPP laws are to..." protect members of The Party, not Republicans.
Libs are so scared of him.
Everybody gets to use the laws. That’s the product we pay politicians to produce, isn’t it? Get your money’s worth y’all.
I was threatened with a libel lawsuit this week for truthful statements I made about a public figure on Twitter. This liberal young lawyer is the President of the Nebraska Cannabis Association. I’m opposed to legalizing pot in Nebraska.
He told he to delete my truthful tweets. He then flew into a rage and called me a “motherfucker.”
I sent him a letter explaining the law to him. A nice “law review” type letter. I consider this closed.
But this is a good example of how liberals want to censor and punish all opponents.
BTW, “medical” pot will probably be on the ballot in Nebraska in 2022. I’m resigned to the fact that it will win. But that doesn’t mean I won’t stop speaking out against it. This is still America.
It's bad when you're nagged by women that you're not even married to.
The WaPo is a morally disgusting and intellectually bereft institution.
If you are reading it as some sort of enemy reconnaissance that is one thing.
But actually supporting it by linking to it constantly and treating it as some sort of actual source of information and driving actual traffic there is not a good reflection. It doesn't even get the readership numbers of many substack authors.
You can do so much better on substack.
Astral Codex Ten would be right up your alley. Heather Cox Richardson is the WaPo without the corporate soullessness. If you look around over there you might find something... "GASP"... right of center. Honestly not much though.
Every decent reporter the WaPo or NYT or the other "publications" had that can write above a 10th grade level and still has a soul has gone to substack. Even Mathew Iglesias for god's sake. Everything left on the WaPo page is just corporate hackery.
It doesn't make you one of the cool kids linking to Wapo anymore.
It is passe'.
I heard on the Rachel show that Russians were all over that department store, talking on walkie talkies coordinating Trump's rapes.
What proof does E. Jean Carrol have for her allegation of rape by Donald Trump? None. It's just her word against his. Trump denying the allegation is not defamation. In fact, Carrol's charges could be called defamatory as she has no proof and she did not file a police report at the time. Her friends saying that she told them at the time is not even worth a brass farthing. They could be lying to support her. That's simply hearsay.
When I read,
"'The spirit of anti-SLAPP laws are to prevent powerful people from bullying the powerless,' said Evan Mascagni"
I automatically translate this into, anit-SLAPP laws make no distinction for the level of power between the two sides.
Addendum. The liberal young lawyer admitted to being a pot user in his reply to tweets to me. Truth is a defense.
Is it okay to assert that liberals aren't tolerant of opposing opinions? Is that allowed today?
Alas, the left has discovered how frivolous lawsuits can annoy people trying to govern or people in public position. They sure did a number on Palin using that tactic.
'The spirit of anti-SLAPP laws are to prevent powerful people from bullying the powerless,'
I would think the point of anti-SLAPP laws is as much to protect the powerful and those with deep pockets against frivolous lawsuits by liars trying to pick their pockets. No one is frivolously suing the poor and unpowerful.
This is the same lady that spends her weekends at her Hamptons property with friends and their children running around shooting bow and arrows at targets of people's profile photos. Her only collaborator to the supposed Trump rape was one of those friends.
Seems pretty outrageous to me that she is suing him for slander for denying her charges against him. That is, he is being attacked for making a defense, which he has an obvious right to make. If he can't get a quick dismissal of that, then there is something wrong with our system
As for whether SLAPP was intended to be used by powerful people, so what if it wasn't? If Trump is barred from defending himself against SLAPP attacks by virtue of being a former president, then the SLAPP law is unconstitutional as a violation of his right to equal treatment.
""The spirit of anti-SLAPP laws are to..." protect members of The Party,"
From Yes, Minister: "The Official Secrets Act is there to protect officials, not secrets."
Trump defamed her by denying her allegations
every time i read this, i just go 'WOW!'
C accuses T of something
T denies C's allegations
C SUES T for refusing to confess
'WOW!'
This is being used as a way to circumvent the statute of limitations, as well as to accuse Trump of rape and lay the burden of proof on him, as the one asserting truth (that no such rape occurred) as a defense, as well as to put on him the burden of proving a negative. These kinds of suits should be thrown out, whether via the anti-SLAPP motion or some other way.
In states like California with anti-SLAPP motions on books longer the motions have been abused because they stay discovery and the order granting or denying the motion is immediately appealable. There is also an interesting unresolved question whether such state law motions should be available in federal court. Are they substantive or procedural?
Can Of Cheese for Hunter: "I heard on the Rachel show that Russians were all over that department store, talking on walkie talkies coordinating Trump's rapes."
You had to do it, didn't you?
Now its going to take 18 months before gadfly and Left Bank will be convinced you were joking.
You know the rule, Drago.
On the left, if you hate someone, you get to lie about them as much as you want.
And if you are a good liar, you can win up to 30 millions dollars.
David Begley - What's your reason for opposing legalization of marijuana?
I don't use it, but I'm not against it and I have some older family members who are managing chronic pain (and eye issues) with it. When the state can't control something - i.e. the wide spread availability of illegal drugs - I tend to support the state legalizing it and structuring it for the benefit of society. I've seen no evidence keeping pot illegal makes a meaningful reduction in it's widespread use and seen plenty of harm by it being illegal. I also see no philosophical rationale for making pot illegal but keeping alcohol legal. Either ban impairing subtances or don't, but don't pick and choose cause one is a cultural norm and the other is not (though it's still widely used).
Like mask mandates, the fastest way to grow resistance to something is to force the population to do something.
Who does this hairpie think she is? Juanita Broderick Crawford? Fuck her in the goat ass. Everyone knows Trump is physically incapable of rape.
Poor, poor woman. Tears coming down my face.
A liberal/leftist who didn't do squat about being "Raped" in a Department store, who has no witnesses, has an absurd sotry, and didn't report it to the Police. We were honestly expected to believe that a middle-aged woman was "raped" in a department store by a Billionaire with a beautiful model wives and with Zero history of forcing himself on women.
We need a statue of limitations for Strong Women who are TOUGH, and somehow cant' get around to saying they were raped for 15-30 years after it happened.
We can be sure that if Clinton had raped her violently, she would have said nothing, and "taken one" for Team Left.
I guess we're going by the Blowsey Ford precedent, whereby any Republican can be accused of anything no matter how absurd and its "credible".
ADDED: I haven't studied New York's statute or read the filings, but does Trump rely on the truthfulness of his comments? That's the substantive question in issue in the lawsuit — who's telling the truth about whether or not he raped her.
Is it? If it's a defamation case she filed, yes, truth is a defense, but I don't think you can file for defamation just because someone called you a liar. Does that really
expose a person to hatred, contempt, or aversion or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community
?
My actual experience with anti-SLAPP is a grand total of one case, so I'm no expert, but this seems like Trump has a reasonable case from what I recall of the facts here.
Framework for anti-SLAPP as I recall it is:
First it has to be a statement on a matter of public interest. That hurdle is probably met given that he was commenting on a public accusation of rape, widely reported in the press, involving the President of the US.
Then, to overcome the anti-SLAPP motion to strike, Plaintiff needs to present admissible evidence establishing a probability of success on the merits. Even without discovery, admissibility may not be much of an issue here since Trump's allegedly defamatory statements are probably all on twitter or in interviews. But regardless of whether Trump did or did not rape her, I think there's probably a decent argument that his calling her a liar (plus whatever other insults he's lobbed at her) is not actually defamatory, so she wouldn't be able to show a probability of success. Of course, if Defendant Trump wants to put in evidence that he affirmatively did not rape her, that works too, and he might as well.
It’s my understanding that libel causes of actions cannot be based on relevant statements made in a pleading filed in court. That is, you aren’t protected from libel accusations based on random and irrelevant defamation statements made in a court pleading. Trump’s denial of her rape accusations in Trump’s Answer is relevant and seems to me, cannot be the basis of a libel charge.
Now its going to take 18 months before gadfly and Left Bank will be convinced you were joking.
@Drago, they will never be convinced he was just joking.
'The spirit of anti-SLAPP laws are to prevent powerful people from bullying the powerless,'
Sarah Palin could not be reached for comment.
The Lawfare movement is like a parasite on society. is there any ethics or morality left in the legal profession? Sorry, not sorry for asking a silly question.
>>Is it okay to assert that liberals aren't tolerant of opposing opinions? Is that allowed today?
As someone once pointed out, the left is always surprised that there ARE opposing opinions.
But yes, you can still say that today... unless you are on a university campus. Then it will get you fired.
See, Drago. Howard reveals the no-win situation. Trump is either a heinous rapist, or a dickless wonder. ...controlled by Russians.
TreeJoe:
My opposition to pot is based largely on two things: 1. Alex Berenson's book on the topic which debunks the notion that today's pot is harmless. 2. I'm an old school "It's a Wonderful Life" type of guy. Widespread gambling and drugs leads to no good and, for many people, a whole lot of pain and suffering.
I also don't like smoke. Never have.
The idea that it is a public good to have more people intoxicated and stoned isn't good. We have enough problems with booze.
Pot, in and of itself, has no nutritional value; booze does. The only purpose of pot is to get high. Give me some delicious Cava or Cab any day. Or a good craft beer.
Of course, I'm sympathetic to sick people. But the "medicinal" use is a slippery slope.
@David Begley
Though I disagree with your view drug legalization (when talking about marijuana), I am disgusted that some industry shill would try to silence you. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue that need to be aired in the public square. I'm actually ashamed this douche bag represents my side of the argument.
Howard: "Who does this hairpie think she is? Juanita Broderick Crawford?"
It's very important for all the Bill Clinton/kneepad fanboyz, like Howard, to keep sliming those women Bill Clinton raped and sexually assaulted, particularly know that more and more of Bill's antics with Jeffrey Epstein and the underage girls on the Lolita Express are coming to light.
Why, things have gotten so bad on the PR front for serial sexual assaulter and "minor attracted person" Bill Clinton that Howard would probably only half-heartedly give Bill a standing ovation the next time Bill shows up where Howard is matriculating.
SteveM: "Trump’s denial of her rape accusations in Trump’s Answer is relevant and seems to me, cannot be the basis of a libel charge."
Hmmmmm. You appear to lack the legal "creativity" necessary to be a democratical in good standing.
Looks like you'll never be on the receiving end of an Andrew Weissman or Marc Elias or Ben Wittes phone call.
She accused Trump of rape and he’s the defamer? Got it…. I ain’t got it.
did she ever call the police?
If someone raped me in a dept store - I'd call police and report it.
https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2020/11/new-yorks-new-anti-slapp-law
New York's new anti-SLAPP law will now extend, far more broadly, to lawsuits based upon "any communication in a public place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest" or based upon "any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest . . . ." Because the statute also states that "public interest" should be "construed broadly, and shall mean any subject other than a purely private matter," the new anti-SLAPP law should be expected to sweep up political and social discussions, as well as entertainment productions.
A speech-protective anti-SLAPP regime will allow a targeted defendant to escape a bad-faith SLAPP suit quickly and without incurring high legal costs or invasive discovery.
Enhanced Burden of Proof: Once the defendant has demonstrated that the lawsuit they are facing is an action based on their public communications or other free speech conduct, the plaintiff can only avoid dismissal by demonstrating that their claim has a "substantial basis in law" or is supported by a "substantial argument" for modifying the law. Although the new law does not offer a definition of "substantial basis" or an express explanation of how it compares to the ordinary standards governing a motion to dismiss, there are indications that the burden is more demanding. For example, a claim can survive a traditional motion to dismiss if the allegations in the complaint manifest any cause of action "cognizable at law." The anti-SLAPP law by contrast requires a "substantial basis" in the law, which is more stringent than "cognizable." Further, the new statute shifts the burden—whereas on an ordinary motion to dismiss or for summary judgement, the moving party must demonstrate that the claim is unsustainable, under the new statute the plaintiff carries the obligation to show that its SLAPP suit is supported by a "substantial basis in the law."
Automatic Stay of Discovery: While the anti-SLAPP motion is pending, all discovery and other hearings or motions (and thus, burdens on the defendant) are now required to be stayed, by default.
So she bears the burden of proof that what Trump did was in fact criminal. Which IMAO in this case should mean that she has to prove he lied
Oh, and "has people who claim she told them contemporaneously" only works if there's some evidence that she actually did.
An email. A text message. "She told me in person and we never, for the next 20 years, said anything about it, or alluded to anything about it, in any preserved medium" shouldn't fly
I am a bit behind on how they are trying to knee cap Trump.
The latest seems to be tying him to Epstein even more.
Jan 6 is ongoing, trying to use it as way to go defame him.
And then there is the continuing efforts by the NY going after his IRS returns.
Hopefully this case with Caroll will be dropped soon.
He got out of the apprentice lawsuit and Michael Cohen ones:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/politics/trump-lawsuits-michael-cohen-summer-zervos/index.html
Everyone knows Trump is physically incapable of rape.
Poor Howard. The envy comes through strongly. Trump has beautiful wives and doesn't need to bother with dumpy women with a complex. Now, Bill Clinton had a good reason to be messing around although he dipped into the jailbait.
does the anti-SLAPP law nullify /Turn other cheek/ stare decisis
Again, to think Donald J. Trump - a man who'd been in the public sphere for decades and drew mobs of people at any public appearance - could just walk into a department store and assault a woman in a dressing room is pure insanity.
And nobody would know about it, to boot?
Fucked in the head, she is.
Sue me.
Again. Remember Christie Blowsey (NSFW: Blowjob) Ford? Leftist. A STRONG WOMAN. OMG, she went surfing!
Super-smart. Look out, hear her ROAR!
Attacked by Kavanaugh, 28, 29, 30, 31 years ago. The year never got pinned down. Also, the month, or the day. It was sometime in Spring or was it Summer? Anyway, she had a swimsuit on. Didn't file a police report. Can't remember whose house the attack took place. It was somewhere within 15 miles of a certain country club. Never told Momo or Dad. Some close friends didn't know.
KEPT IT A SECRET. Mostly. For 28-31 years. Strong women are like that.
Then, the FEELINGS come back. They see a Republican getting nominated to the SCOTUS.
And they MUST SPEAK. But mostly want to torpedo him anonymously.
STRONG WOMEN.
But back to Jean Carroll. So, middle-aged woman, past her prime, speaks to Billionaire who goes around with Supermodels. But she's so ATTRACTIVE, he must have her! OMG, she's such a hottie. He's willing to risk everything, even jail, just to possess her. Attacks her.
But she fights him off. STRONG WOMEN.
And there it ends. For 14-16 years. Then a Republican is POTUS. She MUST SPEAK. FEELINGS coming back.
Wow. STRONG WOMEN. TOUGH as Men.
Drago can't stop jacking off to the Starr report.
Juanita Broaddrick had five contemporaneous witnesses who testified to the fact under oath, including one who walked in on her crying and bleeding right after Clinton left. Clinton could have cleared his name, were he in fact innocent, by releasing the records from the Arkansas State Police, who had a detail with him at all times.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/03/is-juanita-broaddrick-telling-the-truth.html
I find myself agreeing with everything David Begley has said about drugs and alcohol and in passing tobacco. I’ve never smoked, or even tried to, or “experimented” with any drugs, including the not so innocuous marijuana. My wife and I informed all our children growing up that their teachers were going to tell them everyone tries it! And that their teachers are lying; that’s the excuse weak minded people use to excuse their weaknesses. Having one relatively close family number completely ruin his life due to substance abuse helped with the lessons. When talking about how every person has value I was asked by one of my children what his value was. I answered that he served as a great bad example.
There is, however, a big problem with the government’s overzealous war on drugs. There are some people in severe pain. I personally don’t give a crap if someone in a hospital or nursing home or hospice, whatever, who’s only going to leave in a hearse, is addicted to anything. Stopping their pain improves their life and addictions only effect might be to shorten it a few days or hours. Stopping the pain could also conceivably lengthen it.
Not everyone gets addicted even to the most powerful drugs. When I visit my VA practitioner I get a prescription for a ten day supply of oxycodone. It kills my knee pain. Nothing OTC does. That ten day supply used to last 8-10 months taken as needed. Now it lasts 3, and my regular appointments are a year apart. Can’t prescribe refills, can’t prescribe more than 10 days.
I hear all the time about the wonders of medical marijuana and the new fad CBD oil. As far as pain relief goes, there’s likely many pharmaceuticals that do it better. CBD? IMHO, snake oil. Studies that could be replicated could convince me otherwise, but everything I hear about comes in the form of “testimonials”, “Hey! It worked for me!”
This post and the next one have a lot to do with the literally/seriously thing. I don't think Trump's lawyers are right about the legal basis, but they are right in thinking that the case should be dismissed, and Trump doesn't understand how the Supreme Court works in a "literal" sense, but he has an idea of how it works in practice. But I guess that to be a lawyer or a judge means to pay close attention to the "literal."
I think we need to move past the actual effecs of MJ use on society and those too weak to control their addictions. we need to legalize. Sure its sad some lives will be lost. Some families destroyed. Sad, some lives ruined. Sad, some auto accidents due to MJ use. Lots of people looking back, "Gee, I wish I hadn't damaged my health, smoking all that MJ sitting on the coach watching TV".
We need to look on the BRIGHT SIDE. Like all the $$$ big Corporate MJ will be making! I hope Althouse has some $$ invested. OUr former Speaker of House is.
Anyway, I just pray that Heroin, Cocaine, and Meth get legalized. Think of all the Joy! THere's nothing better than a Heroin high, ask any Junkie. And tHink of all the stuffed shirts scandalized when you show up - and shoot up!
The great society: No cigarettes but legal heroin and cocaine!
"Trump has beautiful wives and doesn't need to bother with dumpy women with a complex."
True, but that didn't keep him away from skanky porn stars.
In other news, it is now clear that the democratical-aligned CIA has been covering up CIA employee child sex crimes for over 14 years.
Heckuva job Howard.
"No one is frivolously suing the poor and unpowerful."
Landlords bring frivolous lawsuits against poor tenants everyday.
"Juanita Broaddrick had five contemporaneous witnesses who testified to the fact under oath"
First time I've ever seen on of the Know Nothings actually support a statement with a link, and of course if you check out the link it says just the opposite.
True, but that didn't keep him away from skanky porn stars.
Zero evidence. All there is is a photo at a golf tournament.
"with Zero history of forcing himself on women."
Trump: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything"
Please keep your spank bank greatest hits to yourself, Drago.
@roccean:
Ther Progressives taught us last time around that prohibition not only doesn't work, it makes things worse for everyone.
Nice sob story Gobface. Poor you and your aching knee. Take heart, Jeebus is punishing you for Trumps sins.
Try topical THC oil with dmso. CBD requires a much higher dose. You can get dmso at the feed store... It's horse arthritis medicine, so you should like it.
Howard: "Please keep your spank bank greatest hits to yourself, Drago."
Interestingly, Howard claims to be a college graduate and more erudite than Jordan Peterson.
I'll leave it to the readers to assess Howard's grandiose self-assessment.
"Ther Progressives taught us last time around that prohibition not only doesn't work, it makes things worse for everyone."
Proof that they didn't do it hard enough. Time to double down.
Mutaman said...
"with Zero history of forcing himself on women."
Trump: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything"
So, what you're saying is that you're utterly incompetent at reading comprehension?
And when you’re a star, they let you do it
Let me expand that for the mentally slow:
The women who go to Hollywood, to beauty contests, etc, tend to be strongly hypergamous (attracted to the successful), and most are willing to trade their bodies for access.
Now, what part of that statement do you claim is not true?
It's not "forcing yourself" on women when they're willing to trade sex for a part in a show, etc. Or even just for a chance to hang out with teh rich and famous.
See rock stars and groupies.
That's entirely different from, say, Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddric, or Joe Biden putting his hands on every girl who gets too close
Mutaman said...
"No one is frivolously suing the poor and unpowerful."
Landlords bring frivolous lawsuits against poor tenants everyday.
Really? Would those be "frivolous" "you didn't pay the rent for 6 months" kind of lawsuits?
or maybe "you completely trashed the apartment" lawsuits?
"Zero evidence. All there is is a photo at a golf tournament."
No one gives a porn star $130,000 for NOT sleeping with them.
"if you check out the link it says just the opposite."
I checked the link and it doesn't say "just the opposite". It offers dueling interpretations of the facts known, but doesn't deny the facts. You are being dishonest.
"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
What part of "they let you do it" qualifies as forcing them to do it? The cult of celebrity is what it is. That's all Trump was pointing out.
The discussion of the pornstar who was paid $130,000 by Trump's lawyer (reimbursed by Trump) to keep her mouth shut reminds me --
She made claims about intimidation or something, he called her a liar, and she sued him for defamation. And she lost and was ordered to pay his attorney's fees. That seems like a pretty plausible trajectory here, even if Avenatti is no longer available to lose the case.
Maybe Nixon had the right idea and everything presidents say should be taped. I'd say that half the presidents in my lifetime could have made the "grab them by the pussy" comment, and a few might actually have performed the act. So far as we know, Trump only made the comment, which I can easily imagine Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Biden, and the Bushes making. It's stupid locker room guy talk. I'm not sure about the other presidents. Some of them have made similar comments metaphorically about opponents. Ford might have said it but been referring to an actual cat.
Balfegor: "She made claims about intimidation or something, he called her a liar, and she sued him for defamation. And she lost and was ordered to pay his attorney's fees. That seems like a pretty plausible trajectory here, even if Avenatti is no longer available to lose the case."
Seems like only yesterday lefty toast of the town Avenatti was going to be the democraticals political "Companion Cavalry" that would cut through the Trump legal defensive perimeter.
Oh what heady days those were. On how Howard and the Althouse Lefty Moron Brigade rejoiced at Avanatti's daily appearances with ever increasing bravado (false all along but its always enough to fool the rubes, chief among them the Lefty Moron Brigade).
Of course, as with antifa and 2020 riots and the lefties now proven to have funded the gain of function "research" at the ChiCom's BioWarfare lab in Wuhan to serve the ChiCom's interests, Biden's Earpiece openly selling out US interests to the russians/ChiComs/Iranians, its all down the "airbrushing of history" memory hole.
"It's stupid locker room guy talk."
I bet Lurker21 has never been in a locker room.
"Really? Would those be "frivolous" "you didn't pay the rent for 6 months" kind of lawsuits?
or maybe "you completely trashed the apartment" lawsuits?"
No it would be - you are a regulated tenant and if i can evict you by bringing a frivolous lawsuit I can deregulate the apartment and raise the rent by 50%.
"So, what you're saying is that you're utterly incompetent at reading comprehension?"
I know they didn't teach you this at Trump University, Sparky, but what I posted is called a quote-that why i put the little " " before and after it. A quote means I reposted Trump's pwn words- "reading comprehension" has nothing to do with it.
I know they didn't teach you this at Wank Off U, Sparky, but understanding what a quote means is called "reading comprehension".
And as I pointed out, the jump from what Trump said, to what you claim it means, is an illegitimate jump that could only be made by someone who's a liar, or an utter failure at reading comprehension.
I'll be kind, and assume it's the latter in your case
"the jump from what Trump said, to what you claim it means"
I think I just set forth the quote,Sparky, I didn't claim anything. You're projecting.
Mutaman said...
"with Zero history of forcing himself on women."
Trump: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Hmm, so you're now establishing that your's a liar, and that in giving that quote after that sentence you weren't trying to do anything.
What's it like, having positions that are such complete garbage that you have to run away from them whenever you're called out on your idiocy?
Mutaman said...
"Really? Would those be "frivolous" "you didn't pay the rent for 6 months" kind of lawsuits?
or maybe "you completely trashed the apartment" lawsuits?"
No it would be - you are a regulated tenant and if i can evict you by bringing a frivolous lawsuit I can deregulate the apartment and raise the rent by 50%.
Ah, so these would be "you're robbing me of 1/3 the market rent (equivalent to not paying rent 1 month in 3)" "frivolous lawsuits"!
Good for them
"Ah, so these would be "you're robbing me of 1/3 the market rent (equivalent to not paying rent 1 month in 3)" "frivolous lawsuits"!"
I don't think you understand the distinction between a nonpayment proceeding a a holdover proceeding.
Mr. Grab Em By The Pussy's words speak for themselves, Sparky. In the legal biz its called an admission.
I don't think you understand the distinction between a nonpayment proceeding a a holdover proceeding.
I entirely do understand the moral and ethical differences between stealing money yourself, and getting the government to steal the money for you: There are no differences
Legally, there are differences. But whining about other people using the law to get around your legalized theft? GFY
And now we're back again to your reading comprehension failure. The words DO "speak for themselves". They just don't say what you claim they say, which is why you're continually running away from your own claims.
What's it like, being so pathetic that you write things that even you know are stupid and indefensible?
Greg is straight out of Trump University -issue is the landlord bringing a frivolous eviction proceeding to try and de-regulate an apartment. According to Greg this amounts to a tenant “stealing money“and “getting the government to steal the money for you“. And “legalized theft". In other words it’s all a bunch of Greg’s gibberish. Typical cracker nonsense.
Grab them by the pussy, Greg. You can have the last word
Mutaman is straight out of the University of stupid.
"Regulating" an apartment such that the tenant gets rent 1/3 below market rate is theft. Any legal trick a landlord can use to beat that theft is perfectly moral, and legal
But it's nice to know that you accept that your positions are indefensible which is why you haven't even tried to defend them
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন