A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
asking the rest of you to donate too.

He needs $350 million. He would start his own business, but there are
restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.

Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.

If you donate $500 or more, I'll send you a photo of him holding a Bible.

Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> writes:
>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>
>He needs $350 million.

Actually a bit over $400 million when you
factor in the penalties, which apply from
when the charges were filed.

> He would start his own business, but there are
>restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>
>Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.

He's got that banker in california that's already
loaned him $250 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axos_Bank

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:26:59 PM UTC-6, Ed P wrote:
> A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
> some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
> asking the rest of you to donate too.
>
> He needs $350 million. He would start his own business, but there are
> restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>
> Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>
> If you donate $500 or more, I'll send you a photo of him holding a Bible.

What's his favorite Old Testament verse about money?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:48:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> writes:
>>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>>
>>He needs $350 million.
>
>Actually a bit over $400 million when you
>factor in the penalties, which apply from
>when the charges were filed.

If you add in the $4M + $4M that each of the sons has to pay, plus the $100M
that Alan Weisselberg has to pay, the total comes to about $556M. It might be
time to check the couch cushions or maybe sell any remaining classified
documents that might be lying around M-A-L.

>> He would start his own business, but there are
>>restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>>
>>Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>
>He's got that banker in california that's already
>loaned him $250 million.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axos_Bank

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:06:34 -0600, Jim Joyce <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:48:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> writes:
>>>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>>>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>>>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>>>
>>>He needs $350 million.
>>
>>Actually a bit over $400 million when you
>>factor in the penalties, which apply from
>>when the charges were filed.
>
>If you add in the $4M + $4M that each of the sons has to pay, plus the $100M

Oops, I think that Weisselberg fine is only $1M. Everyone has that paltry sum
lying around.

Even so, some sources are saying the total is over $556 million, but I'm not
clear on how they get there.

>that Alan Weisselberg has to pay, the total comes to about $556M. It might be
>time to check the couch cushions or maybe sell any remaining classified
>documents that might be lying around M-A-L.
>
>>> He would start his own business, but there are
>>>restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>>>
>>>Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>>
>>He's got that banker in california that's already
>>loaned him $250 million.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axos_Bank

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:26:53 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>He needs $350 million. He would start his own business, but there are
>restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>If you donate $500 or more, I'll send you a photo of him holding a Bible.
>

He'll be a busy boy on His first day of Dictatorship !
... probably get writers cramp signing all those
Presidential Pardons for Himself, His family and friends.
Not to mention the firings and hiring only the best
and the brightest to replace them all. :-)
How will He ever find time to suck-up to Putin ! ?
John T.

On 2024-02-17, Jim Joyce <none@none.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:06:34 -0600, Jim Joyce <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:48:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>>Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> writes:
>>>>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>>>>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>>>>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>>>>
>>>>He needs $350 million.
>>>
>>>Actually a bit over $400 million when you
>>>factor in the penalties, which apply from
>>>when the charges were filed.
>>
>>If you add in the $4M + $4M that each of the sons has to pay, plus the $100M
>
> Oops, I think that Weisselberg fine is only $1M. Everyone has that paltry sum
> lying around.
>
> Even so, some sources are saying the total is over $556 million, but I'm not
> clear on how they get there.

That probably includes the $88.3 million he owes E. Jean Carroll for
the two civil cases.

--
Cindy Hamilton

Jim Joyce <none@none.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:06:34 -0600, Jim Joyce <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:48:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>>Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> writes:
>>>>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>>>>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>>>>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>>>>
>>>>He needs $350 million.
>>>
>>>Actually a bit over $400 million when you
>>>factor in the penalties, which apply from
>>>when the charges were filed.
>>
>>If you add in the $4M + $4M that each of the sons has to pay, plus the $100M
>
>Oops, I think that Weisselberg fine is only $1M. Everyone has that paltry sum
>lying around.
>
>Even so, some sources are saying the total is over $556 million, but I'm not
>clear on how they get there.

That's what it will be by the time the Appeals court rejects his appeal.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:26:53 -0500, Ed P
<esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>asking the rest of you to donate too.
>
>He needs $350 million. He would start his own business, but there are
>restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>
>Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>
>If you donate $500 or more, I'll send you a photo of him holding a Bible.

I'd really like that photo. I'm trying to raise the money now from
contibutors so I can donate.

On one tv station last night, they said that trump had gotten one gift,
that NYS recently lowered the post-judgment interest rate from 9 to 2%,
but I don't think that is correct. That is for consumer debts.

Often I think the best way to get an answer is to ask you folks, but
this is too complicated, so lets see what I can find online.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-50/5004/
"provided the annual rate of interest to be paid in an action arising
out of a consumer debt where a natural person is a defendant shall be
two per centum per annum ...."

b) For the purpose of this section "consumer debt" means any obligation
or alleged obligation of any natural person to pay money arising out of
a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which
are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family or
household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to
judgment, including, but not limited to, a consumer credit transaction,
as defined in subdivision (f) of section one hundred five of this
chapter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-50/5004/ You have
to log in but they accept Facebook and Google.

Nothing about the disgorgment strikes me as consumer debt, so they still
owe 9%/year until paid. The bond they have to post will be at 120% of
the judgment. I'm not sure why... either that is to allow for posting
assets which may decline in value, or if cash or a bond payable in cash
is posted, I guess it foresees that the appeal will be decided within a
little over 2 years. If it takes longer, ???

I think I heard they have 30 or 40 days to post the bond, if they plan
to appeal. (the first $5 million that goes to E. Jean Carroll has been
posted already.) When an appeal is lost/dismissed, the money goes
straight to the person or entity it was posted for. She, and others,
don't have to chase it. (Are other states like this?)

Of course if you post not assets or cash but a bond, you normally have
to be paying interest on that too! And he can't borrow money from a
bank registered in NYS. Does that include, for example, California
banks? Are there lenders in NY that don't get included as banks, Are
there loan sharks with this much money? What if he borrows money from
the Mob?

Jim says the total comes to about $556M, and 9% of that is about $50
million a year, so the interest that is accruing now is about a million
dollars a week, almost $140,000/day. Unless they are getting more than
9% on their money somewhere else, they'd better pay soon.

Came across that: The maximum rate of interest for loans by New York
State based corporations and individuals is 16%. But nonetheless,
Banking Law section 351[1] allows a New York corporation duly licensed
under section 340 of the Banking Law to charge any rate of interest
allowed by law: in this case up to 24.9%. There are also situations in
which case law permits interest rates higher than the 16% mentioned
above.
https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/SSI/directives/DRP/drp136a.pdf

If it's a federal court, and I'll bet he soon owes money there, for
something or other, it appears the interest rate is 8.25%.
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/how-calculate-post-judgment-interest

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 5:26:59 PM UTC-5, Ed P wrote:
> A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
> some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
> asking the rest of you to donate too.
>
> He needs $350 million. He would start his own business, but there are
> restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>
> Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>
> If you donate $500 or more, I'll send you a photo of him holding a Bible.

Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
by the state.

trader_4 wrote:
> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 5:26:59 PM UTC-5, Ed P wrote:
>> A good friend of mine recently had a bit of a setback. He is having
>> some money issues, not of his own making. I'm giving what I can but I'm
>> asking the rest of you to donate too.
>>
>> He needs $350 million. He would start his own business, but there are
>> restrictions on that too. Damned government regulations.
>>
>> Just send me the cash and I'll pass it on to him.
>>
>> If you donate $500 or more, I'll send you a photo of him holding a Bible.
> Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
> into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
> hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
> businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
> reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
> by the state.

The Democrat's will have to find some scabs to haul the ballots around.

In article <31941872-ca4b-40cb-a546-88dc699bd348n@googlegroups.com>,
trader4@optonline.net says...
>
> Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
> into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
> hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
> businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
> reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
> by the state.
>
>

Businesses are moving out of New York. After seeing the ruling of this
judge many more probably will. Not because they are MEGA but becaues
they are afraid they may be charged with the same thing.

Just saw on the news where one of the 'sharks' from the Shark Tank show
said after that ruling he would never do business again in the state of
NY.

On 2/20/2024 12:00 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <31941872-ca4b-40cb-a546-88dc699bd348n@googlegroups.com>,
> trader4@optonline.net says...
>>
>> Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
>> into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
>> hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
>> businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
>> reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
>> by the state.
>>
>>
>
> Businesses are moving out of New York. After seeing the ruling of this
> judge many more probably will. Not because they are MEGA but becaues
> they are afraid they may be charged with the same thing.
>
> Just saw on the news where one of the 'sharks' from the Shark Tank show
> said after that ruling he would never do business again in the state of
> NY.
>
>
So they are afraid to run a business and follow the law? Afraid they
may get caught doing something sleazy?

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:00:05 -0500, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <31941872-ca4b-40cb-a546-88dc699bd348n@googlegroups.com>,
>trader4@optonline.net says...
>>
>> Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
>> into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
>> hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
>> businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
>> reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
>> by the state.

If they are employees of whoever made the goods being shipped, they'll
be fired. If they are independents, they'll have big trouble getting
loads in the future if they do this. We'll see how many are ready to do
that to themselves.

Hmmm. Confusing hits here,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=truck+driver+is+organizing+truckers+to+boycott+
Not sure if it shows the same thing to everyone, but for me the first
hit is from a day ago and says " A group of truck drivers who support
former President Trump have announced they will not be driving to New
York City as a means of ..."

But from *2* days ago it says ""Chicago Ray" truck driver calls off NYC
boycott https://www.foxnews.com › chicago-ray-walks-back-tr...
2 days ago — After calling on truckers to boycott driving to New York
City in response to the civil fraud judgment that fined Trump more than
$350 ...""'Chicago Ray' takes down his 'Truckers for Trump' post less
than 24 hours after his call to action"

It's the same person organizing it in both articles. It may be, I
suppose, that Stephany Price took too long to file hir story, and it was
obsolete by a day by the time s/he did.
>
>Businesses are moving out of New York. After seeing the ruling of this
>judge many more probably will. Not because they are MEGA but becaues
>they are afraid they may be charged with the same thing.

Do they lie on loan applications too? Do they lie in the opposite
direction when they pay taxes? Do these supposed businessmen think
other states don't have laws against that?
>
>Just saw on the news where one of the 'sharks' from the Shark Tank show
>said after that ruling he would never do business again in the state of
>NY.

He says that now, but just wait. He's not even an American. He's
Canadian. And he strikes me as another fool. From your link, “I can’t
even understand or fathom the decision at all. There’s no rationale for
it.”
And from Wikip.
"O'Leary supported ending Canadian airstrikes on ISIS and supports
taking a peacekeeping role in the Syrian Civil War.[123]
O'Leary described Russia as "neither an ally nor a foe" in an
interview with the CBC.[124] "
https://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/818600755405864960 "

On 2/20/2024 9:00 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <31941872-ca4b-40cb-a546-88dc699bd348n@googlegroups.com>,
> trader4@optonline.net says...
>>
>> Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
>> into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
>> hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
>> businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
>> reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
>> by the state.
>>
>>
>
> Businesses are moving out of New York. After seeing the ruling of this
> judge many more probably will. Not because they are MEGA but becaues
> they are afraid they may be charged with the same thing.
>
> Just saw on the news where one of the 'sharks' from the Shark Tank show
> said after that ruling he would never do business again in the state of
> NY.
>

NY probably won't miss all those scammers.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-5, Ed P wrote:
> On 2/20/2024 12:00 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> > In article <31941872-ca4b-40cb...@googlegroups.com>,
> > tra...@optonline.net says...
> >>
> >> Did you see some Trumper truck driver is organizing truckers to boycott going
> >> into NYC? Not sure if it will amount to anything, but if it does, who will it be
> >> hurting? Not Letitia James or the judge. It will hurt the people and mostly
> >> businesses in NYC that can't get supplies and have to reduce hours for employees,
> >> reduce sales, etc. Also interesting that it's just NYC, when this was a case brought
> >> by the state.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Businesses are moving out of New York. After seeing the ruling of this
> > judge many more probably will. Not because they are MEGA but becaues
> > they are afraid they may be charged with the same thing.
> >
> > Just saw on the news where one of the 'sharks' from the Shark Tank show
> > said after that ruling he would never do business again in the state of
> > NY.
> >
> >
> So they are afraid to run a business and follow the law? Afraid they
> may get caught doing something sleazy?

As long as you don't totally lie on loan applications, I don't see that you
have anything to fear. If Trump hadn't been such a greedy, boastful con
man and had not inflated valuations by 3X, they would have had no case.
The piece de resistance was claiming his own apartment was 30K sq ft
when it actually was 10K and then applying a value per sq ft to that. And
he's a real estate developer and the one that built it. There if no getting
around that. Also would other businessmen in NY attack the judge, his
assistant and the prosecutor? I'm sure that helped increase the fine.

If businesses have anything to worry about, it's the other stupid case,
brought by Alvin Bragg where he claims that putting down "legal fees"
for the money you paid your lawyer for his work and to pay for the NDA
is falsifying business records and somehow, magically, a felony for
reasons Bragg won't state. That case has done nothing but help Trump
and it's going to help even more now that it's going to trial. We have
real, serious cases, Jan 6 and the classified documents case, this Bragg
BS just leads people to think the other cases have no merit either.

trader_4 wrote:
> As long as you don't totally lie on loan applications, I don't see that you
> have anything to fear.

So how much can the numbers be fudged in Obiden's two tier justice system?

> If Trump hadn't been such a greedy, boastful con
> man and had not inflated valuations by 3X, they would have had no case.
> The piece de resistance was claiming his own apartment was 30K sq ft
> when it actually was 10K and then applying a value per sq ft to that.

The lender has already stated that President Trump fully complied with the
terms of the loan and would gladly do business with him again.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

On 2/22/2024 6:37 AM, JRB Ware wrote:
> trader_4 wrote:
>> As long as you don't totally lie on loan applications, I don't see
>> that you
>> have anything to fear.
>
> So how much can the numbers be fudged in Obiden's two tier justice system?
>
>> If Trump hadn't been such a greedy, boastful con
>> man and had not inflated valuations by 3X, they would have had no case.
>> The piece de resistance was claiming his own apartment was 30K sq ft
>> when it actually was 10K and then applying a value per sq ft to that.
>
> The lender has already stated that President Trump fully complied with the
> terms of the loan and would gladly do business with him again.
>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
>

If a dealer swaps heroin with a cocaine dealer, it is complying with the
terms of the deal so that is OK.

In article <hmGBN.76529$5Hnd.41026@fx03.iad>, jrb.ware@quid.pro.joe
says...
>
> > If Trump hadn't been such a greedy, boastful con
> > man and had not inflated valuations by 3X, they would have had no case.
> > The piece de resistance was claiming his own apartment was 30K sq ft
> > when it actually was 10K and then applying a value per sq ft to that.
>
> The lender has already stated that President Trump fully complied with the
> terms of the loan and would gladly do business with him again.
>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
>
>
>

It sounds like the lenders may have know the deal was shadey but went
along with it and are happy they made money. This falls in the area of a
victim less crime. Maybe the bank officers should be charged all so.

On 2/22/2024 6:45 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <hmGBN.76529$5Hnd.41026@fx03.iad>, jrb.ware@quid.pro.joe
> says...
>>
>>> If Trump hadn't been such a greedy, boastful con
>>> man and had not inflated valuations by 3X, they would have had no case.
>>> The piece de resistance was claiming his own apartment was 30K sq ft
>>> when it actually was 10K and then applying a value per sq ft to that.
>>
>> The lender has already stated that President Trump fully complied with the
>> terms of the loan and would gladly do business with him again.
>>
>> The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It sounds like the lenders may have know the deal was shadey but went
> along with it and are happy they made money. This falls in the area of a
> victim less crime. Maybe the bank officers should be charged all so.
>

FUNNY! You actually think bankers would say "He committed a crime, and
we let him do it and get away with it. Anyone else want to do business
with us?"

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:45:52 -0500, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <hmGBN.76529$5Hnd.41026@fx03.iad>, jrb.ware@quid.pro.joe
>says...
>>
>> > If Trump hadn't been such a greedy, boastful con
>> > man and had not inflated valuations by 3X, they would have had no case.
>> > The piece de resistance was claiming his own apartment was 30K sq ft
>> > when it actually was 10K and then applying a value per sq ft to that.
>>
>> The lender has already stated that President Trump fully complied with the
>> terms of the loan and would gladly do business with him again.
>>
>> The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

there is no pudding and there is no eating. It's against the law to lie
on loan applications. It's bank fraud.
>>
>>
>
>It sounds like the lenders may have know the deal was shadey but went
>along with it and are happy they made money. This falls in the area of a
>victim less crime. Maybe the bank officers should be charged all so.

The bank did not lie on the loan application. trump did.

micky wrote:
> there is no pudding and there is no eating. It's against the law to lie
> on loan applications. It's bank fraud

I want to sell a property. I don't know how much to ask.
There's a good chance a buyer might finance their purchase through a bank.

Do I have to contact Judge Loony Engoroony to get an "court approved" sale price?

On 2/23/2024 6:40 AM, Skid Marks wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> there is no pudding and there is no eating.  It's against the law to lie
>> on loan applications.  It's bank fraud
>
> I want to sell a property. I don't know how much to ask.
> There's a good chance a buyer might finance their purchase through a bank.
>
> Do I have to contact Judge Loony Engoroony to get an "court approved"
> sale price?

If you have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders you do.