Liberal Forum

Trump’s Get Rich Seminar Partnered With Couple Prosecuted for Fraud

Mike and Irene Milin were known to law enforcement officials in a number of states for a host of get-rich-quick schemes and alleged real estate scams. They were prosecuted by the Texas attorney general for deceptive trade practices, and sued by the makers of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, to name just two of the Milins’ many legal entanglements.
[.....]
In 2006, the year that Trump joined forces with the now-bankrupt company, the Milins were accused of violating Vermont’s Consumer Fraud Act by William Sorrell, the state attorney general at the time.
[.....]
Less than a year later, 34 state attorneys general wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission calling out the Milin's company for “deceptive advertising.”

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:59 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:58 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:57 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:57 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:55 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:53 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:52 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will go down in history as part of the leftist failure...

roadkill » 02 Jul 2016 2:48 pm » wrote:Misty...you are a progressive slut that will be part of the failed leftist failure!

Misty » 01 Jul 2016 2:42 pm » wrote:Trump Finally Weighs In On SCOTUS Abortion Ruling With Some Bad Math



So the genius had several days to come up with an opinion on the SCOTUS ruling and still can't get it right.
It shows just how little he knows about the SCOTUS.
Scalia would have voted with the other three Conservatives on the court making it a 5-4 decision and not changing the outcome at all.

Henry_ » 07 Jul 2016 3:27 pm » wrote:Yes, but did his supporters catch that? lol You can never be sure with some of them.

Misty » 07 Jul 2016 3:30 pm » wrote: They don't seem to care if anything he says is right or true.

Misty » 07 Jul 2016 3:30 pm » wrote: They don't seem to care if anything he says is right or true.

Efforts by the defendants charged in the Bridgegate scandal to obtain Gov. Chris Christie's cell phone and other electronic devices operated by his staff were rebuffed by a federal judge Thursday, who called the request too broad.
Judge quashes Bridgegate defense request for Christie's cell phone.

The mystery over the missing cell phone that Gov. Chris Christie used during the period when there were legislative hearings on the brewing Bridgegate scandal has been solved.
The phone, which lawyers for Bridgegate defendants Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly have been seeking, is in the custody of Christie's personal lawyer, Christopher Wray.

In a statehouse press conference in early May, Christie said he didn't know the whereabouts of the phone.
"I haven't had it for two-plus years, but it's in the hands of the government as far as I know," Christie said.
"I don't know exactly who physically has it. But I turned it over in response to requests from the government, as I said I would."
Prosecutors said they never had the phone.

Christie's cell phone is no longer missing.

After a flurry of legal filings in recent weeks, oral arguments in the Bridgegate case about whether the names of the unindicted co-conspirators should be made public will take place Monday before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

'John Doe' appeal: 7 things to know about Monday's Bridgegate hearing.

Inglorious Bastard » 08 Jul 2016 2:32 pm » wrote:am i allowed to post torture, assassinations, monkey sex or other mature subject matter here??

Misty » 08 Jul 2016 1:49 pm » wrote: Obstructing justice anyone?

Dallas police briefly identified him as a suspect in the case, at different points calling him a "suspect" or "person of interest," noting that it was a rifle which had been used against police officers that night. The alert went out on Twitter, with a picture of Hughes with his gun. Happily, everyone proceeded from that point in the best way possible. A friend alerted Hughes that he'd been identified. Hughes removed his camo shirt and flagged down a police officer to turn over his gun. He was taken into custody, questioned and released around 1am. As Hughes and others noted, it was a misunderstanding that might easily have cost him his life.

The Case of Mark Hughes, Or Don't Carry at a Protest.