Topic: Trump & banks (Read 136 times)

Trump has been talking a lot lately, which means he's lying a lot too. I stop believing him, but he's still the lesser evil.

Of course, Trump and banks isn't the only problem with attorneys.


With Regards to Trinsey v. Pagliaro - http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm

---

It is a VIOLATION of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL POWER of the State

Article XI.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Attorneys are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION.

Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People

Supreme Court of the United States 1795

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."

S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),

Supreme Court of the United States 1795

And,

"An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness".

(Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647)

---

Read more at http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm

Must? There is law that requires the accuser to face the accused if the accused requires such. If nowhere else, this law is found wrapped up with the word "acceptance," which is a legal term.

How does something like this work? The accused is not required to accept (acceptance) that he is the person on the indictment. It's obvious that the man or woman is not some paperwork name. But if the accused accepts the position of being the 'person' on the indictment, chances are that the court will accept such.

Then it becomes a question of representation; the person on the indictment represents the accused. In Trump's case, he accepted representation when he became a client of his attorneys. But in general, acceptance of representation is something that is not required.

In a case where the accused is a man or woman who has NOT accepted representation, there must be a man or woman accuser. The accuser must have first hand knowledge of the accusation, to be able to accuse correctly. But the accuser must be properly named on the indictment, and the accused must properly be name on the indictment, which Trump is not.

Regarding Trump, he has accepted representation by and through his attorneys. This means that he has handed the judgment over to the attorneys and the judge. The case is no longer Trump's case as far as actual disputing goes. By accepting attorney-client relationship by signed contract, he has given the court complete authority over himself.

However, at any moment Trump can dissolve the contract between himself and his attorneys. This would place him back into the position of being able to NOT accept being the person on the indictment. If Trump did this, who would his accuser be? He would not be accused, and certainly not if there was improper wording on the indictment - as there is on this indictment if it is to refer to a man rather than a person.

In other words, Trump could say, "It isn't me on the indictment." But he can't say this if he has accepted representation by his attorneys, because then it is their fight.

Why would Trump be able to make something like, "It isn't me on the indictment," to be effective? "Mistake of Fact, and "Mistake of Law" are legal terms. The law can't knowingly make mistakes about fact or law. But it would be making a mistake if Trump was not the person on the indictment, and if he didn't accept representation.

If Judge Merchan didn't accept Trump doing something like this, Trump could file "fraud on the court" paperwork with a higher court, and depending on the way Judge Merchan rejected Trump's doings, "fraud on the court by the court."


The point is that Trump has options. Simply filing "fraud on the court by the court" with a higher court could get his sentencing postponed until after the election. As far as we go, this is something that is beyond the scope of this forum contemplation. There are details that we don't know about and therefore, can't consider... even if we understand the law.

He was tried for breaking the bank fraud laws of the State of New York. His accuser was the State.

And there's no law that the accused must "face the accuser". How would a murder trial work if that were the case? Or drunk driving?

However, standard law allows the accused to face his accuser(s). This doesn't mean that they simply smile at each other across a table. It means that the accused can face his accuser under oath on the stand... to question his accusers, and ascertain if there was any harm or damage done... and then the proof that it was the accused who did the harm or damage.

How does a person who is gagged question his accuser(s)... on the stand or any other way? The whole trial needs to be thrown out. Trump doesn't seem too worried. So, I expect he will bring this up at sentencing.

Note that, if Trump requires to face his accuser even at the time of sentencing, the judge must allow it to keep from committing fraud upon the court.

A jury of his peers found Trump guilty. There was extremely strong evidence.

Do you have any news stories where the banks involved are being litigated against with the same vigor that Trump was litigated against? I haven't seen any.

There probably aren't any, for at least two reasons:
1. Trump isn't really guilty;
2. The whole thing against Trump is trumped up to keep him out of the presidency.

It absolutely is. If you get some employee(s) at a bank to agree to a fraud, then it's fraud. They are defrauding bank shareholders, bank regulators and bank customers.

It's not fraud if the parties know about it and agree to it.

There might be a difference between 'fraud' and 'bank fraud'. If there is, and if there was bank fraud, the banks knew about it. Do you really think that they made it into the position as bankers because they are stupid? So, take down the banking industry and everybody else who participates in bank fraud... Soros and Schwab, for example... and loads of wealthy, American elite... and most of Congress.

Besides, that is what will happen when Trump eliminates the Federal income tax, anyway. Taking the banking industry down as an honest method for doing the Trump take-down, will simply make it easier on Trump, later.

Otherwise, forget about it.

If bank personnel played a part in Trump's fraud, that doesn't make it not-fraud, and that doesn't make it legal.

All that means is that certain personnel were complicit in Trump's crime--and they too should be prosecuted. I don't know if that's the case here or not, but just because somebody helps you do a crime doesn't mean you are somehow innocent.

Bank fraud is a crime. Trump committed bank fraud.

Republicans can push to eliminate laws against bank fraud if they gain the majority, and maybe you might think that is a good idea, and maybe they will. The entire financial world will, of course, pull their money out of US banks if that happens since stealing will have been made legal here, and then our economy would crash. Again, I know that's what a lot of Republican voters seem to want as well. They seem to think economic ruin would be... funny.

But I'm betting most voters don't want our economy to crash or our country to end. At least I hope so anyhow.

But that's not what happened. The slight difference in what actually happened might make it look like it happened that way. But what happened is this.

The banks saw Trump coming. They decide they wanted his business. And the only way to get his business was to play the criminal game. So, that's what they did. They knew better than Trump that there was something going on that might be fraud, if they hadn't known that it was going on. But because they knew ahead of time, it wasn't fraud at all, even if there was criminal activity involved.

Certainly, if they hadn't played Trump's game, they might not have gotten his business. They wanted his business. So, they played the game... something like the title of this thread says... "play a little game." That's what the banks did.



The point is, Trump was singled out by a Deep State push, because he will get rid of the fraud and the crimes. Deep State crimes are way bigger, and intentional, when compared with the tiny, incidental crimes that Trump might have done.

So when a thief comes up to you with a gun and says, "your money or your life" and you "agree" to give him your wallet, do you think that is not a crime because you "agreed"?

1. Trump used fraud to obtain loans from banks.

2. The banks discovered the fraud.

3. The banks made a financial decision when they calculated that simply letting him get away with this crime would allow them to lose less money than they would have had they called the cops.

4. Trump was indicted and found guilty of violating laws that are put there specifically to deal with this situation, which will make getting bank loans more expensive for everybody.

When a bank accepts accepted bank practices, it's not defrauding a bank. It's doing business. Since they accepted Trump's operations, such operations were accepted bank practices, or they wouldn't have accepted such.

If a bank accepts criminal activity to keep from losing money, it must be acceptable bank practices to accept criminal activity. Anybody who accepts criminal activity is criminal. So, Trump is exonerated by the banks if he did criminal activity or if he didn't.

Since Trump was accepted, he didn't defraud the banks. If he did, it was acceptable bank practice to be defrauded in this way.

So, why is Trump being accused of something that is not acceptable by the banks?

No, Trump defrauded them. They did not agree to be defrauded, obviously.

Then when he was caught, they were in the position of losing even more money if they called the cops, so they didn't, and agreed to his demands.

Defrauding a bank is not "accepted banking practices".

The banks agreed with Trump. If they were pressured by him because he would show their dishonesty if they didn't go along with him, then they are dishonest and criminal.

If you work with criminal entities, some of their criminal activity will spill over into their transactions with you, even though you would like to be completely honest, and are unaware of the reach of their criminality into your deals with them. It happens because of their criminal base.

Trump acted as honestly as you would, because he was following accepted banking practices.

I use the banking system all of the time (and so do you), and I am not.. a criminal.

If I got a loan from a bank and gave the bank fraudulent documents in order to secure that loan, then I would be a criminal.

Close to what I was trying to say. The banking system makes everybody who uses it into criminals.

As for the so-called victim of Trump robbery... did anybody get on the stand and prove that Trump robbed him without the banking system being part of it?

And since the banking system is part of the robbery, can you claim to be any less of a criminal? After all, you use the banking system.

Since the banking system works with almost all of us, they are way more criminal than Trump.







Take a look at any major politician. Aren't they all involved with American enemies?

We have foreign embassies all over the world. Do you think that embassy people are simply sitting around doing nothing, especially on their days off?

The same way they would treat every criminal who ripped them off? Possibly. Banks are in the business of reducing their downside exposure when they are the victims of crime.

And yes, the banks were involved in a crime, but the statute apparently doesn't provide a criminal penalty to the... victim of Trump's robbery...

You seem to have missed the part about how the banks treated Trump the same way that they treat everyone.

If the banks are illegal in this, because Trump was found illegal in it, certainly the banks should pay, and not only Trump. So, the thing that Trump is doing is simply attempting to correct the corruption in the Banks.

It's all part of the Deep State... or do you think that the banks are not in lockstep with the Deep State?!

Does this make Trump to be part of the Deep State? Of course. We all are. We can't get away from it. The only way to do it is to shut down the Deep State. And that is what Trump is trying to do.

No, the banks did not "agree with Trump". Trump put them in a position that made it such that he would rob them of even more money if they didn't cooperate. The banks, making a transactional business decision, agreed to Trump's extortion. This is why this practice is illegal: if debtors like Trump were able to do this without fear of prosecution, then everybody would do it and then interest rates for loans would have to all be 1000%.

What Trump did was akin to murdering your first child, and then promising not to murder your other children if you agree, in a signed contract, to not press charges on the first one. Many frightened families would take that deal since they had no choice, but the state would still prosecute for murder for obvious reasons.

That you are forced to defend Trump's criminality--because abortion--is very sad to me. I don't agree on the abortion thing with Repbublians, but there are so many non-criminal Republicans out there who could have taken over the party, but unfortunately it was Trump and now Republicans are forced to defend every single thing he's ever done and ever will do.


I have to wonder on what part of planet earth you live on that you think a broader war in Europe won't affect you...

The last time you "America First" folks had your way, 60 million people died in WWII (and it will be 10x that next time with modern warfare).