Is Letitia James at it again?

Is this a trap question where you’re going to pounce on every one who answers for their opinions, and twist their words, and tell them what they really think?

Not going to be “sucker punched” by the OP !

Sorry, it was a very straight forward question. I reserve the right to pounce on people that just decide to slam Trump since that is not the point of this question. The point is that Gov Hochul swore no one had anything to worry about with the verdict against Trump and yet within a week James was filing a new lawsuit against a company because they said they’d be carbon neutral in 16 years.

The similarities of the two cases are staggering since neither case actually had a victim and both were based on James’ estimation of what reality is.

If you don’t want to answer, that is fine. To accuse me of some ulterior motive is just another personal attack.

Interesting take on the news.

So @seawulf575 your approach sounds like this:

- let’s continue to degrade the environment for the next 16 years
– let’s ignore scientific evidence
– and in 2040 we’ll deal with it

The way I read your objections, you want to stick your head in the ground for some reason. It’s a normal anti-science response from your ilk.

She is the Attorney General of NY. This is her job. And I’m out.

You keep saying victimless crime, the banks were cheated out the correct interest rate if the properties had been at there real value.
The state of New York was cheated out tax because those properties were not at there correct value hence, Fraud!!
As for James if she has done anything illegal then she should be held accountable.

As your illustrious leader said not long ago…I believe what I believe. You’re more than welcome to draw your own conclusion. You have NO idea what I’m thinking. If James was prosecuting Biden, you’d be asking if we thought she was spot on. What if she’s correct & you just don’t want to accept that you’re the one who is wrong???

I think if the company is doing the opposite of what they claim then it is a deceptive practice. She’s no dummy. She wouldn’t bring a frivolous lawsuit she couldn’t prove. If they claim that they are going to be carbon neutral by 2040 and have been investing and increasing carbon then it’s a scam to get people to invest or buy their products over others that may be carbon-free or working towards being carbon-free. I’m sure the company put out information about how they are already lessening carbon and have invested in things to reduce carbon output now. And if they did advertise to get a contract and it turns out they haven’t implemented anything they said, then it’s fraud. Or if they are getting tax write-offs by claiming they are a green company because of this claim and they never qualified because they haven’t even started to make their company green yet.

I don’t think she is trying to fine them, but to lock them into actually trying to achieve this.

Secondly, your comment that Trump’s crime had no victims is absolutely wrong. I understand that is a position the Right likes to make, but it is absolutely incorrect, though you may not see the nuance.

I’m confused by your position.

Was it yesterday you were claiming your main position is anti-corruption?

Now you’re claiming that Trump’s frauds in that one case had no victim, and were “basically no crime”?

I tend to accept the judge’s finding that “The frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience”. Findings include Trump “falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records”.

How is that not both crime and corruption?

@filmfann She wants to fine them $5000 per event. In other words, every time someone looks at their wbsite, that would be another event.

As for the Trump thing, as I said, we aren’t looking at it. However I did say it was victimless. I know you on the left don’t like that, but the banks are the only ones that could possibly have been harmed. Their testimony in the trial was that they didn’t take Donald Trump’s estimations and did their own due diligence. They indicated that his property was worth well in excess of what was needed to secure the loan. And the loan was paid off with all applicable interest. They didn’t say that had any issue with any of it. Kinda hard to say there was a victim when the only two parties involved were all okay with the loan.

@LadyMarissa The funny part is that if she suddenly jumped into suing Biden for something based on the same idiocy of these last two suits, I would be asking what you all thought of it. I’m pretty sure I would hear about how there was no case, nothing to see, just keep moving on. I can say this with confidence since there is a lot of evidence of corruption by the Bidens and none of you want to believe it at all. And I’d be the one calling bullshit on the lawsuit. It isn’t about the who of the case, it’s about the what of the case.

@SQUEEKY2 You are extremely confused. The property valuation for the construction loan was not based on Trump’s evaluation. The banks did their own evaluation. Trump didn’t rip them off of any interest since he can’t force them to give him lower interest. AND they testified to such, under oath, in the trial.

As for NY taxes, they don’t go off the owner’s valuation either. Property taxes are based on the decisions of the local or state government departments. They don’t ask the owner what they think, they just tell the owner what they believe the valuation is. Valuation for property taxes is very different from that of loans from lending institutions. Normal behavior is that the owner lists what they think the value is as a way to start the paperwork off. The bank then does their own evaluation of all that is presented to them, getting their own people to do an appraisal, etc. If their number comes up less than the one the prospective lendee thought it was, that person can discuss it with the bank. And in the end, they aren’t giving the loan for the full amount of the collateral anyway. It’s usually limited to 50% or 60% of the value. That way they are covered if the market takes a crash and way ahead if they have to repo the property and sell it.

But what Letitia James did was to say that one of the properties, Mar-a-Lago was only worth $18M. It was being listed for $20M back in the 1920’s. It wasn’t even realistic. But that number was used to determine how much fraud he had. Amazing, isn’t it?

@Pandora So if they aren’t carbon neutral by 2040 (which includes being able to buy carbon credits), that would be the time for the law suit. You can’t sue someone for something that hasn’t happened yet.

JBS is the largest meat producer in the world and one of the top single CO2 polluting companies in the world.

It seems to me that it is justifiably in the public interest to hold them to account.

JBS’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2040 appears to be mere marketing and paying lip service, as JBS has not provided any evidence or reason to believe that they’re doing anything to meet this apparent pledge.

Because of the nature of climate change, it would be foolish and irresponsible to simply trust companies and only verify their claim after the time limit.

We can reasonably infer that the pledge is false or will not be met by checking on what they’re doing now, today—and not in 16 years when it’s going to be too late.

“Does this bizarre lawsuit show that she is not above going after random companies?”

Hardly “random”, but it seems to be the job she’s paid to do. Hopefully she goes after more companies like JBS.

@Kropotkin Look at what you just wrote.

“It seems to me that it is justifiably in the public interest to hold them to account.”

“JBS’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2040 appears to be mere marketing and paying lip service”

“Because of the nature of climate change, it would be foolish and irresponsible to simply trust companies and only verify their claim after the time limit.”

“We can reasonably infer that the pledge is false or will not be met ”

None of that is guaranteed they won’t meet their goals. What you are proposing is that we should be able to sue people we don’t believe will do what they say in the future. So should we be able to hold Joe Biden criminally liable for claiming to want to reduce or carbon emissions by a certain amount by 2030? Or Gavin Newsom for saying he wants only EVs sold in CA by 2035? It certainly doesn’t look like he will make that. Can we hit him because, he, we can infer he is lying? AOC put forth the Green New Deal that wants GLOBAL reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from
2010 levels by 2030; and net-zero global emissions by 2050. That is completely unrealistic. Even if we went 100% zero carbon emissions it would not meet those goals. So can we infer that she is being deceptive and only putting forth the legislation to get votes? Maybe we should start doing that…just suing the crap out of anyone we don’t like for whatever reason, call them liars and then bring the suit, eh?

@seawulf575 No. As you already quoted me: “We can reasonably infer that the pledge is false or will not be met.”

JBS doesn’t flick a magic switch in 2040. The pledge is a process that requires immediate verifiable efforts to curb CO2 emissions. If they can’t show that they’re doing anything now, then there’s no reason to believe they will meet their pledge in 2040.

I also don’t care about your red herrings and whataboutisms thrown in regarding individuals you’re ideological opposed to. As far as I’m aware, neither Biden or Newsom personally output millions of tonnes of CO2.

We’re talking about the largest corporations and contributors, and not random individuals making exhortations or wishful statements.

Wulfie, calling BS on your no crime plea. The New York AG wouldn’t have brought forth a case she wasn’t sure she could win.
Plus with what you say Trump should fire his lawyers and hire you, if it was as bogus as you claim they should have eaten her alive and laughed her out of court, there was fraud the law saw it even if you did not.
But again you were positive that Joe and Hunter were guilty of bribery and all the evidence to prove it to suddenly it was a fake claim by Russian intelligence .
Same as the Willis witness ( I uh speculated).
As for JBS I really doubt she woud take it up on a whim.

@SQUEEKY2 I think that the problem is that some people swallow the republican kool-aid unquestioningly and uncritically; they buy what His Holiness the Trump says (or implies) without giving a moment’s thought to it.

Of course the NY AG isn’t going to file something without facts. The problem is that the right wing doesn’t agree with her facts. But they’re dismissive of anything that doesn’t comport with their world view.

As to @seawulf575 saying “why not just sue in 2040?” – why should the rest of the world suffer for the next 16 years because of pigheadedness? As @Kropotkin wrote, it takes time to fix things – you don’t want to START in 2040.

But keep in mind that there are still flat earthers around….

It’s like a company that tried to sell me a very expensive vacuum with a lifetime guarantee. I never fell for it because I told the salesman there is no guarantee the company will exist for my lifetime. It didn’t even stay in business for 2 years. Its a scam. A scam is a scam. No matter how you spin it.

@seawulf575 “This was a case where there was no victim, basically no crime.”

While I agree that truly victimless crimes should not be crimes, I think it is important to recognize that they are crimes until the necessary legislation is passed. But also, it’s not true that there were no victims. It’s an open question whether or not the banks themselves would have been meaningfully worse off if the Trump organization had been more forthcoming on its loan applications, but they aren’t the only potential victims here.

Banks don’t have infinite money. They pick and choose who gets loans, and the number of loans they give out in part depends on the interest they expect to receive from existing accounts. Plus, some banks sought Trump out on the basis of his fraudulently created reputation. Every time Trump got a loan at a fraudulently low rate, and every time a bank sought him out to give him a loan rather than someone else, it reduced the amount available to others. Anyone who did not get a loan as a result is a victim of his fraud. We may not be able to identify these victims, but they do exist.

“But she won with the help of Judge Engoron who ruled Trump guilty before the trial even started.”

The summary judgment was a result of pre-trial motions to which Trump’s lawyers did not object. When the New York AG requested a summary judgment, they requested that it be dismissed instead. Basically, they asked the judge to choose between a summary judgment and a complete dismissal rather than object to possibility of a summary judgment at all. Since there was no basis for a dismissal, the judge chose to issue a summary judgment. The case then proceeded with a bench trial, which Trump and his team again had no objections to (and in fact signed off on).

”[JBS] put out on their website that they intend to be carbon neutral by 2040. James’ claim is that is a lie so they are guilty of Deceptive Business Practices and False Advertising. But their claim is for 16 years in the future.”

They are making a claim about their current intentions, but the underlying facts of the allegation are that they have taken no action, have no plan, and haven’t even assessed whether and how it would be possible to be carbon neutral by 2040. If I promise someone that I will pick them up at the train station next week but don’t have a car, have no plan to acquire one, and haven’t even checked to see if I have any way of acquiring one, then I have made a false promise. There’s also the fact (according to the lawsuit, anyway) that JBS has continued to repeat the claim after previous findings that it was misleading. If it’s true that they were warned first and then continued making the false claim, that seems like more evidence of intentional deception.

@Zounderkite Great answer!

@SQUEEKY2 Again, this is not a question about Trump. It is about Letitia James.

@Kropotkin To start with, JBS’ claim for 2040 is part of the business vision and plan, it is not a promise or a pledge. Also, they could be laying groundwork now for things to improve over the next few years. Neither you, nor Letitia James, can tell what is going to happen in the future. You cannot convict someone because you don’t like what they are doing now or don’t feel they are doing what you want them to do.

I understand you don’t care about “red herrings or whataboutisms” because they are the identical case to what James brought against JBS. They are goals about climate change. And if you actually had to address them, you have no response. You can’t get on your high horse about JBS and still defend all the other instances of climate change goals. If the rationale is that someone making a climate change goal isn’t working hard enough towards that goal and is, therefore, lying and being deceptive, then they all are. And you even showed your anti-capitalist hand by saying you are only looking at large corporations. Ever stop to think government is a large corporation?

@elbanditoroso Why wait until 2040 to sue? Because what the company said was that was when they were going to meet the carbon standards. Here’s a thought: Why not sue you because I believe you are going to be a mass murderer in 16 years. I could come up with some nonsense to justify it and then we could arrest you. Why wait 16 years to see if it happens? You could kill a lot of people by then, people that should not be dead and whose families should not have to suffer. That is the logic you are applying. Holding someone accountable for something that has not occurred. It’s called pre-crime justice.

Remember, being carbon neutral, by the definition laid down by the left, means they could buy carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions. If they haven’t improved in 15 years, they could buy credits and will have met their goal by 16 years.

But interestingly, I notice that while you mentioned my convo with @Kropotkin you failed to address the exact sort of climate change “lie” put forth by Biden, AOC, Newsom, and just about every other lefty. They did it for votes, to enrich themselves, and haven’t done anything towards meeting their goals. Why should we have to wait 15 years for their claims to expire before we hold them accountable? If you believe that is the standard, that just feeling someone isn’t doing enough towards their goals, then they should all be sued into oblivion too.

@Pandora So then AOC and the Dems in our federal government are all scammers too, correct? They promised to get GLOBAL carbon emissions neutral by 2050. I don’t see them making the necessary strides to do that, do you?

@Zounderkite It isn’t a question of if the banks would have made different decisions and made more money. They testified, under oath, that they wouldn’t have. They testified that everything that was done was all above board. They weren’t the ones claiming fraud. NY AG was claiming fraud and her kangaroo court supported her as they likely will in this JBS case. But let me ask: if there was a victim, that victim should be the major recipient of any award generated from that case, correct? So who gets any money from the judgement?

And it is a matter of opinion if JBS has made plans or taken any action. Also, the results of any plan or action are 16 years in the future. Suppose they have a plan and are taking actions but that plan doesn’t work? Does that mean they are guilty because they didn’t hit a goal? And if all this logic applies then we need to sue the Democrats for House Resolution 109. It is the exact same thing…exact same thing. They set a goal for getting GLOBAL carbon emissions neutral by 2050; a seemingly impossible goal. I don’t see a plan. I don’t see any action. I don’t see anything other than words used as campaign fodder to get themselves elected. So they should be included in the lawsuit, shouldn’t they?

@seawulf575 Politicians are in theory held to account through the ballot box, and aren’t businesses to be sued for deceptive business practices and false advertising.

Everything else in your response was already addressed. You can reread mine and other replies if you missed them.

Delaware (I believe,) just basically stole $50 billion from Elon Musk.
Something about him making exponentially more money than the state thought, when they made a deal to float one of his factories.
Musk essentially bet on himself, and made a killing.
The article I read about this, mentioned that Delaware has a history of randomly attacking wealthy companies. Usually with great financial gain for the state, and no real way to do more than protest for the companies.

I don’t KNOW that’s a fact. But. The article also insinuated that other states behave similarly.

In this capitalist society, I see this as big fish being bullied by bigger fish.

In regards to Trump, it is widely believed that he did not acknowledge to the IRS that he received north of $400 million from his father’s passing.

Factor in that Trump didn’t even win his home state of New York, although he claims so much fame there, plus the fact he has a habit of making powerful enemies and I think Trump is VERY lucky that things aren’t far worse for him. (Sorry for the run-on.)
I’m telling you Wulf. Your boy wouldn’t be in near as much trouble, if not for his diarrhea of the mouth.

He’s crushing Nikki. Yet. He still takes shots at her ALL the time.

He can’t help himself.
Now, at Trump’s age, a lifetime of crime is being sifted through, looking for AND finding witches.
Politics aside. The people who really run this country are just as insecure as Trump.

The question is a set up. But.
I think we’re going to see countless attempts at taking Trump out, because powerful people are mad at him.

It doesn’t help, that Trump has attempted to make his reputation about being a brilliant businessman. While childishly attacking all non-believers.

Nope, because they have passed laws and tax breaks to companies and individuals to go green and stopped certain big carbon companies from expanding, and made it so that carbon-producing vehicles won’t be sold in the US by 2035. Electric car sales had a record 1.2 million cars sold last year. I know several people who bought either an electric car or a hybrid in the last 2 years. Also, you know there is a difference between a company saying they will go green when they have no proof of even trying and a whole nation trying to go green when half of them are like yourself and don’t believe in climate change. Well at least I hope you know the difference and you just like playing dumb for attention.

@Pandora Except the Green New Deal calls for Global reduction of carbon to neutral by 2050. How can the US government get the entire world carbon neutral in 26 years? Not to mention the resources to make all the EV cars they want to make and are passing laws about don’t exist right now. It would be 10 years or more before some of the Rare Earth metals could be gotten and by then all the existing EV batteries will be dead and need more batteries.

Except I don’t think the US ever promised the whole world would be carbon neutral. We can only promise to work for our country. And again not the same thing. So not a scam, because steps forward are happening. You are comparing apples and rocks. Oh, if you are married I pray for your spouse.

We all do!

@Pandora I know you don’t think the US ever promised that, except they did. This is the resolution put for for the Green New Deal.

”(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the
most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from
2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

How can the US government get the whole world carbon neutral by 2050? Gee, that’s my side of the debate…get on your own side. The answer is, they can’t. Yet this is what they claim is the goal and the purpose of the GND. They didn’t say the goal was to get our country carbon neutral, they said we had to get the entire world carbon neutral. So they are putting forth claims as that cannot be met as proof their plan needs to be adopted. It’s called fear mongering and is done at least in part, to gain votes. A benefit for them based on a lie. Huh.

If you go through this resolution you find all sorts of things they are claiming yet are not pursuing. “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; ” is a perfect example. How have they created those high-wage jobs or ensured the prosperity and economic security for ALL people of the US? They haven’t. The list goes on and on. All lies. No different than what JBS was doing, supposedly. Applying the same logic as was applied to JBS, we should be suing everyone that voted for that resolution and especially the ones that wrote it.

I read the whole thing and most of it was about what we would do. But there seems to be a global effort being made by many countries and it seems it may be within our reach to make this goal. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/greenest-countries This list where the countries were and where 10 years ago and what is our ratings now as far as being green. So again, it is not a scam.

@Pandora And there is also bad players in the world that don’t care about environmental issues. China comes to mind. But the point is not that we are trying to do things, the point is, as it was applied to JBS by James, claims are being made of what our goals are and we aren’t making adequate progress towards making them. And some of those goals aren’t even in our sphere of influence. That is the basis of the lawsuit. James doesn’t feel they are doing enough to meet their goal so she is suing them. I don’t feel the Dems are doing enough to meet the goals they listed so shouldn’t they be able to be sued as well? They certainly are using the lies as publicity for themselves, just like James is saying JBS is doing.

If they are sueable in the United States than it means there is a reason. You can’t just randomly sue someone from another country. They have to have a business here. It’s that simple and there has to be proof that they are scamming.

@Pandora In an ideal world there would be a victim and a fair trial. But in NY, as we just saw, you don’t need either. She can sue them because some of their product comes to this country and people in NY could buy it. She is assuming they all bought it because of their mission statement on their website. And she will take it to a judge that will rule in her favor before the trial even starts.

Let me ask: when was the last time you checked a company’s website before buying a roast at the grocery store? Can you even name the parent company that produced that beef? Or Chicken? Or grew those veggies?

Let me ask you why do you care about this lawsuit. And I may not check but if I buy them because of the false advertising then they are cheating me and that’s why we have our government getting a paycheck to make sure we aren’t lied to. Also if I chose them against American beef companies that don’t claim to be green because they are not and have no intentions of being green then, American beef producers are being hurt. If they don’t check on our behalf because they think we don’t care then they are cheating taxpayers. But really, why the hell do you care? I bet you don’t give 2 craps about it.

@Pandora Why do I care about this lawsuit? Because it is a sham and speaks to the NY AG and her tactics. AND it is a perfect example of how NY is weaponizing their courts against investors and businesses, despite the protestation by the governor to the contrary. I care about this lawsuit because it is suing for a crime that hasn’t happened. I care because the left has a really nasty habit of trying underhanded things like this and, if they can get them to work, other lefties get the same idea and claim them as precedence.

And look at your argument: You may not check the website of the companies that supply your food, but if you did…. In other words it can’t be false advertising if you don’t see an ad and don’t go to their website. Have you ever seen a JBS ad? Ever heard one? Ever been to the JBS website before? Ever read their Mission Statement? Ever even heard of JBS before? You are stretching to cover for the idiocy of this lawsuit. Why are you so deadset on supporting this lawsuit? It is the perfect example of what I said in the first paragraph of this response…that leftist feed on each other. One puts forth a stupid idea and the rest start doing mental gymnastics to try making sense of and supporting it.

https://jbsfoodsgroup.com/our-purpose/bringing-more-to-the-table

On their site is a link (at the bottom) for JBS USA.

@jca2 Yep. How many times did you go to their website before this?

^How many times have you been concerned about a wealthy business group, or person, losing money in NY, until it was Trump?

@MrGrimm888 It isn’t the person, it’s the weaponization of the legal system that bothers me. Why doesn’t that bother you?

^In case you haven’t noticed, it ALL bothers me.
I’ve certainly noticed that you sir tout all these high morals, but ignore them when it comes to Trump.

You set up this question, and got what I expect was what you predicted in response.
You had preconceived counter arguments, because you have enough common sense to see the flaws in your arguments.

But. Looking at the responses you have, I’m not the only one who disagrees that Trump is some sort of victim.
Such things ONLY bother you, when your God King is in trouble.

Trump is an arrogant idiot, habitual liar, sexual predator, threat to national security, bigot, xenophobic, and a career criminal.

I have nothing further to add.

@MrGrimm888 What you miss is that this question isn’t about Trump. It’s about a lawsuit against a business for false advertising because the prosecutor doesn’t believe they will meet their goal (not even a goal, a vision statement) 16 years in the future.

It was not a set up question, it didn’t involve Trump. The fact that you keep wanting to make it about Trump is about the answer I expected.

@seawulf575 Not buying your reason. I agree with @MrGrimm888.