rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
indictment is needed for felony cases
charged is needed for misdemenors and felonies. san diego trump u case is both misdemeanors and felonies so he is charged there
Hillary can't be trusted
- Thread starter Flaming Pie
- Start date
- Status
charged is needed for misdemenors and felonies. san diego trump u case is both misdemeanors and felonies so he is charged there
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
let's take a look at it:
oddball, you reply please
TRUMP UNIVERSITY LAWSUIT UPDATES
On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff Tarla Makaeff filed with the court a Motion to withdraw as a class representative and named plaintiff. The matter is fully briefed and pending to be heard by the Court on March 11, 2016. Redacted copies of Plaintiff’s briefing can be found here:
(1) Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),
(2) California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”),
(3) California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),
(4) Financial elder abuse under California law, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15600
(5) Violation of New York’s consumer protection statute, Section 349 of NY’s General Bus. Law
(6) Violation of Florida’s consumer protection statute and elder abuse law, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) and Misleading Advertising Law (“MAL”)
On September 21, 2015, Class Notice was mailed to potential class members throughout the country to advise of their rights and provide an opportunity to “opt out” or identify themselves as California or Florida senior citizen class members. Please see http://www.trumpuniversitylitigation.com for more information and important documents. You can also click on following to view the Mailed Notice, Long-Form Notice, and Postcard for Individuals Over 60.
On September 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to decertify the classes.
On October 27, 2014, the Court in a RICO class action against Donald Trump issued an Order granting class certification of a nationwide class of all students who purchased live event seminars from Trump University from January 1, 2007 to the present. For more information regarding this Order, please visit our blog here.
On June 17, 2014, the Southern District Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff Tarla Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP motion against Trump University, LLC (“Trump”), thereby dismissing Trump’s specious $1 million defamation counter-claim against Makaeff. While the victory came more than four years after Trump filed its counterclaim, Makaeff’s case resulted in an important reaffirmation of the applicability of the anti-SLAPP law in federal court. Because Makeaff’s statements arose from protected activity and Trump could not show a probability of prevailing on its defamation claim, the court granted Makaeff’s anti-SLAPP motion. The California Anti-SLAPP Project, a leader in protecting First Amendment Rights, published a thorough article discussing Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP motion, which can be found by visiting their website here.
On February 21, 2014, the Southern District Court issued an Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify a class action against Trump University, LLC and Donald J. Trump. The Court certified a class on behalf of all persons who purchased a Trump University three-day live “Fulfillment” workshop and/or “Elite” program (“Live Events”) in California, New York and Florida. The Court appointed Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Down, LLP as class counsel.
Also on February 21, 2014, the Southern District Court issued an Order denying Donald J. Trump’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Art Cohen’s RICO complaint against Trump asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Statute”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
On November 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an Order denying Trump University’s petition for re-hearing en banc in regard to the Ninth Circuit’s Order reversing the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Anti-SLAPP motion.
On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff Art Cohen filed a RICO complaint against Donald Trump, asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Statute”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
On April 17, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an Order reversing the district court’s denial of Plaintiff Tarla Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP motion. The Court held that Trump University is considered a “limited public figure,” due to its extensive advertising campaign, and thus would have to prove that Makaeff acted with actual malice when she accused it of fraud, in order to prevail on its defamation claim.
On September 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.
On September 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.
On October 12, 2010, the Southern District of California issued an Order upholding our first amended class action complaint against Trump University as to nearly all claims, including claims for breach of contract, false advertising, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (finding Plaintiffs stated a claim that Trump University’s conduct was unlawful, unfair and… fraudulent) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), with leave to amend as to the other claims.
A Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 16, 2010.
Trump University has also been named “Rogue of the Week” by the Willamette Week.
On October 12, 2010, the Southern District of California issued an Order upholding our first amended class action complaint against Trump University as to nearly all claims, including claims for breach of contract, false advertising, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), with leave to amend as to the other claims.
We are happy to report that the Court on May 17, 2011 issued and Order Denying Donald Trump’s Motion to Dismiss and Order denying Trump University’s Motion to Dismiss, upholding Plaintiffs claims for against both Donald Trump and Trump University for Fraud, Misrepresentation, Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising.
oddball, you reply please
TRUMP UNIVERSITY LAWSUIT UPDATES
On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff Tarla Makaeff filed with the court a Motion to withdraw as a class representative and named plaintiff. The matter is fully briefed and pending to be heard by the Court on March 11, 2016. Redacted copies of Plaintiff’s briefing can be found here:
- Opening Brief and Exhibits
- Reply Brief and Exhibits (including excerpts of Donald Trump’s deposition transcript)
(1) Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),
(2) California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”),
(3) California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),
(4) Financial elder abuse under California law, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15600
(5) Violation of New York’s consumer protection statute, Section 349 of NY’s General Bus. Law
(6) Violation of Florida’s consumer protection statute and elder abuse law, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) and Misleading Advertising Law (“MAL”)
On September 21, 2015, Class Notice was mailed to potential class members throughout the country to advise of their rights and provide an opportunity to “opt out” or identify themselves as California or Florida senior citizen class members. Please see http://www.trumpuniversitylitigation.com for more information and important documents. You can also click on following to view the Mailed Notice, Long-Form Notice, and Postcard for Individuals Over 60.
On September 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to decertify the classes.
On October 27, 2014, the Court in a RICO class action against Donald Trump issued an Order granting class certification of a nationwide class of all students who purchased live event seminars from Trump University from January 1, 2007 to the present. For more information regarding this Order, please visit our blog here.
On June 17, 2014, the Southern District Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff Tarla Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP motion against Trump University, LLC (“Trump”), thereby dismissing Trump’s specious $1 million defamation counter-claim against Makaeff. While the victory came more than four years after Trump filed its counterclaim, Makaeff’s case resulted in an important reaffirmation of the applicability of the anti-SLAPP law in federal court. Because Makeaff’s statements arose from protected activity and Trump could not show a probability of prevailing on its defamation claim, the court granted Makaeff’s anti-SLAPP motion. The California Anti-SLAPP Project, a leader in protecting First Amendment Rights, published a thorough article discussing Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP motion, which can be found by visiting their website here.
On February 21, 2014, the Southern District Court issued an Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify a class action against Trump University, LLC and Donald J. Trump. The Court certified a class on behalf of all persons who purchased a Trump University three-day live “Fulfillment” workshop and/or “Elite” program (“Live Events”) in California, New York and Florida. The Court appointed Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Down, LLP as class counsel.
Also on February 21, 2014, the Southern District Court issued an Order denying Donald J. Trump’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Art Cohen’s RICO complaint against Trump asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Statute”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
On November 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an Order denying Trump University’s petition for re-hearing en banc in regard to the Ninth Circuit’s Order reversing the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Anti-SLAPP motion.
On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff Art Cohen filed a RICO complaint against Donald Trump, asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Statute”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
On April 17, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an Order reversing the district court’s denial of Plaintiff Tarla Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP motion. The Court held that Trump University is considered a “limited public figure,” due to its extensive advertising campaign, and thus would have to prove that Makaeff acted with actual malice when she accused it of fraud, in order to prevail on its defamation claim.
On September 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.
On September 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.
On October 12, 2010, the Southern District of California issued an Order upholding our first amended class action complaint against Trump University as to nearly all claims, including claims for breach of contract, false advertising, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (finding Plaintiffs stated a claim that Trump University’s conduct was unlawful, unfair and… fraudulent) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), with leave to amend as to the other claims.
A Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 16, 2010.
Trump University has also been named “Rogue of the Week” by the Willamette Week.
On October 12, 2010, the Southern District of California issued an Order upholding our first amended class action complaint against Trump University as to nearly all claims, including claims for breach of contract, false advertising, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), with leave to amend as to the other claims.
We are happy to report that the Court on May 17, 2011 issued and Order Denying Donald Trump’s Motion to Dismiss and Order denying Trump University’s Motion to Dismiss, upholding Plaintiffs claims for against both Donald Trump and Trump University for Fraud, Misrepresentation, Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Maybe you don`t understand what I said. You got two exits and one entrance when getting indicted. You show up and enter on your own but after the ruling, you may not leave. You can get formally arrested by the police rep in the court, after the ruling, booked and can make bail if it is set.
testiclees
Well-Known Member
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
no, i understand exactly what you are saying. and you are correct that for serious felonies, indictment before a grand jury is needed. then they go from there.
in this case however, trumpy has been fomally charged
there is a trial, not a grand jury indictment, Nov 28. looks like trumpys team of lawyers have exhausted all pertinent appeals and this is about to get interesting. hope C Span and RT are there to cover it.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Right above that it says, trial for plaintiff's claims. So they are not charges.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
He could be President by then. Sounds like that trial is not in a Criminal Court. Did the DA charge him ?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Plaintiff, That`s not a criminal Court.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Hillary would go to a Criminal Court if charged, and jailed if convicted.
testiclees
Well-Known Member
The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily,”Trump said. “Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel.”
How does a person this fucking stupid attract every half witted jackass?
testiclees
Well-Known Member
Jackass, youre so fucking feces filled , the reality is that she will soon be potus.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
no, you don't go to trial over claims.
these are charges, hence a trial.
even faux news says that these are "charges"
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Hillary would not be a plaintiff, she would be a Defendant up against a Prosecutor. It`s possible that she could be POTUS.
But like the black killing cops, she get`s by with her connections and blaming. Staff, Staff, Staff. A good attorney has Staff to blame. Before going ahead. Staff, Staff, Staff.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I don`t recall, I don`t recall, I don`t recall,....Where`s my Staff ?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yes he has. Benedict Donald has been charged with fraud under RICO for his deceptive practices in the Tump U scam and he's been charged with rape in the child rape case. By your standard for guilt, he is guilty as all hell.
Hillary has not been charged with anything. No matter how much you want those stories to be true, they are made up shit. Just the GOP leadership blowing smoke. You are a tool.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
He has not been charged. The trial is set to go for "claims" by the plaintiff that he violated law.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
Pie, i'm gonna be nice to ya this time.
let me give you a scenario, ok?
i call teh police and tell them that you assaulted me. you punched me in the face 4 times after i held the door open for you at 7-11. i claimed that you assaulted me.
the police come and look at my face and there is evidence that you assaulted me. i'm bruised and crying.
they , the police, then charge you with assault and assign you a court date, november 28.
got it?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Two different judges. A Criminal Judge would see Hillary. She would be a Defendant. Trump will be a plaintiff.
Do this, Get arrested, go to courts and see how they work. Get indicted, and see it`s not the same. You`ll be all set.
- Status