What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that fuck's number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Before we all crack open a bottle of schadenfreudeonnay, let's be real - I'm sure he's already been busy hiding assets in countries friendly to money laundering before he declares bankruptcy.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Before we all crack open a bottle of schadenfreudeonnay, let's be real - I'm sure he's already been busy hiding assets in countries friendly to money laundering before he declares bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Narrator: The US is better for money laundering than anywhere else these days.

Seriously, you can go to your local Secretary of State, file a couple of forms to create a new LLC, move your assets into it, and good luck trying to pierce the corporate veil. Rinse and repeat as needed.
 
Wisconsin has a fraudulent transfer statue as, I'm sure, do most states. A person or entity cannot transfer an asset within a certain period of time (12 months I think) of incurring a liability if that transfer would leave the debtor unable to pay the liability. It's been a long time since I used it to retrieve transferred assets, but it is effective. It's not an issue of piercing the corporate veil; rather, it's a method to undo transfers. Still, even if Connecticut has such a statute, his people have no doubt been creating as many layers and shells as possible.

One thing we know: he'll make a shytload of money off the rubes from what is being done to him for just exercising his 1st Amendment rights. Depending on what kind of bankruptcy chapter he proceeds under and the plan, he will probably be going to lengths to hide or minimize that income also. I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer, but I suspect that will be the case.
 
burd said:
Wisconsin has a fraudulent transfer statue as, I'm sure, do most states. A person or entity cannot transfer an asset within a certain period of time (12 months I think) of incurring a liability if that transfer would leave the debtor unable to pay the liability. It's been a long time since I used it to retrieve transferred assets, but it is effective. It's not an issue of piercing the corporate veil; rather, it's a method to undo transfers. Still, even if Connecticut has such a statute, his people have no doubt been creating as many layers and shells as possible.

One thing we know: he'll make a shytload of money off the rubes from what is being done to him for just exercising his 1st Amendment rights. Depending on what kind of bankruptcy chapter he proceeds under and the plan, he will probably be going to lengths to hide or minimize that income also. I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer, but I suspect that will be the case.
Click to expand...

I believe most states have enacted the UFTA (Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). In Colorado, you can undo fraudulent transfers up to 4 years after the transfer. It's a beautiful tool.
 
1979 RSA tourism ad targeting American racists.

Nuke the South.

vqiksucrzft91.png
 
We thought Trump and everything around Trump and everything happening in the country around Trump was kind of unique. An aberration if you will. Not so fast. Listen to Rachel Maddow's podcast Ultra and you will find out very different.

Just more crushing disappointment that Americans never fucking learn.
 
The issue is the State supreme courts ruling that the replacement doesn't occur upon appointment or nomination but upon confirmation.

Most states have carry over laws to ensure continuity of government, especially for those lesser boards where members only get a per diem (if that) and they only meet once a quarter or so.

Most states also allow interim appointments or people to begin serving pending confirmation, with provisions for what happens if someone isn't confirmed.

The court's ruling that eaves' nominees can't serve until a confirmation hearing is held is what's ridiculous.
 
unofan said:
The issue is the State supreme courts ruling that the replacement doesn't occur upon appointment or nomination but upon confirmation.

Most states have carry over laws to ensure continuity of government, especially for those lesser boards where members only get a per diem (if that) and they only meet once a quarter or so.

Most states also allow interim appointments or people to begin serving pending confirmation, with provisions for what happens if someone isn't confirmed.

The court's ruling that eaves' nominees can't serve until a confirmation hearing is held is what's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Even more ridiculous is the fact the R in charge of the hearings, according to one article I found, said he isn't even going to bring any more confirmation hearings to the senate to vote on.

These fucking hacks were more concerned about finding every broken law to stay in control than they were ever concerned about doing their fucking jobs.

And them people like Joe and Sic have the gall to claim their side are the ones being productive.




Politics is exactly like driving a car: To go forward, D. To go backwards, R.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top