It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

page: 27
53
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Agreeing to terms doesn't make them enforceable. People agree to unenforceable contracts all the time.




posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The arbitration terms were unfair, which again are not enforceable. Arbiters are supposed to be neutral. The contract states Trump/Cohen get to pick the location and Arbiter.

The motion to depose Trump (which was originally thrown out) is in reaction to Trump admitting to it last week.


But she and her attorney AGREED to the terms. They signed that they were of sound mind, not coerced, and understood all of it.

Besides, the agreement is neutral. If she didn't breach it, there would be no problem. $130,000 just for saying nothing...seems like she got a great deal.

The $1 million per breach figure was high because of 'DD's' high profile status. I cannot recall the exact words used in the Agreement, ATM, but it was all very clear and...

....she agreed to it. She doesn't deny agreeing to it.


Simply agreeing to something, even going as far as signing it, does not necessarily mean the specifics are enforceable.
edit on 10-4-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
you're right...I've heard that Cohen has been under investigation for a while, about much more than that pay-off to stormy....


Which means Trump Inc knew all about Cohen.

Bet Trump has at least 2 other lawyers handling things since he found out about Cohen 😎



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

Agreeing to terms doesn't make them enforceable. People agree to unenforceable contracts all the time.


5 verifiable examples would help the statement's credibility 😃



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Agreeing to terms doesn't make them enforceable. People agree to unenforceable contracts all the time.


Well, I guess it remains to be seen if it is enforceable or not.

She should have attempted to have it invalidated by a court BEFORE she breached it though. The fact that she doesn't have a copy signed by Trump isn't going to hold up. And now that she has breached it, suggesting it's not valid because the penalty for breaching it is too much $$$ is not a compelling argument.

But, I guess we will see.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


It is profoundly illegal for an Attorney to act on a clients behalf without their knowledge or direction.

Statute, please?





When Lawyers Take Action Without Consent

Lawyers who go beyond their authority and act without their client’s consent, or in violation of a client’s specific instructions, are committing legal malpractice. Clients expressly retain the right to consent to settlements




“Mr. Cohen is apparently admitting to paying a lot of money to settle a matter which could have ended in litigation without his client's consent or knowledge,” Abrams said, outlining a legal Catch-22 for Cohen: Either he broke rules by negotiating without Trump’s knowledge and using his own money, or he broke another rule by lying about it.

If Cohen paid off Daniels without Trump’s consent, Abrams said, “this violates New York's Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(e) which prohibits an attorney from providing his client financial assistance in connection with contemplated litigation, with exceptions which do not apply here. If Trump did not know about the payments, it would probably violate Rule 1.2, which prohibits an attorney from settling a matter without client consent, and probably Rule 1.4, which requires the attorney to communicate with clients as reasonably necessary under the circumstances.”

“On the other hand, if Trump is the source of the money for Cohen's payments, then Cohen is lying about it, which would violate Rule 8.4, which covers dishonesty,” he added.

“Based on the information so far publicly known, there appear to be several areas of possible misconduct,” agreed James Milles, who teaches legal ethics at the University of Buffalo School of Law.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Either way, Cohen's legal career is over.

He either acted without Client's consent, or he got consent and lied about having consent. Either one is grounds for disbarment. If he lied in his FEC filing, it is a Felony, if he lied in loan applications, it is a Felony and Bank Fraud.

All of that said, the talk by former Investigators and Lawyers on the issue are heavily suggesting there is a deeper case here than the surface Stormy Daniels payments. This was a serious raid, signed off on by Trump appointed NY AG and Judges and given the go by Rosenstein.

Apparently a portfolio of NYC Taxi Medallions and other stuff was included in the warrant?

Lord knows where that fits.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I think she may have had a case if she had sought a court/arbitrator to invalidate it BEFORE she breached it.

Again, it remains to be seen if it holds up or not. I've read it and if I had signed it, I sure wouldn't be talking to the media about any of it without making sure it was not valid first.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
lawfareblog.com...

Here's a good summary of this.

Cohen and possibly Trump are in major trouble here.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Bhadhidar


But, who were the other members of the LLC, if there were other members? They would had to have been aware of, and in majority agreement with, this expenditure made in the name of the firm.

Incorrect. An LLC (or any corporate structure) can sign contracts but such do not infer on the owners of the LLC any responsibility. All responsibility of the LLC is limited to the LLC itself; it is a separate legal entity.

That is the very purpose the concept of LLC exists for. It is a legal barrier between the principles who own the LLC and the LLC itself. The very name implies this: Limited Liability Corporation. As long as the corporate veil is not pierced, there is no legal obligation on the owners whatsoever, nor any statute that says the owners must be informed of daily operations.

If, as has been stated (and which is not unusual), DE does not recognize Single Member LLCs, then there were other members. No ifs about it. But they would not necessarily have known about, nor would they bear personal responsibility for, any contractual obligations made by the LLC.

TheRedneck



Incorrect.

LLC stands for Limited Liability COMPANY

Not Limited Liability Corporation.

This is a very common mistake, made by people unfamiliar with the distinction between the two structures.

Corporations operate under corporate laws.

LLC’s operate under partnership laws.

Corporations are, generally, “stand alone” entities (although subchapter “S” corporations have “pass-through provisions for tax purposes similar to partnerships).

LLC’s are pass-through companies, like partnerships under the law; their relationship with their members/partners is much more direct, legally speaking.

And the “corporate veil” you speak of only refers to the liability of an entity’s owner(s) for actions taken by the entity, or for which the entity is deemed responsible.

Furthermore, there would be no “corporate veil” to consider if the the entity claiming said veil was not a legitimate, recognized, entity.

Therefore, if EC LLC was formed as an SMLLC in DE it would not have a corporate veil, because EC would not be a valid LLC in DE; the NDA would be invalid.

And if EC was a multiple member LLC (which would have possibly proved difficult to form under the circumstances and constraints existent) and therefore a valid entity under DE law, who were the other members?

And we cannot determine what the other members knew or could be held responsible for without knowing the exact terms of their participation agreements.

The “corporate veil” doesn’t prevent you from knowing what’s going on, nor will it shield you
from every crime committed.

That, too, is a common mistake.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Aazadan

Agreeing to terms doesn't make them enforceable. People agree to unenforceable contracts all the time.


5 verifiable examples would help the statement's credibility 😃



Sinclair non compete agreements
Enron NDA's
Uber NDA's
Any non compete signed in California
O'Reilly NDA's during his settlements with his victims



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I'm still not sure that Stormy can even prove that 'DD' is 'Donald Trump.' The 'Side Letter' is the one part of the agreement that is not valid because it had to be signed by 'DD' (Trump) and delivered to Stormy's attorney. And he didn't sign it according to the copy they filed with their case.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I think she may have had a case if she had sought a court/arbitrator to invalidate it BEFORE she breached it.


Why do you say that? Is there a specific law that states such a process has to take place before a contract can be breached and the terms of a contract must be enforced, even if the terms are unenforceable?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Any non compete signed in California


S/O California....Stormy even agreed to waive their legal protections!




posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: soberbacchus

I'm still not sure that Stormy can even prove that 'DD' is 'Donald Trump.' The 'Side Letter' is the one part of the agreement that is not valid because it had to be signed by 'DD' (Trump) and delivered to Stormy's attorney. And he didn't sign it according to the copy they filed with their case.



Cohen has publicly issued statements affirming that the agreement was in regards to Trump.

Proving whether Trump was aware of the agreement or not is a different issue and one with a litany of legal pitfalls for Cohen and possibly Trump depending on the answer.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I think she may have had a case if she had sought a court/arbitrator to invalidate it BEFORE she breached it.


Why do you say that? Is there a specific law that states such a process has to take place before a contract can be breached and the terms of a contract must be enforced, even if the terms are unenforceable?


Well, the argument that Trump didn't sign it so she thought it was not valid is not going to hold up. It's clear from reading the agreement that he didn't have to provide her with a signed copy, so she has no good faith reason to believe it's not legally binding.

So Avenatti has now amended his argument claiming that '$1 million per breach' is 'unconscionable.' But that argument comes from the fact that she has breached it into the tens of millions of dollars.

I think she shot herself in the foot breaching it and then claiming the penalty amount is too much. If it's too much, she and her attorney can freely go into arbitration and settle on a smaller amount.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

My example was to Xeunchen for unenforceable agreements. She wanted 5 cases, I provided 5. 4 employment and 1 contract. Employment contracts are the most common place for people to sign agreements that can't be legally upheld. Non competes are the most common of that, California has outlawed them entirely, and most other states have very strict provisions on them that void just about all of them.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
www.washingtonexaminer.com...



Clarifying a key point that could lead to discipline, Cohen’s attorney, David Schwartz, said this week that Cohen negotiated and paid Daniels without Trump’s knowledge — something experts say constitutes serious misconduct that could threaten his ability to practice law.

Sounds bad for Cohen....



Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, urges caution, however, saying the facts remain murky. Cohen “may have authority from his client to do this, either in this instance or generally,” Gillers said. “So far, nothing that has come to light warrants a conclusion that Cohen has violated the rules governing lawyers, and certainly not a rule that would merit disbarment. He may have or not. We can’t yet know with the level of confidence I think is necessary to level that charge.”

depending on whom you listen to...



Turley believes a disciplinary investigation in New York will probe whether Cohen misrepresented his client’s position to an opposing attorney, failed to confer with his client, or improperly mixed personal funds in representing a client. Some of his conduct may allegedly constitute fraud, Turley said. Courts generally give at most a suspension, even for serious attorney misconduct, he said.

Courts generally give AT MOST a suspension.....
imagine that



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: Wayfarer

In order for federal prosecutors to get a warrant to search the office of a subject's attorney, these prosecutors must first get approval from top DOJ management, and then must convince a federal judge that the search is likely to uncover evidence of a crime. So, federal prosecutors already had probable cause that the President and his attorney were conspiring to break the law, or this search could not have happened.

It doesn't mean the President definitely broke the law, he still gets a presumption of innocence under our system, but this is a very very serious development. This is about as bad as it gets. Prosecutors rarely take this kind of step -- raiding a subject's attorney.



The preponderance of evidence showing probable criminal activity the SDNY attorneys had to present to a judge to get the no-knock search warrant, must of been staggering.

This was a warrant for the personal lawyer of a sitting president.


No one wants to screw this up; not the federal prosecutors, the judge, or Rod Rosenstein.

It is a rare occurence. Some context:

This tonight from a former FBI colleague: 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼“I’ve been an FBI special agent for 20 years and have only seen a handful of searches executed on attorneys. All of those attorneys went to prison.”— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 10, 2018

twitter.com...
edit on 4/10/2018 by Olivine because: formatting



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Aazadan

Agreeing to terms doesn't make them enforceable. People agree to unenforceable contracts all the time.


5 verifiable examples would help the statement's credibility



Sinclair non compete agreements
Enron NDA's
Uber NDA's
Any non compete signed in California
O'Reilly NDA's during his settlements with his victims


Details and correlations or it means zero as usual 🤓🧐



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

They were also interested in Cohen documented related to Karen McDougal which is another woman Trump slept with. Her story is that she signed an NDA which was very unfavorable to her, on legal advice from her lawyer Keith Davidson. The twist is that Davidson was reportedly being paid by Cohen and/or Trump to give them a much better deal at the expense of his client.

Obviously, this is also illegal and the story hasn't gotten much airtime. If true, it will be huge.







 
53
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join