Michael Avenatti: Thief and tax cheat! - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Oh ThreetotenIQ, if only you weren’t so proud to display your stupidity for the whole world to see.
You obviously don’t understand the word “ allegations”, nor do you understand the first thing about business. Nor do you understand the hypocrisy of your post as you support T-rump , former business cheat extraordinaire.

So go back to your $96,000 job at Burger King. Those burgers aren’t going to flip themselves.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Whatever you say, Daddydidmedoggie. Hahahahahahahahaha

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Actually, it's what every supporter said about their hero "T-rump" and how he became such a great business man (there's a hint for you).

So keep those nothing burgers coming, 3to10IQ! Keep'em coming.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

I'm sure you know all about "business" from your job scrubbing floors at a university. LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

No, I know all about business from opening, owning, and operating one for nearly 25 years.

It's fun to see you fail and fall right into the fryolator where you work.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

hiring your ugly wife out to slimey neighbors for a quick shag doesn't count as a business

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Now why drag Kellyanne Conway and her husband into this? If they count it as a business, so be it. Not for you to decide.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

doggiedoody, i was referring to you and your old seahag you keep locked up in your attic until your scummy buddy down the street comes a-knockin for some sweet lovin from that anne ramsey look-a-like you wed some 40 years ago....& the industrial disinfectant with scouring pads you put down as a tax write-off for your so-called "business"

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Wow! It sounds even more like your referring to Kellyanne Conway and her husband, or even Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her husband.

I mean really - old seahag? Kellyanne or Sarah fit that description perfectly. Scummy buddy down the street? Definitely T-rump!! Disinfectant scouring pads? Toss up between the husband of Kellyanne or Sarah.

I think I’m close to getting Bingo on this one! More clues please - this is a fun game.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

you are a psycho of the most disturbed level

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Oh. no! Did someone pee in your Cocoa Crispies?

Well just pull out the old "you are a psycho" response when you don't get the reaction you were hoping for, because that never gets old from rethuglikkkans for a 'response'. LOLOL!

It looks like I just got Bingo!

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

you hear the "psycho" question a lot huh?
i don't doubt it

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

The 'psycho question'? I didn't hear any psycho question.

I read the 'psycho' response a lot on this forum whenever Rethuglikkkans get owned by a liberal, like I just owned you.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

you flipped it,
in your deranged mind there is no room for queries, only your twisted POV misrepresenting the reality around you.....take a look around

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Once again, you sound really dumb. As I responded already in another thread, Tully's was already in bankruptcy proceedings when he bought it at auction.

That's what happens when you try to reorg a bankrupt business, some creditors are going to get stiffed, some employees will lose their jobs, unprofitable stores will need to break lease. The point is to try and salvage the company, sometimes it works and other times it doesn't. That's what bankruptcy protection is for. You should look to your hero who mismanaged 6 companies into bankruptcies.

Meanwhile Avenatti was trying to salvage an already bankrupt business.

Your stupidity always seems to be the prevailing common denominator of everything you post.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

None of that explains why he is personally named in an IRS tax lien, or why he pilfered money withheld from his employees' paychecks. This guy and his company are facing $5 million in back taxes after just a few years in operation. By way of comparison, Trump's companies have paid around $300k in back taxes over the last three decades. Trump is an absolute saint compared to this clown.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Nope, I already explained to you in my other post that he didn't pilfer shit. There was no allegation that he had transferred 6 mil out of Tully's. Only 100k for bankruptcy proceedings to the parent company.

You must not have understood a word I wrote because this must be all above your head, which is not surprising at all.

Rest assured, nothing you're claiming is accurate because you clearly don't understand how business reorganization under a chapter 11 filing works.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

3to10IQ simply doesn't get it. I mentioned to him earlier he doesn't know the first thing about business, otherwise he would have understood the article he linked to in the first place. He's as brain-dead as they come.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Indeed. He really is a clown.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

if he's a clown, you're a pair of clown shoes

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

LOLOLOLOLOL!

I find it HILARIOUS that you are obviously as ignorant as 3to10IQ and got so steaming mad when I exposed his lies that the best you could do is call me CLOWN SHOES!

WAHAAHAHAH. That is some funny shit.

Your wit isn't as impressive as you think, I'm actually laughing at you, not with you. But you are hysterical to laugh at. ;D

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 7 years ago

i'm so mad at you i snapped at my cat! i never do that!
she doesn't deserve to be yelled at or spanked! i blame you and your buffoonery!!

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

"There was no allegation that he had transferred 6 mil out of Tully's. Only 100k for bankruptcy proceedings to the parent company."

There you go again with your strawman arguments. I never said that he "transferred" 6 million out of Tullys. Nevertheless, Nold's complaint alleges that money was taken out of employee withholdings. You don't have to take his word for it either. His complaint includes a copy of the IRS tax lien totaling $4,998,227.45 for 941 taxes. 941 refers to money withheld from employees' paychecks (trust fund portion) as well as employer matching for SS/Medicare (employer portion). I suppose it's possible that Avenatti only failed to pay the employer portion of the taxes. It is much more likely that this includes trust fund money as well.

Any employer who fails to pay trust fund taxes is a crook, plain and simple. Trust fund taxes cannot be discharged in bankruptcy protection either. The fact that Avenatti is personally listed on the lien along with Global Baristas indicates that they consider him to be the responsible person. If he really transferred $100k out of the company for personal use as alleged in the complaint, he's toast. The IRS will nail him to the wall.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4433390-Avenatti-Bar-Complaint.html

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

If the charges were serious, then he'd be investigated and charged by a government agency, not have trumped-up charges (pardon the pun) made by his adversary in a multi-year legal case.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

What makes you think he isn't under investigation? The IRS admittedly doesn't refer many people for prosecution, but I could see it happening if he diverted $100k for personal use.

And of course, the legal profession has its own standards of conduct. Numerous individuals have had their licenses suspended or denied for tax liens. Simply having a tax lien on your credit can make you unemployable in many industries.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

If there were a government investigation, Fox "news" would be talking about it 24/7. There doesn't appear to be much to the story since it's not headlining.

An attorney isn't going to be disbarred because of a bankrupt side business. Of course, there are going to be creditor and tax liens which in itself is not a crime.

Attorneys are disbarred because of unethical legal behavior, incompetence, criminality, etc.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Willful failure to pay over withheld payroll taxes is a felony. I would say that reflects on his ethics and competence.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

The federal government has not charged him with a felony. Like I said originally, it's a lot of nothing.

BTW, competence as an attorney, not a businessman. He's an exceptional attorney.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

He's an exceptional slimeball, actually. Revealing confidential bank records and failing to pay $5 million in taxes? How the fuck has he not been disbarred?

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

Michael Cohen received money from a Russian oligarch and took bribes. He's going to prison and will be disbarred for bank fraud.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Um, no. He received money from a company run by an American, and virtually no experts believe the payments constitute bribery.

Even NBC admits the payments aren't illegal:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/t-novartis-paid-michael-cohen-why-it-s-not-bribe-n873361

Bank fraud is also an unlikely charge. The bank in question didn't lose a cent from Cohen's activity, which would make the case fairly difficult to prosecute.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Holy shit dumb dumb, once again you failed to even read YOUR VERY OWN LINK. NBC "admitted" nothing of the sort you lying sack.

With the revelation of these corporate payments to Cohen’s Essential Consultants, three critical questions will determine a large swath of potential liability under these laws: First, what did Cohen and his company promise to other corporations? Second, what did those corporations reasonably believe he could deliver? Third, was any public official, or any "official act," involved?

The answers to these questions will determine the level of criminal liability. But having seen many public corruption cases that stink like this, I'm here to tell you there will CERTAINLY be casualties from this fallout where lots of people will end up going to jail you naive simpleton.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Another unhinged post from the Trump forum's resident nutjob. I guess you missed this sentence at the very top of the article:

"It's not clearly a federal crime."

Speculation about what could be revealed in the future is irrelevant. Based on what is currently known, NO crime was committed. Virtually every legal expert has poured cold water on the idea that he could be charged with bribery or bank fraud. The companies involved were questioned many months ago. If anything significant came up, Mueller's team would've certainly leaked it by now. Now go pop your lithium pills.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Jesus all you need to do is scroll up one post and see that's not what you said you dumb bitch.

You claimed NBC "admitted" the payments aren't illegal.

NBC did not admit anything of the sort. I said that the first time around, but apparently you need the truth beat over your head multiple times before you get it.

So that's what I'm doing.

What's hilarious is that you finally got around to reading your own article for the first time after you made it clear you hadn't read it.

Don't get upset at me because you forgot to take your meds.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

The main takeaway from the NBC article is that, barring significant revelations regarding the President and/or the companies involved, NO laws were broken. You could cast doubt on any accused person based on "what if" scenarios. Based on what is currently known, there is essentially no case for bribery, extortion, or bank fraud.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

HOLY SHIT! How can the takeaway be that "no laws were broken" when so many questions have yet to be answered as explained in your VERY OWN ARTICLE that WILL DETERMINE CRIMINAL LIABILITY you STUPID IGNORANT FUCK!

That WAS NOT THE TAKEAWAY from the NBC article you reading comprehension addled fuckwit. The takeaway was in the concluding paragraph, which I once again cut and paste from your very own article:

With the revelation of these corporate payments to Cohen’s Essential Consultants, three critical questions will determine a large swath of potential liability under these laws: First, what did Cohen and his company promise to other corporations? Second, what did those corporations reasonably believe he could deliver? Third, was any public official, or any "official act," involved?

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

Another day, another crime...

"You have Michael Cohen, clearly in the weeks after the election, selling access to the president, to the highest office in the land, when he's not registered as a lobbyist and he's not registered as a foreign agent." - Michael Avenatti

So much for draining the swamp and stopping pay for play. What hypocrisy!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

This will blow your mind 3to10IQ...As of May 1, T-rumps lawyer Michael Cohen owes the state of N Y over $53,000 in taxes from his side taxi business. That makes him a thief, cheat and crook! Now about that standards of conduct in the law profession...looks like Cohen is finished according to you -right?!

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Basically, all you're saying is he's a crook if he doesn't pay those taxes to the IRS. So even if you're right, it's not about what he's done in the past, but what he'll do in the near future. If he's a crook, then that means he has the money. If he has the money, he can pay the amount in multiple ways, usually large amounts are in installments, but either way it would exonerate him from being a crook. If he doesn't have the money, chances are he can cut a deal with the IRS. Also, we don't know that fraud was committed here. I know that's what you're hoping, but things could've been reported that the IRS didn't catch, and if enough time passes, the statute of limitations could run.

Transferring $100k out of the company also sounds like an easy fix. The IRS is only going to nail you to the wall if they don't get what is owed. As soon as they get their cut of that $100k, you're good.

Was Avenatti even audited? I'd hope so. If he wasn't, then this topic is kind of an embarrassment.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

By all accounts, the IRS hasn't gotten what they're owed (around $5 million). The $100k is relevant because he's diverting the money for personal use. That makes this a far more serious case, and it begs the question of whether or not he diverted other funds for personal use. There are of course other laws which could've been violated concerning fraud, embezzlement, etc.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

He's got time is my point. When it comes to paying the IRS large sums of money, you can get extension after extension. You aren't instantly a criminal or thief for owing taxes. Also when it comes to taxes, there's a lot of wiggle room when you negotiate with the IRS. There are many ways to lower it. Also, you said the IRS would nail him for the $100k. Are you walking that back now? You know as well as I do the IRS only cares about getting paid what its due. Once the IRS gets what they're owed, it's over with.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Once again, they haven't gotten what they're owed. Diverting the $100k could become relevant when establishing intent in a criminal case. Most prosecutions have been reserved for employers who diverted funds.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Again you're an idiot.

Do you know what a tax lien is? It's a lien on assets.

That means the assets under lien will cover what is owed if he doesn't pay for it with cash.

It's covered either way. There will be no 'prosecution', sorry to disappoint your wet fantasies.

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Wow, you are one dumb SOB. The existence of a $5 million tax lien against Avenatti doesn't mean he has $5 million in property. There is no guarantee whatsoever that they will recover that money. Now sit down and shut up.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Who other than the State Bar is investigating him? So far the only victim you've described is the IRS, and that Avenatti is a thief for defrauding the government. Yet I don't see the treasury saying anything about it. Is the IRS going after Nold, with Nold going after Avenatti? We're missing the meat and potatoes here.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

HOLY SHIT YOU'RE SO FUCKING DUMB.

This is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF A TAX LIEN:

A tax lien is the government's claim on your property and is generally placed when a taxpayer, such as a business or individual, fails to pay taxes owed. This does not mean that taxation authorities will seize your property, it just ensures that they get first right to your property over other creditors.

So yes, it is a claim on your property you stupid fucking idiot.

You are literally talking out of your ass now. I'm sure I know ten times more about the subject of taxation than you do you dumb simpleton. Stop trying to talk beyond your depth, you're only embarrassing yourself.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

We don't even know what the IRS is claiming they are owed. I haven't seen anything regarding an audit.

Could become relevant? You mean, establishing intent in a future criminal investigation that you don't even know will exist? The only ones doing an investigation of him that I know of is the State Bar.

And you kids piss and moan about indictments of lawyers and Trump stooges who've already been caught doing dirty. Good lord.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

He just made it all up.

There is a tax lien being applied against his property, if he doesn't repay in a certain time, they have a lien to seize his property.

This 3to10 IQ is such an idiot he didn't even know what a tax lien was.

The only investigation by the state bar is due to the complaint filed by Nold which is frivolous, seeing how this is a tax issue. He's not being accused of stealing from anyone.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

“By all accounts” ??? Which ones are you referring to? The only account which matters is the IRS , nimnut. And the IRS hasn’t said a word.

What a moron. Glad you’re a T-rump supporter.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Again, really slowly this time ... it's called:

"Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization"

The fact that he never transferred those funds out of the organization demonstrates he's not the crook you claim he is. He was trying to salvage a bankrupt business that was low on liquidity. I already explained this but you're not the sharpest tool in the drawer. He failed to return the business to profitability using the funds from withholdings. That's why there's an IRS tax lien against his assets to show for it. Sorry but owing the IRS doesn't make him a crook. He's just a guy I wouldn't go into business with but I wouldn't think twice about hiring to rep me in a civil case. He's a far better litigator than business owner.

But it bears repeating, I don't understand how you can reconcile falsely claiming Avenatti is a 'crook' when the guy you exalt in the White House is so clearly one. Once again, Trump University was a scam from top to bottom. It deployed high pressure sales tactics to separate retirees from their pensions and life savings and never delivered on promises on how to invest in real estate despite the $35,000 up front fee. It was an indisputable con job by the conman you worship at the altar of where the money went straight into his pocket. Avenatti was trying to save a business from bankruptcy using funds FROM THAT BUSINESS that he'd owe to the government. So who's the crook?

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Trust fund taxes are the property of the US government. Anyone who uses that money for other purposes is a thief, plain and simple. The Trump Organization has never been accused of doing such a thing, nor would any other reputable company do such a thing. It is the kind of behavior which leads to prison sentences.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Shut the fuck up you dumb idiot. You didn't even know what a tax lien was and you think you can speak authoritatively on withholdings?

WAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!

You clearly have NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

LOLOLOLLOLOOL! God you are so pathetically dumb.

Civil cases DON'T lead to prison sentences you DUMB FUCK. You need to understand the difference between civil and criminal liability, you clearly don't understand the difference.

Avenatti has never been accused of tax fraud, which is what Paul Manafort is looking at decades in prison for because it carries CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Avenatti has a tax lien placed on his property when he couldn't produce withholdings he used to try and save a company in chapter 11. That carries NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY. NONE! The worst that could happen is he gets his property confiscated you stupid, pathetic video game geezer.

You see, if you weren't perpetually on welfare and actually had to file taxes you might have a better idea of how stupid you sound trying to talk about a subject you know nothing about. Go back to playing xbox you gamer tool.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I give you credit - You are a much better person than any of us here to have the patience to explain this in detail to ThreetoTenIQ.

He’s completely stupid and has no shame in sharing his stupidity with the world.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

It really is sad how belligerently stupid he is.

But I just can't help but feel obligated to call out frauds who try so hard to pretend they actually know what they're talking about when they so obviously don't. Stupidity is just not a trait that anyone should take any pride in, even by one as limited to a 3to10 IQ.

So yeah, I take it as duty to make him feel some semblance of personal shame by exposing his fraudulence. He really should express a little gratitude.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

From what I understand, the project was doomed since actor Patrick Dempsey pulled out of the project early on back in 2013 just a couple months after the deal. Dempsey was supposed to be the face of Tully's, but he didn't agree with the interest rate Avenatti was using to pay for it, so he got out. Without Dempsey, there really was no hope for it to succeed.

Naturally, when companies go down in flames like this, there are going to be some upset people who are going to file lawsuits. I really don't see what Avenatti can do when the glue for the whole thing was Dempsey.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

Just another great representation of the criminal demokkkrat party. But he’s a demokkkrat so no need to prosecute him. He didn’t mean to do it.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

You have to be really ignorant not to know that Trump & cohorts can't match Avenatti's legal skills so they are going to attempt to stop him from practicing law. The bar complaint is recently filed even though the legal battle has been going on for years. Coincidence? I think not.

I found a 2013 article stating that Global Baristas, the investment group led by actor Patrick Dempsey, bought Tully's Coffee chain for $9.15 million bid. Dempsey said they would try to save jobs and keep the store independent (Rival bidder was Starbucks).

I don't know what an actor and lawyer know about running a coffee house chain, but I'm not surprised that they failed to keep it open.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2013/01/judge-rules-in-favor-of-dempsey-in.html

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Usually the actor and lawyer act as investors, not much more. They hope to retain the experienced management and staff to revitalize the company - then they would probably sell it off to a group of investors formed within that company ( “ employee owned and operated”) once it’s back on its feet. However it’s tough keeping experienced staff like that once a company is in bankruptcy protection - most start applying for jobs elsewhere ( Toys R Us learned this lesson) and it’s a struggle to keep going.

No doubt, if Starbucks outbid these two , the chain would have closed period, as they were usually set up in the same district as each other. Starbucks probably wanted their assets: real property to sell for quick cash, and their customers email info / loyalty program to add to their base. Those are the only 2 things of potential interest to a rival.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

Any idea how Avenatti was able to get a business loan without Dempsey knowing about it? The high interest loan is what caused Dempsey to end the partnership.

There were several other bidders. It would've made more sense to find an experienced buyer (not Starbucks) rather than inexperienced investors.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

It would have been easy to get that high interest loan. The creditor is not bound by law to know whether Dempsey was informed of the loan inquiry. The creditor has no idea how their business partnership is structured, or who between them makes the decisions.

I think Tully's previous ownership was looking just to sell to the highest bidder. Why would it have made sense for them to take less from experienced buyers? It's not like they'd still have any vested interest in the company once they sold where it would matter whether the company eventually succeeded or failed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

All that mattered in the long run is each guy put in their fair share. How each got his money is no business to the other partner. Just put your half in and mark it “ sold”.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

Avennatti is a joke. If he weren’t being talked about here no one would be talking about him. Even the hate filled demokkkrat quacks at cnn are ignoring him.

Some half assed porn star lawyer being paid by the demokkkrat party to slander people so they aren’t liable.

Keep up the hate and porn demokkkrats. You’ll do great in November lmao!!!

It’s obvious to the world who’s tackling and fixing the problems of the world. And who’s running around self absorbed having endless hate filled temper tantrums. Poor hate filled demokkkrat party.

#HateIsNotAPlatform

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

And who’s running around self absorbed having endless hate filled temper tantrums.

Yeah, YOU ARE. This is your second one in this topic ALONE and yet you're really only parroting the same meaningless crap you always post.

Even as a troll, you're lousy. At least your endorsement of Fascism the other day was entertaining.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] (690) 7 years ago

#HateIsYourPlatform. Own it.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

Avenatti’s relevance pictured here with the evidence of trump/Russia collusion.

[spoiler]http://dpanoply.s3.amazonaws.com/product-images/empty-industrial-warehouse-01.jpg[/spoiler]

reply

[–] [email protected] (690) 7 years ago

And I'm certain he's Republican through-and-through. Sure sounds like one the way you are portraying him.

reply