From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

On 2025-10-16 04:21:36 +0000, james ohlsen said:

James agreed to use the secondary home for her personal use for just one year. By agreeing to the terms of the loan agreement, James was able to acquire a favorable interest rate for her $109,600 loan set at 3%,
saving her nearly $19,000 in mortgage savings.

Golly gee! A whole $19,000?

That isn't even 1/2 of the outright bribe money Tom Homan accepted last
year as documented by the FBI.

Lawsuit Larry Trump's Greatest Hits From Various Judges (some from whom
he appointed):

"tedious and burdensome"

"rage against an adversary"

"completely frivolous"

"decidedly improper and impermissible"

"novel and potentially calamitous"

complaint not a "megaphone for PR"

a "constitutional free-for-all"

a "smear" and "unprecedented and unfortunate"

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-10-16 04:21:36 +0000, james ohlsen said:

James agreed to use the secondary home for her personal use for just one
year. By agreeing to the terms of the loan agreement, James was able to
acquire a favorable interest rate for her $109,600 loan set at 3%,
saving her nearly $19,000 in mortgage savings.

Golly gee! A whole $19,000?

That isn't even 1/2 of the outright bribe money Tom Homan accepted last
year as documented by the FBI.

Yup.

Plus there is no subletting when the niece isnrCOt paying any rent.

Indeed, because property insurance rates are higher when a home is
unoccupied, thererCOs actually a valid argument which could be made that
James could have been paying her niece to be a caretaker, so as to be
eligible for said lower insurance rate.

But regular old MAGA folk arenrCOt anywhere near knowledgeable enough to know such detailsrCa

-hh
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

On 2025-10-16, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-10-16 04:21:36 +0000, james ohlsen said:

James agreed to use the secondary home for her personal use for just one
year. By agreeing to the terms of the loan agreement, James was able to
acquire a favorable interest rate for her $109,600 loan set at 3%,
saving her nearly $19,000 in mortgage savings.

Golly gee! A whole $19,000?

That isn't even 1/2 of the outright bribe money Tom Homan accepted last
year as documented by the FBI.

Lawsuit Larry Trump's Greatest Hits From Various Judges (some from whom
he appointed):

"tedious and burdensome"

"rage against an adversary"

"completely frivolous"

"decidedly improper and impermissible"

"novel and potentially calamitous"

complaint not a "megaphone for PR"

a "constitutional free-for-all"

a "smear" and "unprecedented and unfortunate"

And Trump got convicted in a trial where nobody lost any money and
the banks, who were prosecution witnesses, testified
that they would certainly do business with Trump in the future.

Next............
--
Pothead
Filter Free Friday.
Fire Away libtards.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in news:10cup38$1gi1q$1@pothead.dont-email.me:

On 2025-10-16, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-10-16 04:21:36 +0000, james ohlsen said:

James agreed to use the secondary home for her personal use for just
one year. By agreeing to the terms of the loan agreement, James was
able to acquire a favorable interest rate for her $109,600 loan set
at 3%, saving her nearly $19,000 in mortgage savings.

Golly gee! A whole $19,000?

That isn't even 1/2 of the outright bribe money Tom Homan accepted
last year as documented by the FBI.

Lawsuit Larry Trump's Greatest Hits From Various Judges (some from
whom he appointed):

"tedious and burdensome"

"rage against an adversary"

"completely frivolous"

"decidedly improper and impermissible"

"novel and potentially calamitous"

complaint not a "megaphone for PR"

a "constitutional free-for-all"

a "smear" and "unprecedented and unfortunate"

And Trump got convicted in a trial where nobody lost any money and
the banks, who were prosecution witnesses, testified
that they would certainly do business with Trump in the future.

Wrong.

Trump didn't get covicted, that was a CIVIL trial.

"New York v. Trump is a civil investigation and lawsuit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the _Trump_Organization


Trump is a convicted felon because of his
fraud in the Stormy Daniels hush money coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/30/trump-trial-verdict-hush-money.html

As a devoted Trump worshipper you don't
know much about him.............







--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2