Trading Microcap And Hot Stocks
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Over 100 Migrants Break Through Razor Wire, Knock Down Guards As They Illegally Cross Border
https://truthpress.com/news/over-100-migrants-break-through-razor-wire-knock-down-guards-as-they-illegally-cross-border/
MIGRANT HORDES TELL AMERICAN NATIONAL GUARD TO FUCK ITSELF — FORCES WAY INTO COUNTRY
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 21, 2024
pic.twitter.com/bnOKgCtmFL
Court Orders NY Attorney General to Withdraw Letter Saying $464 Million Trump Bond Not ‘Impossible’
The defense found a $464 million bond would require about $557 million cash.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/court-ordered-letitia-james-to-withdraw-letter-saying-464-million-trump-bond-not-impossible-5612037?utm_source=rtnewsnoe&src_src=rtnewsnoe&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-03-21-2&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-03-21-2&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZeMgIkRb6dvH5LxAvWpUFB4ARlJpfEWq9FYrFR9g5Q%3D%3D
Shortly after New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a letter asking the New York Supreme Court to “not consider“ that the $464 million bond former President Donald Trump needs to post to keep his assets from being seized is a ”practical impossibility,” the court ordered her to remove it.
The letter was attached to a request to file a surreply—a reply to a reply—which generally isn’t done unless the court grants express permission.
In a March 21 letter, the defense argued that, predictably, the letter received widespread media coverage even though it was “improperly filed” and taken down the same day, refiled with only the request and no letter.
“The Court may draw its own conclusions about the propriety of this maneuver. In doing so, the Court is ‘not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,’” the defense wrote, urging the court to deny the attorney general’s request.
In the original letter, Ms. James had asked the court not to accept the testimonies of a Trump attorney and broker who detailed the efforts they'd gone through in trying to obtain a $464 million bond, claiming they were unreliable sources. The defense faulted the state for not providing any “reason to doubt any of their assertions,” however, and only making a blanket statement.
“While attempting to cynically and wrongfully tar the Defendants’ witnesses as ‘unreliable,’ the Attorney General does not actually dispute the truth of a single one of their specific claims,” the letter reads.
The sworn affidavits submitted revealed that the defense had sought out the large bond since before final judgment was entered—raising the fine from $250 million to more than $350 million during the last days of trial—and that negotiations by four brokers with 30-plus surety companies still resulted in no deal. One of the brokers provided additional context, saying a $100 million bond was considered large and a $464 million bond (which includes the ordered interest) is something few sureties have the ability to issue and would issue only for large publicly traded companies.
The attorney general had argued that these affidavits still didn’t provide enough information on why the defendants had been turned down, suggesting that Trump Organization assets aren’t as valuable as the defense claims.
The defense sought to rebut several such details in the March 21 letter to the court, arguing that the state was wrong in its assertion that the defendants didn’t spend enough time trying to obtain a bond, arguing they had undergone critical negotiations just this past week and that efforts were ongoing even while the defense tried to obtain a stay
How Much Cash?
After these negotiations, the defense found that a $464 million bond would require about $557 million in cash, on top of any operating expenses to continue The Trump Organization, because sureties require about 120 percent as collateral, plus additional premiums.
This is at least $200 million more than the original judgment figure, which the defense could have put in an escrow account if the cash were available.
The attorney general had suggested that the defense be required to put up a total of $464 million through several “smaller” bonds of $100 million or $200 million apiece, and the defense argued that this doesn’t resolve the cash issue.
The judgment total is $363 million, with about $355 million of that specifically applying to President Trump, $4 million to be recovered from Eric Trump, $4 million to be recovered from Donald Trump Jr., and $1 million to be recovered from Allen Weisselberg.
With the applied 9 percent interest, court filings say the bond comes out to more than $464 million, with a little more than $10 million of that attributed to judgment on Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Allen Weisselberg.
Fire Sale?
President Trump had posted on social media that to divest of his buildings in a “fire sale” would create irreparable damage—he would lose the buildings he was appealing to keep.
“Perhaps worst of all, the Attorney General argues that Defendants should be forced to dispose of iconic, multi-billion-dollar real-estate holdings in a ‘fire sale,’” the defense’s letter reads. They called it ”textbook irreparable injury” to require the defendants to appeal without penalty only after taking such losses.
“It would be completely illogical—and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking—to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” the defense argued.
They additionally cited several media articles and editorials about the shocking figure the state is demanding from President Trump and Ms. James’s possible political motives.
The state had also argued that if the defense knew they couldn’t get a $464 million bond, they should have “at a minimum consented to have their real estate interests held by Supreme Court to satisfy the judgment.”
“The suggestion is both impractical and unjust,” the defense argued. “The Attorney General cites no New York case law to support this contention.”
The case indeed puts The Trump Organization in uncharted territory; the appeals court has put a temporary stay on the judgment orders that would prohibit Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. from continuing to run the company, but it may lift the administrative stay after ruling on present motions. The trial court had also ordered monitorship of The Trump Organization to continue and the appointment of an additional risk officer.
Good for the farmers.
Gotta love flat top breakouts.
Sad...
Except for an act of God, I think Trump will not be president. And if he should win the globalists will attack him relentlessly. Unless, for an act of God.
Excellent 😎
GM b rich
Was at 04 3 years ago.
$GRPS...let's start projecting...LOL
They can't get out fast enough.
The Polar Vortex is Spinning Backward
https://spaceweather.com/
We haven't seen scary yet.
Don't get me going on that...just be glad I made the death jab available...DJT ?
Very good...I like and agree...OTC is a gem...will rebound bigly.
I hope so, brother Tom.
They're the chosen to destroy the USA for communism. Be prepared, for our nation has left God and embraced Satan. If you think I'm crazy, you're totally mistaken.
Our country is getting ripped apart and totally divided.
I've heard hope isn't a strategy in the OTC, maybe so, but, I've also witnessed millions made in the OTC. So much for hope, eh 😎
That bodes well for big runners like I think $DLOC will be.
I'm holding for much higher 😊
Learning the game takes time.
What a joke eh ?
Looks like a huge move is about to happen.
$BLEG
We're being overthrown and taken over in our own country, we the US citizens.
BlackRock Just Suffered Another Major Blow
https://truthpress.com/news/blackrock-just-suffered-another-major-blow/
As state leaders continue to recognize and take action to mitigate investment risk caused by woke ESG — environmental, social and governance — policies, the Texas State Board of Education has delivered a significant blow to the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, due to its embrace and prioritization of “green” energy and attempts to force a transition to a “net-zero” carbon emission economy.
Led by Chairman Aaron Kinsey, the Texas State Board of Education found that BlackRock was not in compliance with a provision in Texas state code that prohibits state investment in companies that boycott energy companies, a practice that Kinsey found BlackRock’s emphasis on ESG has created.
As a result, the Permanent School Fund (PSF) took action on Tuesday, notifying BlackRock that it was divesting a whopping $8.5 billion from the firm — the largest single divestment from BlackRock since state leaders began rejecting asset management firms with values that run opposite their states’ priorities.
A release from the State Board of Education explains the legal basis for the divestment and how BlackRock ran afoul of Texas code:
Today, PSF leadership delivered an official notice to global asset manager BlackRock terminating its financial management of approximately $8.5 billion in Texas’ assets. Terminating BlackRock’s contract ensures PSF’s full compliance with Texas law.
The PSF’s relationship with BlackRock was not in compliance with Texas Government Code Section 809, commonly referred to as Senate Bill 13, which prohibits state investment in companies like Blackrock that boycott energy companies.
BlackRock’s dominant and persistent leadership in the ESG movement immeasurably damages our state’s oil & gas economy and the very companies that generate revenues for our PSF. Texas and the PSF have worked hard to grow this fund to build Texas’ schools. BlackRock’s destructive approach toward the energy companies that this state and our world depend on is incompatible with our fiduciary duty to Texans.
Today represents a major step forward for the Texas PSF and our state as a whole. The PSF will not stand idle as our financial future is attacked by Wall Street. This bold action helps ensure our PSF remains in fact permanent and will continue to support bright futures and opportunities for generations of Texas students.
Kinsey’s move at the Texas State Board of Education follows divestment actions from numerous other states whose financial officers and attorneys general found that ESG-focused asset managers were using state funds in a manner that contradicted their states’ interests and economic activity.
As Townhall has previously reported, Arizona, Missouri, and Florida are among the states that have also taken action to divest state funds from BlackRock.
“Today’s bold step by Aaron Kinsey and the Permanent School Fund of Texas, in accordance with state law, is a massive blow against the scam of ESG,” emphasized Derek Kreifels, the CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation, in a statement to Townhall. “This is what happens when public fiduciaries stand up for those to whom they owe a duty, instead of bowing down to Wall Street’s asset managers who continue to abuse their position in the market to advance radical ideologies. No matter whether it’s called ‘stakeholder capitalism’ or ‘transition investing,’ if the intent of an asset manager is to end America’s oil and gas industry then they can expect continued pushback from conscientious public officials looking out for their constituents,” Kreifels pledged.
As Kreifels noted, ESG policies are used as an end-run around Americans’ elected representatives to force changes that mirror President Biden and Democrats’ attempts to implement an energy “transition” as part of the president’s pledge to “end” fossil fuels.
“Under Larry Fink’s leadership, BlackRock has been misusing client funds to push a political agenda for years,” reminded Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research. “Nowhere was that more egregious than in Texas, where BlackRock was simultaneously trying to destroy the domestic oil and gas industry while managing funds that depended on royalties derived from that very same industry,” he emphasized. “A more flagrant violation of fiduciary duty is difficult to imagine. By divesting $8 billion from BlackRock, Chairman Kinsey and the Permanent School Fund are not only fulfilling their role as fiduciaries to one of the largest education funds in the country but sending a clear message to Wall Street elites that people can no longer be bullied into complying with ESG’s destructive ideology,” Hild observed. “I look forward to seeing many more states follow suit.”
Both Kreifels and Hild have been leading the charge to raise awareness of the adverse impacts of ESG-driven financial management and are to credit for multiple Wall Street leaders seeking to distance themselves from the term “ESG” even as they continue to advance its principles. In a recent SEC filing covered by Townhall, BlackRock said that states and leaders — such as Texas and Kinsey — taking action to prohibit state agencies from doing business with entities boycotting certain industries “adversely impact BlackRock’s business.”
Still, BlackRock told other outlets on Tuesday that it “is helping millions of Texans invest and save for retirement” and pointed to investments in “Texas-based companies, infrastructure and municipalities, including $125 billion invested in the energy sector.”
Roger that.
US Supreme Court lets Texas border enforcement law take effect
https://share.newsbreak.com/6frfsxyf
By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let a Republican-backed Texas law take effect allowing state law enforcement authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, rejecting a request by President Joe Biden's administration.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and its three liberal justices dissented on Tuesday. The administration had asked the justices to freeze a judicial order allowing the Texas law to take effect while its challenge to the statute proceeds in the lower courts.
The law violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law by interfering with the U.S. government's power to regulate immigration, the administration has argued.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott last December signed the law, known as SB 4, authorizing state law enforcement to arrest people suspected of entering the United States illegally, giving local officers powers long delegated to the U.S. government.
Abbott said the law was needed due to Biden's failure to enforce federal laws criminalizing illegal entry or re-entry, telling a Dec. 18 press conference that "Biden's deliberate inaction has left Texas to fend for itself."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by fellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the Supreme Court's ruling would invite "further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement." Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote a separate dissent.
The Democratic president's handling of the record numbers of migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border during his presidency has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Abbott and other Republicans have said Biden should have kept the restrictive policies of former President Donald Trump, their party's candidate challenging Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.
STATE CRIMES
The Texas law made illegal entry or re-entry into Texas a state crime, with penalties ranging from 180 days in jail to 20 years in prison. Under it, Texas magistrate judges will be required to order migrants to return to Mexico, with up to 20-year sentences for those who refuse to comply.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in Tuesday's decision, explaining that the justices were being asked to upend a lower appeals court's "administrative stay" of a judicial decision blocking the law - a measure that is meant to be short-lived.
"So far as I know, this court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter - or not enter - an administrative stay. I would not get into the business," wrote Barrett, who was joined by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The Justice Department sued in January to block the measure, which was originally set to take effect on March 5. Biden administration lawyers argued that it violates federal law and constitutional provisions giving the U.S. government the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and among states, and runs afoul of a 2012 Supreme Court precedent.
Texas-based U.S. District David Ezra on Feb. 29 sided with the administration and agreed to preliminarily block Texas officials from enforcing the law, saying that it "threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice."
But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused Ezra's ruling in an order that would have let the Texas law take effect on March 10, prompting the administration to file an emergency request to the Supreme Court.
Justice Samuel Alito, who handles certain emergency matters involving cases from a group of states including Texas, on March 4 halted the 5th Circuit ruling - and thus the law - from taking effect, giving the Supreme Court more time to consider the matter.
Texas has pursued a range of measures to deter people who cross illegally under its Operation Lone Star, including deploying National Guard troops to the border, blocking migrants with concertina wire and installing a floating barrier over a stretch of the Rio Grande.
Republicans in February scuttled a bipartisan Senate deal that would have bolstered border security and tightened immigration laws after Trump pushed members of his party to reject it. Biden said blame for the bill's failure lay with Republican lawmakers who bowed to political pressure from Trump who "thinks it's bad for him politically."
An analysis of exit polls conducted by Edison Research following primary election voting in early March showed alarm among many voters over the situation along the border. Many called it their top voting issue. Reuters/Ipsos polling showed Biden's public approval level at 37% as of Feb. 28.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
Dr. Martin is one of the first to call the jab poison.
Btw, GM b rich 😎
Agree...I never share my positions on any stock. If requested, it's probably for a nefarious reason.
Time for this party to commence.
Principal Lied To Punish Jewish Teacher Who Reported Muslim Student For Praising Hitler
https://truthpress.com/news/principal-lied-to-punish-jewish-teacher-who-reported-muslim-student-for-praising-hitler/