Lawsuit Loan New York

get a loan on a settled lawsuit in new york state?

Question:




Answer: What's the question? Or are you trying to solicit business where you are offering a loan contingent upon monies that are to be received regarding a lawsuit OR are you asking is it okay to obtain a loan based on monies you are going to receive? If it is the latter I would not go near those organizations. Wait for your money.

In small claims court in New York State....?

Question: ...in New York State, can someone sue you for money owed, when you never actually borrowed the money from them? Here's the story. Before I got divorced, my wife borrowed $4000 from her sister. After my wife and split up, I borrowed $600 from my ex-wife's sister, and she has since been paid back. My ex-sister in law at one time told me I didn't have to worry about the money, that she would get it from her sister. Her sister paid her 2000 of it, and she wants me to pay the other half. Her HUSBAND, not her is taking me to small claims court for $2600. The half of the 4000 and the 600, although that was paid back. Can he legally sue me for this money? No money EVER exchanged hands between me and him. They weren't married when the 4000 was borrowed, and I'm not sure if they were at the time of the 600. There was NO reciepts or promisary notes. The actual person who loaned the money IS NOT named on the lawsuit...Can he sue me?




Answer: Anybody can sue anybody else. That doesn't mean they have a case. When you get to court, ask for trial "by the court" rather than by some volunteer arbitrator who might try to "do justice" rather than apply the law. (Usually the artbitrators are good, but this could prove a tough case if the other side lies.) Your arguments: (1) the plaintiff has no standing (he didn't lend the money); (2) you never borrowed the $4,000. And, if relevant, (3) the issue is resolved by your divorce property settlement. By and large, oral agreements are superseded by written ones. Don't volunteer any information. Don't answer questions not asked. I assume the $600 is not at issue.

What is the Federal Reserve collecting as collateral if their $2 trillion secret loan isn't paid back?

Question: Not only does the Federal Reserve REFUSE to disclose who they loaned $2 trillion to, they also will not disclose what collateral they were offered. Bloomberg filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit....AND WON. The Federal Reserve has until Sept. 30 to appeal. What do you think?? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ahys015DzWXc The U.S. has lent, spent or guaranteed $11.6 trillion to bolster banks and fight the longest recession in 70 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s a 9.4 percent decline since March 31, when Bloomberg last calculated the total at $12.8 trillion. The tally “ignores the fact that virtually all commitments are backed by assets,” Andrew S. Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman who had the same role at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until earlier this year, said in an e- mail. “The Federal Reserve’s current ‘outlays’ are largely in the form of secured loans. The aggregate value of the collateral backing those loans exceeds the loan value. These are not ‘outlays.’” Refused to Identify Spokesmen Calvin A. Mitchell of the New York Fed and David Skidmore of the Fed in Washington declined to comment. The Fed has refused to identify the collateral backing its loans. Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued the central bank in November to force it to provide the information. U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska gave the Fed until Sept. 30 to appeal her decision requiring more disclosure about the financial institutions that have benefited. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return....................Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment. President-elect Barack Obama's economic adviser, Jason Furman, also didn't respond to an e-mail and a phone call seeking comment from Obama. In a Sept. 22 campaign speech, Obama promised to ``make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business.'' http://econsultancy.com/blog/4506-bloomberg-s-federal-reserve-lawsuit-highlights-the-importance-of-news-organizations Last November, Bloomberg filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that sought to force the Federal Reserve to disclose the companies that took advantage of its emergency lending programs. The Federal Reserve had refused to disclose the names of these companies, claiming that such a disclosure could scare shareholders and potentially spark a run on deposits held at these institutions. Bloomberg countered that the American people had a right to know the names of these companies. After all, the public had become an "involuntary investor" in these companies because by way of the Fed's actions. Matthew Winkler, Bloomberg News' editor-in-chief, put it this way: When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know. uma.....thanx for the link




Answer: They have a choice either make the loans or go down to the cellars next to the incinerators and get Romanoved !

News article, Obama's campaign funded by money stolen from lenders? Is that ironic? What are your thoughts?

Question: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE58H5Z820090918?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews "HSBC sues accused Democratic fund-raiser in New York NEW YORK (Reuters) - A fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who was charged last month with defrauding Citigroup Inc is being sued by HSBC for deceiving it into lending him $100 million. The lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court in early September accused private equity firm head Hassan Nemazee, 59, of engaging in an elaborate scheme to make HSBC Bank USA believe that its loan was secured by collateral in the form of U.S. Treasury Notes when it was not. Nemazee, who sits on the board of the Iranian American Political Action Committee, typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates. He is listed as one of the top "bundlers" of contributions to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets,org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics research group. Nemazee was charged on August 25 of one count of bank fraud for seeking a $74 million loan from Citigroup's banking unit under false pretenses. He was arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on August 23 as he was checking in for a flight to Italy, according to court papers. U.S. prosecutors accused him on September 2 of defrauding other banks. In a letter to a magistrate judge in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors said he repaid the Citibank loan by defrauding another bank, but did not identify it. The bank was HSBC, according to the civil lawsuit. The bank sued Nemazee for breach of contract and fraud. Nemazee's lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment. The HSBC lawsuit, dated September 2, said that "to accomplish the fraud, Nemazee represented to HSBC that he had $89 million in Treasury Notes, with a current market value of more than $125 million, in a specified brokerage firm account; submitted a supposed agreement from the brokerage firm with forged signatures, false addresses, and false telephone numbers; used a mail drop; and submitted fabricated brokerage statements." HSBC said that on August 24, "Nemazee drew $75 million from HSBC on his fraudulently obtained credit facility, and used the funds to pay off his Citibank loan." In court papers, lawyers said the government had frozen two of Nemazee's accounts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. They said JPMorgan Chase froze his securities account at Brean Murray, Carret & Co and Bank of America Corp froze his funds and those of his children. If convicted, Nemazee faces up to 30 years in prison and a fine that could reach $1 million or more on the one criminal charge. The cases are HSBC Bank USA NA v Hassan Nemazee 602735/2009 in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan and U.S. v. Nemazee, 09-mj-1927 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)." What are your thoughts, opinions, or crituques on the article?




Answer: I think we need to charge Mr. 0bama with a crime, and he has committed several in both the campaign irregularities and since assuming office, such as his snitch site or the usurping the constitution and firing ceos!