Reposting this as an article since my first one with just the court documents violated rule 1.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24179145/bianco-v-lamington-farm-club.pdf
I thought Democrats were Groomers? Also Drag Queens. Also DEFINITELY NOT Pastors and Republicans.
Oh. This is the one that’s a Melania clone. Not even slightly surprised.
Yeah, and in case anyone forgot or didn’t know she’s also a racist called out by her own secretary.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-lawyer-alina-habba-settles-secretarys-btch-discrimination-case
I didn’t know, but I’ve heard her legal arguments, and I’m not at all surprised her shit arguments match her shit worldview.
This the lawyer who always looks like she ate a whole shroombar and is tripping balls in the courtroom?
deleted by creator
That’s the one!
Wait what? Anyone got a link to this?
almost any photo of her sitting next to Trump in court wishing she were somewhere else
Holy shit lol
They both look like they desperately want to be somewhere else.
Honestly pretty much everyone in the photo does
deleted by creator
Reposting this as an article since my first one with just the court documents violated rule 1.
You just get numb to it after a while. She should be disbarred and her employer should be looking at multimillion dollar fine if not more.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Habba and Trump were ordered to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions to the 31 defendants, including Clinton, they sued in the “completely frivolous” Florida lawsuit, in the words of the judge in the case.
In the lawsuit, Bianco said she had not been aware that Habba worked as an attorney for Trump until weeks after she signed the NDA, although she had seen her sit with the former president at dinner on a number of occasions and had waited on her before.
Bianco alleges that Melichar forced her “to engage in sex as a quid pro quo for continued employment and ‘protection’” when she worked at the club.
Habba allegedly told Bianco that the NDA would be tax-free and that she would get her therapy paid for as part of the deal as long as she abided by the settlement and did not tell anyone about the agreement.
Bianco’s lawyers said that when she reached out to Habba during tax season, the Trump attorney told the server she couldn’t help with legal advice.
"Habba didn’t need to text heart emojis anymore, she had accomplished her goal of protecting Donald Trump and of silencing Ms.
The original article contains 711 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“Grooming” an adult? A story based on nothing.
“Story based on nothing.”
Sure, that’s why there’s a court case already filed, and legal commentators generally agree Habba could be disbarred for gross misrepresenting herself while acting like a friend to the victim and manipulating her into signing an NDA, etc. Go sit down.
deleted by creator
You’re welcome to your definitions.
edit: and I’m sure that all the women groomed to be sex slaves by Allison Mack for the NXIVM cult would disagree, as would most of the reporting on that story. It doesn’t have to do with children, it has to do with being psychologically and/or sexually manipulated in various ways to feel loved, included, accepted, etc. No victims benefit from a narrow definition.
Isn’t that what sex trafficking is? I don’t mean to take anything away from the outrage, but using terms in their appropriate context is something that people malign the right with pretty frequently, e.g. the right calls everything an “insurrection” to diminish the use of the word. Sex trafficking is pretty abhorrent, but means something different than Grooming as far as I understood the terms. Habba is shit either way.
Go search “NXIVM groom.” I consider the discussion over.
I took your advice. The conclusion that I came to was that the charges brought in the NXIVM case were sex trafficking, racketeering, and others. The abuse with at least one of the victims began when she was 15 years old, so Grooming in that case seems applicable.
You should take some time to think about how asinine it is to draw a distinction between two people who went through the same thing because one was 15 and one was 19, much less any other age difference. The distinction that should be made is what kind of manipulations they went through that made them think they wanted to be in that situation, and for each person that entailed someone breaking down a part of their psyche until they were in a mentally childlike state, vulnerable to the types of programming they were subjected to. We remain in disagreement and I’m fine with that. And I’m not interested in your alternative viewpoint because, again, it’s asinine.
Good for you.
Do you prefer “defrauding” or “running a confidence scam”? Because that’s what it was.
