AG Racine suing Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Lol. He makes that much in Bitcoin in only a few hours in a day. Prob paid it just to make the gnat Racine go away.

that is not how rich people reason. it’s absolutely clear that Saylor & Microstrategy faced very serious legal risk that Saylor could not make go away even with the best legal team.

$40M is pocket change. Sorry. Racine is a small ant that went away with some peanuts thrown on the ground.

lol no, $40 mil is not “pocket change.”

NP but it is to someone worth several billion dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Lol. He makes that much in Bitcoin in only a few hours in a day. Prob paid it just to make the gnat Racine go away.

that is not how rich people reason. it’s absolutely clear that Saylor & Microstrategy faced very serious legal risk that Saylor could not make go away even with the best legal team.

$40M is pocket change. Sorry. Racine is a small ant that went away with some peanuts thrown on the ground.

lol no, $40 mil is not “pocket change.”

Ofcourse is pocket change to Michael Saylor. The stock is so volatile that I even took thousands out the other day and bought the same amount back. He has way more ways to make money plus the zero % loans he gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Lol. He makes that much in Bitcoin in only a few hours in a day. Prob paid it just to make the gnat Racine go away.

that is not how rich people reason. it’s absolutely clear that Saylor & Microstrategy faced very serious legal risk that Saylor could not make go away even with the best legal team.

$40M is pocket change. Sorry. Racine is a small ant that went away with some peanuts thrown on the ground.

lol no, $40 mil is not “pocket change.”

NP but it is to someone worth several billion dollars.

billionaires don’t get to be billionaires by believing $40 mil is “pocket change.” $40 mil means he did it, full stop. and may bring down the corporation as well.

[Anonymous]

The settlement clearly stated that there was no admission of guilt. AG knew he didn’t have a case. So he gets some pocket change and calls it a day. 🎉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The settlement clearly stated that there was no admission of guilt. AG knew he didn’t have a case. So he gets some pocket change and calls it a day. 🎉

Are you paid by Saylor out of his pocket change? Every settlement contains that statement but no one settles for $40 million unless they have real liability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The settlement clearly stated that there was no admission of guilt. AG knew he didn’t have a case. So he gets some pocket change and calls it a day. 🎉

Are you paid by Saylor out of his pocket change? Every settlement contains that statement but no one settles for $40 million unless they have real liability.

Saylor is really a giant dumb*ss if he thinks anyone is fooled by his PR trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

Cool that you don’t understand basics about good governance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

Cool that you don’t understand basics about good governance.

Please enlighten me. Lol.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The settlement clearly stated that there was no admission of guilt. AG knew he didn’t have a case. So he gets some pocket change and calls it a day. 🎉

Are you paid by Saylor out of his pocket change? Every settlement contains that statement but no one settles for $40 million unless they have real liability.

I went back to the original press release. It was alleged that Saylor evaded $25 million in taxes and could be sued for treble damages. So, Saylor had $75 million exposure. They settled for just over half of that. It seems like a reasonable settlement given that it covers the amount he evaded and a significant penalty. As you say, no admission of guilt is standard in these settlements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

Cool that you don’t understand basics about good governance.

Please enlighten me. Lol.

DC politicians having access to own unaccountable resources will never end well. Best case scenario is that he uses the resources to do things that increase his profile in the community to run for mayor.

However, on a basic governance angle here is the crux of the problem with what Schwalb is doing: taxpayers were harmed not the DC AG and the funds should be returned to taxpayers in the general fund and not allowed to be kept for exclusive use by the DC AG.

We were all ripped off by this tax fraud and we should get out money back. Schwalb instead believes that money is his and his alone.

I am sorry but I don’t take someone seriously who talks so much crap but didn’t bother to read the Consent Order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

Cool that you don’t understand basics about good governance.

Please enlighten me. Lol.

DC politicians having access to own unaccountable resources will never end well. Best case scenario is that he uses the resources to do things that increase his profile in the community to run for mayor.

However, on a basic governance angle here is the crux of the problem with what Schwalb is doing: taxpayers were harmed not the DC AG and the funds should be returned to taxpayers in the general fund and not allowed to be kept for exclusive use by the DC AG.

We were all ripped off by this tax fraud and we should get out money back. Schwalb instead believes that money is his and his alone.

I am sorry but I don’t take someone seriously who talks so much crap but didn’t bother to read the Consent Order.

So let me get this straight … you think Schwalb is going to personally use the money? And you think I’m the one not to be taken seriously? There’s actually a law governing the AG recovery of funds. And what exactly does this have to do with Saylor being a greedy, likely psychopathic tax cheat who got humiliatingly betrayed and caught?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

Cool that you don’t understand basics about good governance.

Please enlighten me. Lol.

DC politicians having access to own unaccountable resources will never end well. Best case scenario is that he uses the resources to do things that increase his profile in the community to run for mayor.

However, on a basic governance angle here is the crux of the problem with what Schwalb is doing: taxpayers were harmed not the DC AG and the funds should be returned to taxpayers in the general fund and not allowed to be kept for exclusive use by the DC AG.

We were all ripped off by this tax fraud and we should get out money back. Schwalb instead believes that money is his and his alone.

I am sorry but I don’t take someone seriously who talks so much crap but didn’t bother to read the Consent Order.

So let me get this straight … you think Schwalb is going to personally use the money? And you think I’m the one not to be taken seriously? There’s actually a law governing the AG recovery of funds. And what exactly does this have to do with Saylor being a greedy, likely psychopathic tax cheat who got humiliatingly betrayed and caught?

Are you a moron? Let’s start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong

Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order.

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability.

Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything.

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people!

No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control.

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy.

Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means.

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be.

Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware.

Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party?

Cool that you don’t understand basics about good governance.

Please enlighten me. Lol.

DC politicians having access to own unaccountable resources will never end well. Best case scenario is that he uses the resources to do things that increase his profile in the community to run for mayor.

However, on a basic governance angle here is the crux of the problem with what Schwalb is doing: taxpayers were harmed not the DC AG and the funds should be returned to taxpayers in the general fund and not allowed to be kept for exclusive use by the DC AG.

We were all ripped off by this tax fraud and we should get out money back. Schwalb instead believes that money is his and his alone.

I am sorry but I don’t take someone seriously who talks so much crap but didn’t bother to read the Consent Order.

So let me get this straight … you think Schwalb is going to personally use the money? And you think I’m the one not to be taken seriously? There’s actually a law governing the AG recovery of funds. And what exactly does this have to do with Saylor being a greedy, likely psychopathic tax cheat who got humiliatingly betrayed and caught?

Are you a moron? Let’s start there.

were you the one trying to claim that there was something nefarious about the case being brought by a qui tam plaintiff? 😂

let’s get back to the facts here, which are that Saylor is a pathetic tax cheat who is evidently so hated by his employees and close associates that they brought him down in a giant, well-organized false claims suit.