Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (148442)	7/17/2002 12:20:57 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578394

Based upon the information provided, I don't see what the crime was....In a limited partnership, there is a gen. partner and limited partners Perhaps you need to read it again. The PENSION FUND put up the money. There is no mention of debt, thus, there is no liability for a general to be liable for. Whether McAuliffe was a general or a limited is unknown, but it doesn't matter -- the only difference between a general and a limited partner is the nature and extent of debt one is liable for; in this case, no debt, no liability. The Pension Fund put up the money. What does debt have to do with it? Can't you read? In any real estate deal, there is liability whether there is debt or not......you should know that if you done so many deals, shooter! Perhaps you're a little inexperienced. But I'm not; I've handled hundreds of real estate transactions. I can assure you that for a man to put up $100 and get back $2.45 million, SOMETHING happened under the table. No question about it. Well, when you find out what the kick back or illegitimate activity was and you have legitimate proof of that activity, then you can talk about fraud. Until then, you're simply blowing smoke. It is the same nasty, reeking deal that Hillary got with the commodity transaction. BTW, nowhere was it indicated that McAuliffe was a general while the other guys were limiteds. Maybe, just maybe, the smucks at the Nat. Review do not have a copy of the partnership agreement and even if they did, they may not understand the distinction. In case you've misunderstood, the Nat. Review is a media outlet and not a real estate attorney's office. Frankly, this is typical of a liberal. Because the transaction appears in form to be legal, they assume it IS legal. But the law often looks not at the form of a transaction but at its substance. This deal stinks, and we're going to see more about it (IF the liberal media has an ounce of backbone about them). First, I did not assume it was legal. What I said was that there is no concrete evidence dug up by the Nat. Review that says it was illegal. Again, why are you having trouble reading what I post? And elitism rears its ugly head once more........because you think its illegal does not make it so. Its why I worry when you all get some power.