José Andrés Caught Up in the Donald Trump Maelstrom

[The Hersch]

I don't recall exactly when the Old Post Office built out retail, had restaurants and shops, but i assume some time in the 90's or late 90's; maybe someone can pin the date. 

It was 1983.

[Ericandblueboy]

What are the chances these rich chefs ask the public to contribute to their "legal defense fund" and "I gotta pay Trump fund"?

Yup, the rich need help.

[dcs]

Jose Andres hits back at Trump over restaurant deal; counter-sues for $8 million, by Emily Heil in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/10/07/jose-andres-hits-back-at-trump-over-restaurant-deal-counter-sues-for-8-million/

Good for him.

[Ericandblueboy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/jose-andres-chef-calls-donald-trump-clever-maniac/

Jose all but admits he hires illegal aliens. It is my understanding that most people who knowingly hire illegal aliens aren't paying them a fair wage and are cheating on taxes. From the perspective of the illegal immigrants, it's still more money than they would make at home. From the employers' perspective, tax cheating is a victimless crime?

[Josh]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/jose-andres-chef-calls-donald-trump-clever-maniac/

Jose all but admits he hires illegal aliens. It is my understanding that most people who knowingly hire illegal aliens aren't paying them a fair wage and are cheating on taxes. From the perspective of the illegal immigrants, it's still more money than they would make at home. From the employers' perspective, tax cheating is a victimless crime?

He was pointing out an established fact, not endorsing its practice or claiming he participates in it.

[Ericandblueboy]

The article provides some background and behind the scenes view of the affair.  

"Donald Trump, José Andrés, and the Death of a Grand Washington Restaurant" by Jonathan O'Connell on washingtonpost.com

[DaveO]

On 4/30/2016 at 7:36 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

The article provides some background and behind the scenes view of the affair.  

"Donald Trump, José Andrés, and the Death of a Grand Washington Restaurant" by Jonathan O'Connell on washingtonpost.com

Thanks for the article.  Interesting details.  Ultimately I suspect this will be settled.  To the extent there is another restaurant in place, total potential damages have been significantly mitigated.  Without further details, per the article, it appears that Jose Andres' group is out more money than Trump.

If anything the article amplified what I suggested above; I'd be wary of doing a lease with Trump.  He simply is a loose cannon from the business side.  His staff, particularly his daughter and the development director of the project simply had to cope with the fallout from his statements.  The article references his acknowledgement and anticipation of "some fallout".  Trump kept plowing ahead and his political comments amplified his initial comments that caused the problem.

Frankly I hope Andres' group wins money in this situation.  I also foresee an entirely new and additional set of real estate clauses in a lease that would protect  a tenant or a landlord from public statements or actions similar to what Trump said that provoked the problem.  

In fact there is a trend in the US these days with businesses reacting in extreme ways to the politics of the day.  If anything this will be good for the legal industry.  More legal clauses of all sorts in business contracts to try and protect against political fallout.  

[NolaCaine]

Pillsbury building is being protested by HRC and protected by way too many of DC's finest.

"Trump Arrives in Washington for Deposition in $10 Million Lawsuit Against Chef" by Keith L. Alexander and Jonathan O'Connell on washingtonpost.com

[DaveO]

Interesting.  There was news about this a few days ago.  Trump's attorneys were fighting the deposition but that evidently didn't work.  Per earlier articles I thought it was relevant to the Zakarian restaurant, not Jose Andres.  I suspect the content of the deposition will not be public.  If so, rats.  

I hope these restaurateurs take Trump to the cleaner.  That isn't even political as much as unprecedented publicity from a landlord that can critically injure the business opportunities of the tenant.  In my experience its completely unprecedented going back to the 80's which is far back as I could go and in my mind makes the language of a lease and the contract worthless.  Of course that is just my opinion.  I'll continue to follow this hubbub.  

[DonRocks]

From "Attorneys for Donald Trump, José Andrés in Court Over Anti-Immigrant Comments" by Emily Heil and Jonathan O'Connell on washingtonpost.com:

"Brigida Benitez, who represents Andrés’s ThinkFoodGroup, was similarly dismissive of the opposition’s suggestions that Andrés should have known what he was getting into, because Trump had long been outspoken — and political. “Even though they were doing business with Donald Trump, [the company] would not have expected that Donald Trump would do something to risk the venture.”

I think Benitez is absolutely correct for dismissing these suggestions: Just because you enter into a contract with someone, you're not obligated to know everything they've said and done in the past. In fact, I wouldn't think "a reasonable person" would be obligated to know much of anything at all, and I don't care if it's Donald Trump or Abraham Lincoln.

Remember that boneheaded argument that Alan Dershowitz made, claiming that Desiree Washington "should have known better" than to go into a room with Mike Tyson? Are you *kidding* me? Very similar concept. Ms. Washington wasn't obligated to know *anything* about Mike Tyson's past. That's got to be one of the stupidest legal arguments I've ever heard - then again, this is the attorney who wanted to legalize non-lethal torture by inserting a sharp object under people's fingernails. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[NolaCaine]

The deposition lasted two hours if cops & protester presence was any indication of length.  There were 3 groups of protesters: those protesting Trump on racism; those protesting trump on Trump U fraud; and those protesting Trump's response to Orlando.   

Let's just sit with that for a bit.

(thanks for moving the original post Don; I couldn't think of where to put it; of course I forgot about the search function)

[DaveO]

8 hours ago, NolaCaine said:

 There were 3 groups of protesters: those protesting Trump on racism; those protesting trump on Trump U fraud; and those protesting Trump's response to Orlando.   

Let's just sit with that for a bit.

If this were baseball I'd call him a utility infielder.    Nah.....waaaaaaaaaaaay to generous.

[Bart]

7 hours ago, NolaCaine said:

There were 3 groups of protesters: those protesting Trump on racism; those protesting trump on Trump U fraud; and those protesting Trump's response to Orlando.   

Let's just sit with that for a bit.

That is amazing.  It feels like SNL sketch or a scene from a Monty Python movie.  

[dracisk]

I'm sorry to dredge up these quotes a year later, but I just read through the entire thread and can't let them go.

On 7/8/2015 at 11:09 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

The illegal immigrants that sneak across our border, regardless of reason, aren't the best or brightest of their country.

I would dispute this generally, particularly because it's such a sweeping statement, and I appreciate the other responses to this above (I recall good ones from Rieux and B.A.R. -- there may have been others). More specifically, I'd like to point out that I've worked with asylum seekers and refugees from all over the world for many years and that sometimes when a person is fleeing persecution he or she finds any way to come to the U.S. to apply for asylum, even if that means entering illegally (getting a visa to come to the U.S. is HARD and takes time). (It's not just Mexicans and Central and South Americans who enter illegally over the southern border. There are well-established smuggling routes from other parts of the world often involving flying to Brazil and making one's way up to the U.S. border.) I've worked with asylum seekers with college degrees and advanced degrees (including J.D.s and Ph.D.s) who may or may not have entered the country legally. And, of course, even people without a lot of formal education can contribute to society in important ways.

On 7/9/2015 at 8:44 AM, Ericandblueboy said:

 I'm not entirely certain that illegal immigrants can start  a business, file tax returns, etc. without getting busted.

I don't know about starting a business, but many people who are not in the country legally pay taxes for many years specifically because they hope to legalize their immigration status some day and they want to be able to show they're of "good moral character." Even if they can't get a Social Security Number because of their immigration status (or lack of), they can get a Taxpayer Identification Number so that they can file returns with the IRS.

[ktmoomau]

To be fair on the tax subject- (I am not a tax attorney, but I used to work for them):  When the IRS accepts income tax payments from illegal immigrants, Social Security Administration estimated at least 1.8 million illegal aliens use fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers to get jobs and pay taxes. It said: “Rather than turning the illegal aliens over to law enforcement authorities, the IRS protects the illegal aliens because, as a former IRS commissioner said: ‘We want your money whether you are here legally or not and whether you earned it legally or not.’"  (That's a great sentiment right?)

According to the CIS, Treasury Department auditors say the favoritism the IRS shows to illegal aliens who are filing illegal tax returns includes allowing them to use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers to obtain millions of dollars in deductions and credits, which they’re not entitled to receive because they’re non-permanent aliens.  So I am not sure it is as rosy as it sounds to say that illegal immigrants are paying taxes.  I truly believe our immigration system is flawed and needs bottom up reform, but I don't think you can fault someone for saying they don't know if that will get you busted.  

The first phrase I think he was paraphrasing and asking if that was more palatable to people, especially Republicans, if it was worded in a more PC way.  Anyway, I think on here it's hard to tell context, especially people like me who tend to be very sarcastic.  You have to read things very carefully and give people the benefit of the doubt.

[dracisk]

1 hour ago, ktmoomau said:

According to the CIS, Treasury Department auditors say the favoritism the IRS shows to illegal aliens who are filing illegal tax returns includes allowing them to use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers to obtain millions of dollars in deductions and credits, which they’re not entitled to receive because they’re non-permanent aliens.  So I am not sure it is as rosy as it sounds to say that illegal immigrants are paying taxes.

My point was that since they're in the country illegally and working illegally, people could easily choose not to pay taxes at all, but many choose to pay taxes anyway. Maybe they take deductions and credits they're not entitled to (I'm having trouble imagining what these might be since I doubt many people in the country illegally own property or make many charitable contributions (maybe they're taking the EITC?), but I know almost nothing about taxation -- I'm an immigration lawyer), but I'd argue paying some taxes is better than paying nothing at all, which would be very easy to do. I was assuming the "not getting busted" phrase was referring to not getting busted for being here illegally, not not getting busted by the IRS, but maybe I misinterpreted. Like you said, the IRS is happy to take anyone's money. Of course, the CIS is a notoriously anti-immigration organization, so I take most of what they say on the topic with a grain of salt.

[Ericandblueboy]

17 hours ago, dracisk said:

My point was that since they're in the country illegally and working illegally, people could easily choose not to pay taxes at all, but many choose to pay taxes anyway.

All employees of legitimate employers are subject to withholding tax.  In that case, they don't have an option to not pay tax.  On the other hand, if the employment is under the table, then I doubt any illegal immigrant is filing a tax return and paying the tax voluntarily.

[dracisk]

27 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I doubt any illegal immigrant is filing a tax return and paying the tax voluntarily

Actually, a large number of them do, because they hope to legalize their immigration status some day (of course, some people don't care about that). If there's ever a large scale amnesty you can bet anyone who applies will be required to show that they've filed tax returns for the years they've been here (or maybe for the last 7 or 10 years or something like that).

Please see this paper from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Quote

The best evidence suggests that at least 50 percent of undocumented immigrant households currently file income tax returns using Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs).

(This paper is specifically about state and local taxes, but I think one can assume that if undocumented immigrant households are filing state tax returns, they're also filing federal tax returns. I'm not sure if state returns matter for immigration benefit purposes, but I know federal returns do.)

[Ericandblueboy]

The paper you linked has this to say:

"Like other people living and working in the United States, undocumented immigrants pay state and local taxes. They pay sales and excise taxes when they purchase goods and services (for example, on utilities, clothing and gasoline). They pay property taxes directly on their homes or indirectly as renters. Many undocumented immigrants also pay state income taxes. The best evidence suggests that at least 50 percent of undocumented immigrant households currently file income tax returns using Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs), and many who do not file income tax returns still have taxes deducted from their paychecks."

"Collectively, undocumented immigrants in the United States pay an estimated total of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes a year (see Table 1 for state-by-state estimates). This includes more than $6.9 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes, and just under $1.1 billion in personal income taxes."

"Income tax: Various studies have estimated between 50 and 75 percent of undocumented immigrants currently pay personal income taxes using either false social security (SSN) or individual tax identification (ITIN) numbers."

You have to pay sales tax, property taxes, as well as withholding taxes.  Those are not voluntary.  If you use an ITIN, you're still subject to withholding.  Since ITIN does not give an illegal the right to work, I have to wonder why they're employed and are paying income tax.  I understand the illegals who pay tax may qualify for benefits later if they ever become legal, and possibly give them better chances of becoming legal,  but what legitimate company is going to hire an illegal, withhold and pay tax?  In addition, social security is a revenue loser.  Most people collect more than they pay in.  So allowing illegal immigrants to pay taxes is only beneficial to citizens if we keep them illegal.  

I believe in enforcing the law.  Change the law if you have the votes. 

[dracisk]

8 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I believe in enforcing the law.  Change the law if you have the votes. 

I'm fine with enforcing the law. I agree that ITINs don't give undocumented people a right to work, but obviously the IRS doesn't report people to ICE. I was making the point that undocumented people do file income tax returns, which you didn't seem to think was true.

[Ericandblueboy]

My point is that no one is paying taxes out of the goodness of their heart.  They're paying taxes because it's withheld at the point of purchase or at the source.  The payment of taxes is not any reason for amnesty, because it's not voluntary (especially if it's a revenue loser in the long run).  

And I stand by my initial statement about illegal immigrants being mostly uneducated dregs of society.  Why don't people google relevant data for their argument?  A few exceptions do not prove the rule.

http://www.undocumentedpatients.org/issuebrief/demographics-and-socioeconomic-status/

What is the edu­ca­tion level of undoc­u­mented immigrants?

Undoc­u­mented immi­grants have lower lev­els of edu­ca­tion than U.S. born res­i­dents in the same age range. Among all undoc­u­mented immi­grants ages 25–64, 47% have not com­pleted high school (com­pared with 8% of U.S. born adults in the same age range) and of these, more than half (29% of total) have less than a ninth grade education.

Among adults age 25–64, 29% of undoc­u­mented immi­grants have less than a 9^thgrade edu­ca­tion com­pared with only 2% among U.S. born adults in this age cohort. A total of 47% of undoc­u­mented immi­grants age 25–64 have less than a high school edu­ca­tion, com­pared with only 8% among US-born pop­u­la­tion adults in this age cohort (See Fig­ure 1).

[Ericandblueboy]

The education profile of adults who are unauthorized immigrants differs markedly from that of U.S.-born adults and from that of other immigrants because unauthorized immigrant adults ages 25-64 are disproportionately likely to have very low education levels.

Nearly three-in-ten (29%) have less than a ninth-grade education; an additional 18% have some high school education but have not completed high school. The proportion of unauthorized immigrants with either less than a ninth-grade education or less than a high school education is roughly double the share of legal foreign-born residents with those educational levels. It is far greater than the share of U.S.-born adults—only 2% of those ages 25-64 have less than a ninth-grade education, and only 6% have additional years in high school, but no diploma.

Unauthorized immigrants are considerably less likely than both other immigrants and U.S.-born residents to have achieved at least a high school diploma. Among adults ages 25-64 who are unauthorized immigrants, 27% have finished high school and gone no further. The corresponding figure for legal immigrants is slightly lower at 24%; the U.S. born are slightly higher at 31%. But there are very large differences among the groups in the share that go beyond high school.
Most U.S.-born adults ages 25-64 (61%) and legal immigrants (54%) have attended college or graduated from college, compared with only one-in-four unauthorized immigrants.

Another way to look at the education distribution is that 22% of U.S. residents ages 25-64 with less than a high school education are unauthorized immigrants—a rate that is five times the proportion of unauthorized immigrants in the adult population. The share of unauthorized immigrants is even higher—35%—among those with less than a ninth-grade education.

Information from the Pew Hispanic Center, google "Education Level Illegal Immigrants"  If you want to argue something, bring some relevant facts.

[dracisk]

24 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

My point is that no one is paying taxes out of the goodness of their heart.  They're paying taxes because it's withheld at the point of purchase or at the source.  The payment of taxes is not any reason for amnesty, because it's not voluntary (especially if it's a revenue loser in the long run).

Right. Some taxes are withheld at the point of purchase or at the source. But I'm talking about filing tax returns, which is not involuntary. You claimed above that you're "not entirely certain that illegal immigrants can start  a business, file tax returns, etc. without getting busted." I was simply pointing out (and I continue to point out) that many people who are in the country illegally do file tax returns. Regardless of whether they're filing tax returns out of the goodness of their heart (does anyone file tax returns out of the goodness of their heart?), they file them. And I never said that paying taxes is a reason for amnesty. I said that if there's an amnesty anyone who wants to qualify for it is going to have to show that they filed tax returns.

I'm not going to argue with you over whether "the illegal immigrants that sneak across our border, regardless of reason, aren't the best or brightest of their country" or whether "illegal immigrants [are] mostly uneducated dregs of society." I never made any claims about the overall education level of people in the country illegally. I simply pointed out that I've encountered many highly educated people who are in the country illegally, some of whom entered illegally over the southern border, as a counter to your sweeping generalizations.

[Josh]

I would be very careful with equating those with a low educational level with the "dregs of society."  That is a pretty odious sentiment, and perhaps not one you meant to convey. 

[zgast]

4 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

The education profile of adults who are unauthorized immigrants differs markedly from that of U.S.-born adults and from that of other immigrants because unauthorized immigrant adults ages 25-64 are disproportionately likely to have very low education levels.

Nearly three-in-ten (29%) have less than a ninth-grade education; an additional 18% have some high school education but have not completed high school. The proportion of unauthorized immigrants with either less than a ninth-grade education or less than a high school education is roughly double the share of legal foreign-born residents with those educational levels. It is far greater than the share of U.S.-born adults—only 2% of those ages 25-64 have less than a ninth-grade education, and only 6% have additional years in high school, but no diploma.

In my experience, this is true.  What I would argue - strenuosly - against is the idea that they are the 'dregs' of society.  In most of the cases I've seen, they are people who've made a rational decision that despite the relatively low wages they work for in the US, they can still create a better life here than the ones they had in their home countries.  That's what I'd also thought of as 'The American Dream'.  Just like your ancestors, except with new federal bureaucracy to oppose their wishes to enter the country.  Don't you oppose federal bureaucracies?  That's the impression I've gotten from your previous posts.

I'm not going to claim that every undocumented immigrant is the patron saint of x - hell most of the great ones I know were working under stolen social security numbers (paying social security, federal, state and local taxes that they had no expectation of collecting benefits on) - but they were still great people.  Their home countries sucked - and they fled.  Even being an illegal here was better for them and their children than staying where they were.  I can't fault them for that.  Plus - I know a lot of highly educated a&%hats that I'd love to throw out of the country relative to these people.

What happened to that whole content of their character thing we always espoused as Americans?  (George Wallace aside)  If you come here, want to work your ass off in exchange for honest wages, I say bring it!  

[Ericandblueboy]

Filing a tax return actually gets them a refund.  Of course they'd file a tax return if the taxes withheld is more than their share.  I wrote "I doubt any illegal immigrant is filing a tax return and paying the tax voluntarily," the relevant portion is paying the tax voluntarily, and you chose to focus on filing the return.  There's no penalty for failing to file a return if you don't owe any tax.  So the only reason to file is to get a refund.  The payment of tax is already credited to their ITIN, so they have no need to file a return except to get money back.

You also stated you dispute the following statement generally:

On 7/8/2015 at 11:09 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

The illegal immigrants that sneak across our border, regardless of reason, aren't the best or brightest of their country.

Common sense would tell you that statement is generally true, and of course there are exceptions.  

[Ericandblueboy]

9 minutes ago, JoshNE said:

I would be very careful with equating those with a low educational level with the "dregs of society."  That is a pretty odious sentiment, and perhaps not one you meant to convey. 

So that's not synonymous with "not the best or brightest."  In any case, why shouldn't our immigration laws be enforced?

[Ericandblueboy]

11 minutes ago, zgast said:

In my experience, this is true.  What I would argue - strenuosly - against is the idea that they are the 'dregs' of society.  In most of the cases I've seen, they are people who've made a rational decision that despite the relatively low wages they work for in the US, they can still create a better life here than the ones they had in their home countries.  That's what I'd also thought of as 'The American Dream'.  Just like your ancestors, except with new federal bureaucracy to oppose their wishes to enter the country.  Don't you oppose federal bureaucracies?  That's the impression I've gotten from your previous posts.

I'm not going to claim that every undocumented immigrant is the patron saint of x - hell most of the great ones I know were working under stolen social security numbers (paying social security, federal, state and local taxes that they had no expectation of collecting benefits on) - but they were still great people.  Their home countries sucked - and they fled.  Even being an illegal here was better for them and their children than staying where they were.  I can't fault them for that.  Plus - I know a lot of highly educated a&%hats that I'd love to throw out of the country relative to these people.

What happened to that whole content of their character thing we always espoused as Americans?  (George Wallace aside)  If you come here, want to work your ass off in exchange for honest wages, I say bring it!  

What does a better life for illegals have to do with enforcing our laws? Of course life as an illegal here is better than being in their home country.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't be here.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce immigration laws.  Otherwise, abolish those laws and let everyone in.

[Josh]

Just now, Ericandblueboy said:

So that's not synonymous with "not the best or brightest."  In any case, why shouldn't our immigration laws be enforced?

I haven't said a thing about the enforcement of our immigration laws. I objected to the ugly elitism in your formulation, and hoped you had been inarticulate and not sincere. 

[Ericandblueboy]

7 minutes ago, JoshNE said:

I haven't said a thing about the enforcement of our immigration laws. I objected to the ugly elitism in your formulation, and hoped you had been inarticulate and not sincere. 

I see, being PC is more important than enforcing our laws.  The substantive issue is whether we should enforce our immigration laws, not argue about what I think about illegal immigrants, but the fact that they're really poorly educated argues against amnesty (from a cost vs. benefit analysis).

[Josh]

Eric, I'm not even referring specifically to immigrants. I object to using educational level as a marker for societal worth. For anyone. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. 

[Ericandblueboy]

15 minutes ago, JoshNE said:

Eric, I'm not even referring specifically to immigrants. I object to using educational level as a marker for societal worth. For anyone. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. 

I'm not saying educational level is an exact marker for societal worth.  It is the closest measure to the "best and the brightest" test that I previously posited.

But all of this is beside the point.  Trump wants to build a wall and deport illegals.  Inhumane, yes.  Do we just not enforce the law if it's inhumane?  

[Josh]

I'm going to be annoying and disengage here.

I will link to something that this discussion led me to remember from past English lit studies:

The quality of mercy...

[The Hersch]

1 hour ago, Ericandblueboy said:

The substantive issue is whether we should enforce our immigration laws,

I don't think "substantive" means what you think it means.

[Rieux]

7 hours ago, JoshNE said:

I haven't said a thing about the enforcement of our immigration laws. I objected to the ugly elitism in your formulation, and hoped you had been inarticulate and not sincere. 

Agree 100%. One can define best and brightest in many ways... For example immigrants tend to be entrepreneurial, risk-taking, and go-getters - just think what it takes to have the wherewithal to leave your friends, family, language, and everything you know to move somewhere else. It takes guts and spirit and hard work.  I would equate those characteristics with the "best and brightest" any day. 

[dracisk]

22 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

you chose to focus on filing the return

Exactly, because the only point I was trying to make with regard to taxes was that many people in the country illegally file tax returns. I'm starting to sound like a broken record!

22 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

So the only reason to file is to get a refund.

Nope, as I explained earlier, if people here illegally hope to legalize their immigration status through amnesty or some other means in the future they file tax returns because it helps them demonstrate "good moral character."

If people are working illegally and having income tax withheld from their paycheck with a fake SSN I sincerely doubt they're getting a refund when they file their tax return using an ITIN. As far as the IRS is concerned, no income tax was withheld from their pay. And filing a tax return using a fake SSN would defeat the purpose of filing the return to demonstrate good moral character.

22 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

why shouldn't our immigration laws be enforced?

I think they should be enforced, and I haven't seen anyone here argue otherwise.

And with that I'm going to try really hard to disengage now as well.

[Ericandblueboy]

"IRS Workers Okay 'Phony' Documents from Illegal Immigrants" by Bob Segall on wthr.com

Some of the best and brightest at work, defrauding the U.S.

[DonRocks]

[As administrator/moderator I have a question: what are people arguing about here? I'm having trouble understanding. Would someone please summarize the discussion? I'm not sure it belongs here - or does it? Do you all think it's on-topic, or should it be in a new thread? I honestly don't know because I've been very busy, and haven't paid that much attention to two threads in particular which have become somewhat argumentative. I'm not trying to be a slacker; I just care *so little* about these types of discussions that I find it very difficult to understand, much less moderate, the back-and-forth. What do you all think? (Please feel free to PM me.)]

[NolaCaine]

Don: They are not discussing Trump being sued by Andres, that's for sure.

Shall we discuss Ballston Applebees? If yes, where would that go exactly?  I'm livin la vida loca in Ballston after all.

(with regard to the off-topic conversation; many,many,many of my people have a GED or less and yet the are as smart as I am and I have a doctorate; furthermore the start and maintain tiny businesses that are the foundation of our country. Finally, when the citizens of New Orleans left because it was a mold covered mess; many rebuilt it even though they were here illegally, living in tent cities, being paid very little cash.)

 

[DonRocks]

1 hour ago, NolaCaine said:

Don: They are not discussing Trump being sued by Andres, that's for sure.

Shall we discuss Ballston Applebees? If yes, where would that go exactly?  I'm livin la vida loca in Ballston after all.

(with regard to the off-topic conversation; many,many,many of my people have a GED or less and yet the are as smart as I am and I have a doctorate; furthermore the start and maintain tiny businesses that are the foundation of our country. Finally, when the citizens of New Orleans left because it was a mold covered mess; many rebuilt it even though they were here illegally, living in tent cities, being paid very little cash.)

Thank you very much, NolaCaine - you've jolted some moderatorial (is that a word?) sense into me.

[Please keep this discussion limited to the specific situation: Donald Trump vs. José Andrés. This had gotten so off-topic, that I could no longer even tell what people were talking about. In this post, I said that without moderation, this community would go to hell in less than one month, and I know I'm right - that's why we aren't a pure democracy; we're a benevolent dictatorship, and the only reason it works is because your dick, Tater, genuinely cares about the members here, and the well-being of people in general.]

Cheers,
Tater.

[Simul Parikh]

Wow. Went on vacation for a bit and missed this! 

"Lets make donrockwell.com great again!" by focusing on food and restuarants!!

-S

[NolaCaine]

17 minutes ago, Simul Parikh said:

Wow. Went on vacation for a bit and missed this! 

"Lets make donrockwell.com great again!" by focusing on food and restuarants!!

-S

That's just plain well done.

[DaveO]

I recently spoke with a friend of mine who has been a real estate attorney for roughly the same period of time as Trump has been out on his own separate from his father's company.  My old friend specializes in corporate and commercial real estate.  Yes  my friend has had clients who were involved in some of the over 3500 lawsuits Trump has been involved in the 30 year period since he has been separated from his father's company 

That article and research came out subsequent to when the incident with Jose Andres occurred last year.  3500+ law suits/30 years.  That is over 2/week.  Trump is in the real estate business, the celebrity TV business, the licensing business, and if there is such a thing the lawsuit business.  A series of paragraphs in the article gave a feel for the scope of the number of lawsuits: 

Quote

Alan Garten, general counsel for the Trump Organization, said in an interview that the number and tenor of the court cases is the “cost of doing business” and on par with other companies of a similar size. "I think we have far less litigation of companies of our size," he said.

However, even by those measures, the number of cases in which Trump is involved is extraordinary. For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.

To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined.

At one point Zell headed the company with the most commercial office space of any owner in the country.    All of Trumps projects together were paltry relative to the size of Zell's "empire". 

When the incident with Jose Andres occurred, I was stunned that a landlord would take an action that could harm a tenant...and then double down on the comments.  Strip away the complexities in the  50 -150 pages that might be in the lease between Trump and Andres and the basic deal is the landlord leases the space to the tenant who pays the landlord...and they are both working together to make the space work so the tenant can pay the landlord. 

I still go back to what I originally thought.  Trump was acting completely irresponsibly with regard to that lease and that tenant.  Then he doubled down on it. 

But 3500+ law suits in 30 years.  Over 2/week.   I believe we need an additional set of laws.  They would be based on common sense and some equity.  At some point a business or business person hits his/her threshold of law suits.  After that for any subsequent law suit the Trumpian king of lawsuits simply gets hit with double or triple penalties on top of damages. 

That would stop folks such as Trump from trying to screw contractors and gyp people and businesses out of money.  It would eliminate the time and money that Andres needs to invest in this case. 

Just think.  More diners would end up getting better meals.

 

[Tweaked]

Washingtonian with an article on the Trump/Andres/Zakarian fall out and the hunt for new tenants.  Information is based on depositions Washingtonian obtain.  

[DaveO]

2 hours ago, Tweaked said:

Washingtonian with an article on the Trump/Andres/Zakarian fall out and the hunt for new tenants.  Information is based on depositions Washingtonian obtain.  

Earlier the Washingtonian published an article which cited Trumps deposition on the Zakrarian situation.

When this situation first arose my instinct was that Trump's comments and then doubling down on his comments and particularly choosing to sue both Andres/Zakarian devalued the space.  The deposition from the group that represented the space spoke to that, the comments from the third party broker that broke off negotiations spoke to that, the fact that Trump couldn't make a lease but arranged a management agreement spoke to that.  I found his actions and words and continued emphasis on the comments that caused this situation unprecedented.  I'm unaware of a landlord ever doing anything of this nature.

I hope both Andres and Zakarian win big on the lawsuits. 

 

 

[Pat]

5 hours ago, Tweaked said:

Washingtonian with an article on the Trump/Andres/Zakarian fall out and the hunt for new tenants.  Information is based on depositions Washingtonian obtain.  

Re: the patio on the Northwest corner, outside the space where the Zakarian restaurant will not be happening and where there will be a conference room instead:

Quote

Asked about potential food, Ivanka says the intention is for it to be a bar, not a restaurant.
“So I would imagine nuts and crackers.”

 

 

 

[Tweaked]

More from the Washingtonian:  The Trumps and Geoffrey Zakarian

[DaveO]

4 hours ago, Tweaked said:

More from the Washingtonian:  The Trumps and Geoffrey Zakarian

I've been eating this "stuff" up.  I know way back in time while doing deals I had heard 2nd hand that Trump was not a good person with whom to deals.  He cheated people.  From my perspective it was rumor, but not something I forgot.  I heard it more than once.--that is going back decades.  More recently I checked with a friend/corporate attorney--Yeah, his firm in NJ/PA/NY defended clients who were stiffed by Trump in the years he was more actively developing properties. 

All the recent deposition interviews are both interesting and they reek of gossipyness.  (FUN reading)

So when the Trump kids referenced they had heard that Zakarian had partner problems....that is usually strong signal to terminate a deal.  But they didn't.  Possibly they had no other deals...and they needed this one.  Somewhat telling.

I can't recall where, but I've heard or read that the Trump kids (young adults)  have a bit of a tough time in their jobs.  Their dad is a loose cannon and they try and keep things running smoothly.  Definitely the case with this project in DC. 

 

[dcs]

Trump’s new Washington monument is a luxury hotel his blue-collar supporters can't afford, by Jonathan O'Connell and Drew Harwell, September 12 at 9:00 AM on washingtonpost.com.  This story says the bar in the atrium will serve wine by the spoon.  If this is true it is among the more preposterous ideas I have ever heard.

[DaveO]

3 hours ago, dcs said:

Trump’s new Washington monument is a luxury hotel his blue-collar supporters can't afford, by Jonathan O'Connell and Drew Harwell, September 12 at 9:00 AM on washingtonpost.com.  This story says the bar in the atrium will serve wine by the spoon.  If this is true it is among the more preposterous ideas I have ever heard.

This was referenced in the article above, and has surfaced in different media--The Trump Campaign is hurting business at Trump Hotels

Well, just more fuel for the lawsuits for the two restaurateurs.  Trump's mouth sabotaged their business plans.  "A lotta people have been saying he owes them a lotta money"  I've been hearing it from a lotta people.