« | Home | Categories | »

Nunberg’s Attorney Claimed Trump May be Running ‘Secret Shadow Operation’

Posted on March 6th, 2018 at 23:54 by John Sinteur in category: News


The issue came to light when Nunberg, who worked as a consultant to Trump in 2015, realized he had signed a confidentiality agreement with an entity called Trump 2012 PCA. 

Upon further investigation, Nunberg’s attorneys realized Trump 2012 PCA didn’t appear to be registered in New York.  In fact, attorneys for Nunberg told Law&Crime they couldn’t find it existing anywhere. In addition, Nunberg’s mother, Rebecca Nunberg, a corporate attorney, told us that her son received at least two paychecks from Trump 2016 PCA, which also doesn’t appear to be registered with the New York Secretary of State’s Office. Before the 2016 election, she said that Nunberg never received any IRS 1099 forms, which are usually issued by companies who hire contract workers like Nunberg. It’s not clear if those forms were ever sent out because neither Nunberg, his attorneys or Trump’s attorneys have responded to an inquiry following up on this story.

Law&Crime was also unable to find the company registered in New York, Delaware or with the FEC.

“If you are an independent contractor and you are paid more than $600 you are required by the IRS, if you pay someone, that entity is obligated to issue a 1099 to the person they are paying,” Rebecca Nunberg told Law & Crime during an interview in July 2016. Nunberg is a high profile corporate attorney herself.

Here is a copy of the confidentiality agreement. It is labeled exhibit “A.” The agreement is signed by Donald Trump on behalf of Trump 2012 PCA. Oddly enough, the contract is dated January 1, 2015. Trump 2012 PCA was reportedly  set up when Trump was flirting with running for President in 2012. It is not clear why he was still signing business contracts under that name during the 2016 election.

Write a comment


  1. Ah, the out of court settlement. Good for crazy nunberg.

Facebook regrets asking whether it’s OK to let adult men ask underage girls for smut pix

Posted on March 6th, 2018 at 23:43 by John Sinteur in category: News


The survey, which went out to an undisclosed number of users of the social network over the weekend, posed this question:

In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook’s policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14 year old girl for sexual pictures.

  • This content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it.
  • This content should be allowed on Facebook, but I don’t want to see it.
  • This content should not be allowed on Facebook, and no one should be able to see it.
  • I have no preference on this topic.

Missing is any acknowledgement that soliciting sexual imagery from minors is a crime in many countries, including the US and the UK, to say nothing of facilitating the distribution of such content on your website.

The survey continued with a question about whether Facebook, external experts, or Facebook users should decide on these rules, again without mentioning that various national legal systems already spell out rules that disallow such behavior.

Perhaps they’re getting a little too obvious on how they consider themselves to be above any law…

Write a comment

If You Are Being Stalked by an Ex, an App Can’t Protect You

Posted on March 6th, 2018 at 23:22 by John Sinteur in category: News


When you learn that your privacy has been compromised, the common advice is to prevent additional access—delete your insecure account, open a new one, change your password. This advice is such standard protocol for personal security that it’s almost a no-brainer. But in abusive romantic relationships, disconnection can be extremely fraught. For one, it can put the victim at risk of physical harm: If abusers expect digital access and that access is suddenly closed off, it can lead them to become more violent or intrusive in other ways. It may seem cathartic to delete abusive material, like alarming text messages—but if you don’t preserve that kind of evidence, it can make prosecution more difficult. And closing some kinds of accounts, like social networks, to hide from a determined abuser can cut off social support that survivors desperately need. In some cases, maintaining a digital connection to the abuser may even be legally required (for instance, if the abuser and survivor share joint custody of children).

Write a comment