"Citibank moved to dismiss that claim, arguing that the loan was an "educational benefit"
"educational benefit" in the fact that the eligibility for the bar loan was dependent on the plaintiff being a law student'
I wonder if the bailout they got in 2008 and 2009 was a "educational benefit" , like to not do this again, right, because they are at it again.....................because at one point in there storied life, there bond rating was worthless, but when the public had there credit rating charges go up from 5%, to in some cases up to 27%, this firm along with the other criminal band went to the fed, our fed to bail them out , and then they with outright audacity and asked to get money from the fed window at .01% and turn around and charge the public 3% to 15 % for home mortgage loans and credit cards were 9% to 25%, while at the same time there little band and others was / were foreclosing on homeowners, and going after those that lost there jobs and forcing the bankruptcy laws to be change, was that a "educational benefit"
So in there corporate reasoning that she took the money out and they gave it to her being dependent that she became a "law student", so its a form of blackmail, like they used in 2008 and 2009, they blackmailed the public to pay them and bail them out, nice scam, no accountability.
Why don't we apply this same logic on this firm, that they be dependent to not use funds in derivatives for example and be a bank and not all of the above in the ponzi scheme they operate under like on Wall Street
Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read