Can somebody please explain to me the differences between a corporation and a LLC along with the advantages and...

>single-owner LLC's that are taxed as sole proprietorships are usually not treated as legal LLC's in court
This is false. Recognition of the corporate separateness depends on many factors, but tax treatment isn't one of them. Same for S Corps and Professional Corporations.

>Recognition of the corporate separateness depends on many factors, but tax treatment isn't one of them.
recognition requires the LLC to be set up for some reason other than JUST liability avoidance.

the easiest reason to prove is tax benefits. So if you're not doing it for the tax benefits, why are you doing it? This is why the veil is usually pierced in these cases. You need to show a compelling reason for the legal structure aside from JUST liability.

LLC = you own a company that cannot be bought or sold easily

s-corp - you own a company that can sell shares to citizen persons.

c-corp - you own a company that can sell shares to persons and corps

They all just shield you from liability.

If you don't think you're going to expand at exponential rates to the point of having to sell shares to obtain capital, you should probs go with an LLC.
Unless you have a partner you do not trust.
Then you want a corp because the money HAS to go through the corps bank accounts and cannot go through a personal

"JUST" in caps because avoiding liability isn't a disqualifying reason for a single person having an LLC, but it can't be the ONLY reason.

>recognition requires the LLC to be set up for some reason other than JUST liability avoidance
Again, not true. You can't pierce the veil just because someone sought to take advantage of the existing laws. Limited liability is a function of corporate separateness, and the intent of the founder(s) is irrelevant.

>This is why the veil is usually pierced in these cases
Again, wrong. (Are you reading from a law text book or something, because your real world knowledge is pretty poor.) Veil piercing and alter ego determinations happen when the founders/officers fail to maintain requisite corporate separateness. The reason why it happens somewhat frequently in single-member LLCs is because its expensive to maintain the corporate trappings: separate office, separate phone numbers, separate accounts, etc. People run their LLCs like sole proprietorships, and then they lose the limited liability.

Also, you're going to have problems if someone can prove actual intent to defraud or to shield assets after a liability has attached to the assets. But those are unusual cases.

But simply have the intent to get the benefits of limited liability is NOT grounds to break corporate separateness. You've said this incorrectly three time in this thread. Please stop.

Corporation [C not S]
- Can issue preferred and common stock
- Limited liability
- Foreign investors permitted
- Double taxation [not S]
S type doesn't allow preferred stock or foreign investors
LLC
- Can't issue stock
- Foreign investors not permitted

>recognition requires the LLC to be set up for some reason other than JUST liability avoidance

And just so you know that I'm right:

"It is not improper to form a corporation for the purpose of limiting the shareholder’s liability, for that is the traditional reason for the corporate entity in the first instance." Zubik v. Zubik, 384 F.2d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 988 (1968).

Oh, and you can't have more than 100 investors in S type corp.

First 4 posts:
> lol OP you faggot, can't read, don't understand, not gonna tell you, why do you care, you'll never have either
rest of the thread:
>no one on Veeky Forums knowing either/giving incorrect information

Never ask anything real on this board. If it's anything close to a real business, Veeky Forums will shun it because it's actual work. Just talk about meme stocks, shit coins, and how to ebay, and you'll make it here.

>But simply have the intent to get the benefits of limited liability is NOT grounds to break corporate separateness.
I never said it was.
I said if it's the ONLY reason the entity exists it won't work.

and we're discussing LLC's, not corporations.

again, an LLC is not a corporation.

you may indeed be right about corporations. I don't know. I've only ever read case law regarding LLC's.

Jesus kid, stop being a faggot. If you had gone to law school, you'd know that the legal precedent applies unless you can show grounds to distinguish it. And since there are no grounds to distinguish LLCs and corporations in terms of their entitlement to limited liability, the case law controls.

Now you have three choices: (1) apologize for being a piss-poor amateur internet lawyer, (2) disappear in shame, or (3) provide citations to all this "case law" you claim to know. I'll be waiting.

>doesn't know an LLC isn't a corp
>gets really angry when someone tells him
ok, thanks for the laugh

I never said a LLC was a corporation, child. What I said is that the laws of corporations apply to LLCs in the context of limited liability.

Fuck, you're literally retarded.

>the laws of corporations apply to LLCs in the context of limited liability.
agreed, except in cases where a sole-owner forms an LLC specifically to avoid liability, in which case I think we both know judges don't usually allow it. Or if we don't you need to read more.

>except in cases where a sole-owner forms an LLC specifically to avoid liability
Point me to a single case or a single journal article that states this, fuckwit.

I don't need to, your lawyer can inform you.

Furthermore we can agree that liability protections of the corporate veil don't protect you from most liability you personally incur on behalf of the corporation. Particularly if that liability involves a crime or negligence as most liability does. There are literally thousands of cases where corporate officers have gone to prison or lost assets because of their actions on behalf of their businesses.

Likewise the reverse is true- you don't need a corporation to avoid liability for the actions of your partners or employees. I can't personally be sued for the negligence of my employees or partners in a company I don't personally run, EVEN WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF A CORPORATION. This is the law, and you don't need a corporation to apply it to yourself.

If you run a corporation you own, are very probably liable for any damage it does. If you don't run a sole-proprietorship you are very likely not responsible for any of it's liability.

Personal liability rests on those that run the business, corporation or not.

>I don't need to
Rest of blog spam post disregarded unread. You're a massive faggot, and you should never post on this board again.

Sorry but he is right. If the individual runs the corporation or LLC while observing the proper formalities he is not liable. You are talking about people who comingle funds or do other things to breach the corporate veil
[hence "limited liability" company or LLC]

>Rest of blog spam post disregarded unread.
I can't force you to learn.
screaming that I'm wrong or demanding citations doesn't make me wrong.

in reality the law varies by state and only your lawyer can tell you how it really works. But you're grossly mistaken if you think an LLC you run protects you from your own liability. That isn't the purpose of an LLC or a corporation. They exist to protect you from the liability of others, not yourself.

As any lawyer can tell you.

>If the individual runs the corporation or LLC while observing the proper formalities he is not liable.
I never disagreed with this.

I am merely pointing out that it's much less likely that a sole-owner is following those forms.

an LLC that acts like a sole proprietorship will be treated like one.

having a separate office and bank account means nothing, most sole proprietors have this.

Again, I'm not reading your blog kid.

The law is what the statutes say and what the courts rule ... not what you feel in your heart the outcome should be. At least two people in this thread who actually know the law have told you that you're wrong. It's time for you to go.

>The law is what the statutes say and what the courts rule ... not what you feel in your heart the outcome should be
on that we can agree.

ask a fucking lawyer.

>It's time for you to go.
if people were banned for being wrong you'd be long gone.

>I am merely pointing out that it's much less likely that a sole-owner is following those forms
Move the goalposts much, kid? Earlier in the thread you argued that LLC can't get limited liability if that the sole purpose for their creation. When proven wrong, you've suddenly changed your argument. Kek.

>having a separate office and bank account means nothing
Actually it means a lot, according to the judges that have actually considered the issue. Separate offices put the public on notice that they're dealing with the corporation not the entity, and separate bank accounts segregates the corporate assets from personal accounts.

Every post you make you say more dumb things. This is actually getting entertaining.

>ask a fucking lawyer
>implying I'm not one

>Separate offices put the public on notice that they're dealing with the corporation not the entity, and separate bank accounts segregates the corporate assets from personal accounts.
then every solely owned DBA has the same protections as an LLC without the filing fee.

>Earlier in the thread you argued that LLC can't get limited liability if that the sole purpose for their creation.
this is fact. A decent lawyer WILL argue that the LLC is a pseudonym for a sole proprietorship and they have usually won.

>then every solely owned DBA has the same protections as an LLC without the filing fee.
or to put it another way-

you don't need to file an LLC, you just need separate bank accounts and offices, which most sole-proprietors already have.

The way I understand it both the separate bank account and office as well as the filing are necessary

But it is true that reckless behavior can leave officers personally liable

>then every solely owned DBA has the same protections as an LLC without the filing fee
Do you understand how logic and reasoning work? Because you just made the most illogical and stupid extension of my point possible. You must be a great disappointment to your parents.

Anyway ... DBAs aren't required to have separate bank accounts, or separate offices, or follow any of the corporate niceties because they don't get limited liability. Period.

>this is fact. A decent lawyer WILL argue that the LLC is a pseudonym for a sole proprietorship and they have usually won
Again, point to a single case, or a single journal, that supports this argument. Because I've already cited to a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (a decision tacitly upheld by the Supreme Court) that says THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE. So the unless you happen to be Justice Thomas and are giving us insight into an unreleased opinion of the high court reversing 50 years of legal precedent, YOU ARE WRONG.

>you don't need to file an LLC
Yes you do, you fucking mongoloid.

Jesus, make an effort.

>you just made the most illogical and stupid extension of my point possible.
this is called an reductio ad absurdum.

here's how it works:
>you make claim
>I extend claim to its absurd conclusion
>reader can extrapolate based on absurdity that your initial claim is false

you pretend to be a lawyer but aren't familiar with the form?

>you argue that the LLC is protected by its legal separation
>I point out that DBA's are equally separated
>we both know they're not equally liable
>the reader may assume that your reasons for exclusion are false

>they don't get limited liability. Period.
exactly my point. So separate bank accounts and offices don't affect the exclusion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The limited liability is only extended in so far as the LLC exists separate from the individual who founds / runs the LLC. The separate bank accounts and offices are necessary but not sufficient for limited liability

>I'll be waiting.
Not that guy, but fuck man you might as well just say "If you reply back you're just proving my point!" and other tumblr-tier shit arguments.

>The separate bank accounts and offices are necessary but not sufficient for limited liability
bingo!

Look kid, I asked him to provide a legal citation for his argument, just as I did. Asking for proof in an argument isn't "tumbler-tier."

Getting triggered and making posts like your is tumbler-tier.

This is what happens when internet kiddies try to argue law with a real lawyer.

Keep on moving the goalposts, changing your arguments, and citing Wikipedia, kid. Tell me more about how your feelings matter more than case law. It's not often that things on Veeky Forums make me laugh, so you're a welcome reprieve.

>a real lawyer.
>doesn't recognize the reductio
I doubt you've done one year in college.\

either way, dear reader, seek the advice of a real lawyer.
pay the fee, it's 100% deductible.

>kid
See that kind of condescending attitude gets you nowhere.

>See that kind of condescending attitude gets you nowhere.
It got you to respond, proving that you were indeed triggered like a bitch.

Look kid, this thread stopped being serious as soon as the other fuckwit started shitposting with his made-up legal theories. Every time there's a halfway serious thread on biz, some retard like him (or you) comes in to shit the bed. Stop taking everything so seriously, Sally.

n o t h i n g
p e r s o n e l l

>The corporate veil is usually pierced if the creditor can show that the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to provide liability protection for its owners or the company was practically inseparable from or an alter ego of its owners.

>nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personally-liable-llc-corporate-debt-bankruptcy.html

>triggered like a bitch
>some retard like him (or you)
>Stop taking everything so seriously, Sally.
You sure it's me who's taking things way too seriously?
IT WAS AN ILLUSION

lol'd out loud

pasta or did you just type that up?

/rekt

>You sure it's me who's taking things way too seriously?
I dunno. You jumped into a Veeky Forums thread for the sole purpose of complaining about my "tone." On Veeky Forums. My "tone." On Veeky Forums.

Let that sink in, Nancy.

Not a case, and not a journal. Therefore, not governing law.

Also
>the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to
>LLC was a shell
>shell
>shell
>shell

Words matter. Shell corporations (or LLCs) aren't legitimate by definition, regardless of the intent of the founder.

[ ] #rekt
[X] #not rekt

>Shell corporations (or LLCs) aren't legitimate by definition, regardless of the intent of the founder.
yes, you got it!

if user registers an LLC for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from the liability incurred by their own actions-

THAT is a shell corporation. it isn't legitimate.

corporations don't exist to skirt criminal law or consumer and employee protections.

if you do bad things you'll get sued, no matter what type of legal entity you own.

OP here, best post after reading the thread.
>Just talk about meme stocks, shit coins, and how to ebay, and you'll make it here.
You should write a book, and host seminars on how to make it big in Veeky Forums.

>THAT is a shell corporation
Sigh. No its not. A shell corporation is one that's insufficiently capitalized for its chartered purposes. Intent is irrelevant.

Keep trying kid.

>Intent is irrelevant.
>if the creditor can show that the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to provide liability protection for its owners
>intent

intent is difficult to prove but easy to disprove
that's my only point.

if you want protection have an obvious and easy to prove intent.

tax benefit is the easiest one for the single owner.

The key word is "shell." Intent is irrelevant. I explained this already. Please keep up. I know you're slow, but I shouldn't have to repeat myself just for your benefit.

>intent is difficult to prove but easy to disprove
Not really. There are entire fields of law dedicated to proving and disproving intent.

I know it seems very confusing to someone like you. That's ok, really. That's why you pay people like me. If it was easy, people like you could do it.

>I explained this already
you stated that a shell corporation is insufficiently funded

this isn't true.
>There are entire fields of law dedicated to proving and disproving intent.
yes, and if you have no alternative to criminal intent you're going to suffer by those fields.

Wrong, again.

"A shell corporation is a company which serves as a vehicle for business transactions without having any significant assets or operations."

definitions.uslegal.com/s/shell-corporation/

See anything in there about intent? Nope.

>criminal intent
Um, retard, we're discussing civil matters, not criminal.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

>they are sometimes used illegitimately, such as to disguise business ownership from law enforcement or the public.

you're fun to argue with but we both know you're not a lawyer.

and that's the ultimate answer:
ask your lawyer.

>they are sometimes used illegitimately, such as to disguise business ownership from law enforcement or the public.
So are legitimate non-shell corporations. What's you're point?

Just kidding, we both know you don't have a point. You're just a 14-year old shitposting. That's ok, I'm having fun mocking you, and businesses are going to be closed tomorrow where I live, so I can mock you all night.

>What's you're point?
that the difference between legal and illegal shell corporations is intent.

so ask your lawyer.

>where I live
holy shit, I've been arguing US law with a foreigner. lol

>that the difference between legal and illegal shell corporations is intent.
No its not. Bad intent is not a crime nor a tort.

>I've been arguing US law with a foreigner
Wow, you really are a child! Go read the news kid.

>Bad intent is not a crime nor a tort
>In criminal law, intent is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional, as opposed to strict liability, crime.
have a good evening, 'lawyer.'

An element of a crime is not a crime. In America, we don't punish people for their intent without an actual action. Thought-crime may exist in Orwellian novels, but not in the United States (yet).

Honest question: are you older or younger than 16?

>In America, we don't punish people for their intent without an actual action.
indeed.

but intent is necessary to prove most crime.

>are you older or younger than 16?
I'm 45 years old. I own a business that has made more than you'll make in your life. I employ lawyers on permanent retainer. I know you're not one. I know I'm not one either.

>but intent is necessary to prove most crime.
True, with exceptions, Too bad we're discussing civil matters, though. Also, too bad you don't know the difference.

>I'm 45 years old.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA,
> I own a business that has made more than you'll make in your life.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
>I employ lawyers on permanent retainer.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Shit man, stop, you're killing me with the role playing. Whoo, lad! Good stuff...

>Too bad we're discussing civil matters, though
then admit that no corporation will protect you from your own liability for criminal matters,

and most personal liability results from your own crime via either intent or negligence,

so an LLC or corporation doesn't protect you from most of your own liability,

and we'll be done here.

>then admit that no corporation will protect you from your own liability for criminal matters,
What the literal fuck are you talking about now? You didn't just move the goalposts now .. you fucking teleported them to another world! I guess when you know you're outclassed in an argument , move, move, move those goalposts!

>and most personal liability results from your own crime
Um, liability is a word used in civil cases not criminal. In criminal cases you are culpable, not liable. Go ask all those lawyers you have on retainer. Kek.
>so an LLC or corporation doesn't protect you from most of your own liability
I never said it did, and neither did anyone in this entire thread. LOL.

I'm literally choking on my beer I'm laughing so hard. Do some more roleplaying, please. Tell me more about your "business" or how much "money" you make.

>I never said it did, and neither did anyone in this entire thread. LOL.
then we're good.

as long as we understand that neither an LLC nor a corporation protects you from most of your own liability for acts you commit in the name of your business we're in agreement.

>as long as we understand that neither an LLC nor a corporation protects you from most of your own liability for acts you commit in the name of your business
This is patently false. LOL.
>we're in agreement
You and I will never be in agreement about anything, ever. You're literally incapable of understanding this stuff even when it get spoonfed to you. You must drive your teachers crazy.

Ok, we've established that you're full of shit on all topics involving law. Let's talk more about this businessman (or woman ... I don't judge) persona of yours.

>This is patently false.
you yourself agreed to it.

we both know managers can go to prison and lose everything they own for criminal acts done for a business.

we both know most liability arises from criminal negligence or intent.

so perhaps you may learn that a manager doesn't cease to be a manager just because they're also an owner.

hiding behind a corporation doesn't relieve you of your liability as a manager.

>you yourself agreed to it.
No I didn't. Lawyers don't make legal statements with terms like "most of your own liability". It's too imprecise and not an accurate statement of the law. It's a bullshit statement, and clients (real clients ... not roleplaying clients) are too smart to play for bullshit advice.

>we both know managers can go to prison and lose everything they own for criminal acts done for a business.
We both know the sky is blue. Got any other non sequiturs?

>we both know most liability arises from criminal negligence or intent.
Actually, "we" know that ZERO liability arises from criminal negligence because liability is a civil term, not a criminal term. Also "we" know that zero liability or culpability comes from intent because intent is not punishable at law. LOL.

>hiding behind a corporation doesn't relieve you of your liability as a manager.
Managers don't have liability. Corporations have liability, in certain cases. And individuals have liability, in certain cases. Sometimes both.

Again, words matter.

Now please stop with the legal stuff. It's boring to correct you all the time. Tell us more about this amazing bizness you run and all the lawyers you have on speed dial....

>Lawyers don't make legal statements with terms like "most of your own liability"
true, but lawyers in the US can't legally say they're lawyers online without establishing a client/attorney relationship.

so we both know you're not a lawyer.

>Managers don't have liability.
look into mining law where numerous managers and owners have gone to prison for negligence. OSHA has similar precedents.
>Corporations have liability, in certain cases.
the law varies. it really depends where you live and what you did.

again, the reader is advised to seek actual legal counsel.

>lawyers in the US can't legally say they're lawyers online without establishing a client/attorney relationship
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Did you read that on reddit or something? Ooops, I guess I'm your lawyer now. AHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Oh god, seriously, I'm laughing so much the laptop is bouncing around! Thanks, honestly. This is better than improve!

Now, please, please, please, continue the roleplaying schtick. That's bound to be equally hilarious!

if you were a lawyer you'd notice I only respond to your arguments of substance.

counter the legal points or pass. so far you're just passing.

americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/solo_lawyer_ethics_attorney_client_relationship.html

this legal advice has no pertinence to the thread

because nobody here actually believes you're a lawyer.

>if you were a lawyer you'd notice I only respond to your arguments of substance.
No you haven't. You've been shitposting for the last hour. Either that, or you're honestly retarded. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is a comedy routine.

HAHAHAHHA. I can cite a thousand articles that discuss the potential dangers of online communications for lawyers. You do know we receive mandatory ethics training, right?

But if you think I'm you're lawyer because of this "conversation" that's cool. I'll be your lawyer. Seriously, you can retain me. Just post your name, address, and email in the thread and I'll get you a retainer letter ASAP. No? You won't do it? Awwww..... I was gonna get rich from such a successful bizznessman like you!

>You've been shitposting for the last hour
No response to the precedent of mining managers and corporate owners going to prison for the negligence of their corporations.

as expected.

if you were a lawyer I wouldn't have to teach you this stuff. I'm no lawyer and this is basic knowledge taught to business owners in OSHA/MSHA classes.

Sorry, but now that we've established a magical attorney-client relationship, I can't discuss your legal matters in public. Someone with so much experience with attorneys would know the rules of the attorney-client privilege.

By the way, I haven't received your retainer check yet. Please pay immediately, or I will avail myself of all available remedies.

we both know you're not a lawyer.

do you want to discuss the law or do you concede defeat?

jk, I don't see this as anything either of us can win. The law doesn't change based on what you or I think of it.

bottom line: only a fool trusts an LLC to protect them from their own foolishness.

I'm happy to discuss the law. That's what you hired me for.

>I don't see this as anything either of us can win
>he doesn't realize he lost 2 hours ago
AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I made you feel like an idiot and for that I apologize.

you made yourself look like an idiot and you'll have to square that with yourself eventually.

>gets mocked for hours
>gets told he's wrong by multiple people
>every argument refuted with citations
>thinks he won anything
KEK. You're a prize, kid. Seriously. If this is a routine, it's fucking hilarious.

Oh, and I almost forgot your roleplaying attempt. "I'm a rich, rich businessman with many lawyers and so much wealth."

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

fisherphillips.com/Workplace-Safety-and-Health-Law-Blog/Is-OSHA-Going-to-Put-You-in-Jail
safetynewsalert.com/new-efforts-to-send-managers-to-jail-for-workplace-fatalities-osha-violations/
blog.mtssafety.com/index.php/2015/08/14/jail-time-for-owners-managers/
>and thousands of other results.

don't trust your LLC to protect you from yourself. That's not what it's there for.

YAY!! RANDOM LINKS TO THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAD! OSHA REGULATIONS! ADMINISTRATIVE LAW! YAY!!

C'mon kid, do the roleplaying stuff more. Please.

>OSHA REGULATIONS! ADMINISTRATIVE LAW!
>no liability to see here, folks

you're cute but you're finished.

You seem to have strayed REALLY far from your argument that you can't get limited liability from a LLC if that was your intent in forming the LLC. If you want to discuss that topic, I'll discuss that topic. Period.

Either that or do more roleplay.

Those are the choices, sparky. Pick one.

>You seem to have strayed REALLY far from your argument that you can't get limited liability from a LLC if that was your intent in forming the LLC.
>The corporate veil is usually pierced if the creditor can show that the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to provide liability protection for its owners

I've moved past that.
you were wrong, I don't need to gloat.

>I've moved past that.
Why? Because I posted a court citation that proved you were 100% wrong? Don't let that stop you. Logic and reason are clearly not your strengths, so keep going kid.

Or the roleplay.

>I hope its the roleplay.

>a court citation
lawyers call it a "precedent"
just trying to help you with your LARP. If you're going to pretend you have to get the language right.

HAHAHHAHAHA. Actually lawyers call it a citation because I posted a citation, i.e., the formal reference to the case that allows anyone to find the decision.

Precedent refers to all case decisions that are relevant to the topic.

You were only 50% wrong here. Congrats!

>Precedent refers to all case decisions that are relevant to the topic.
lol
would you say the last relevant decision regarding LLC's was made in 1968?

32 YEARS BEFORE LLC'S EXISTED?

you're a moron.

>would you say the last relevant decision regarding LLC's was made in 1968
I never said it was the last decision. I cited it because its the most important decision on the topic on intent in forming a corporate entity, is still valid precedent, and was easy to cut-and-paste from one of my client memos.

See, you keep trying to make up facts and I keep knocking you down. Every time.

I'm actually impressed at your fortitude. A normal person who got mocked as much as you have would start to feel self-conscious or embarrassed. But you're just so clueless, you don't care how stupid you sound. It's amazing, really.

Maybe it's that huge fortune of yours that gives you the confidence to be a buffoon?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>normal person who got mocked as much as you have would start to feel self-conscious or embarrassed
I'm not mocking you.
anyone that reads through your bullshit should know by now you're useless.

and really that's my only goal. to protect anyone that cares to read. The feelings of your anonymous, insecure, 13 year old self don't matter.

HAHAHHAHAHA. I see what you did there, kid. You took what I wrote and then pretended you wrote it! So clever!

Tell me more about your "business" and your "fortune."