If You Overvalued Your Assets You Can't Be Mad When No One Will Give You Money Against Them

[biomed1]

Of the Following . . .

The following is not permitted on the site:

Insulting Others
Targeting other members for attacks
Harassing other members, groups of members, class of members, etc
Disrespecting other members on the site
General rudeness toward other members on the site

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Folks on the right are slower than turtles and sloths

Hardly, more like patient. As in patiently waiting for the AG to arrest Jon Stewart for over valuing his Manhattan property by about 829%.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Tiny I’ve got to push back a little on your language here.

First of all the use of the word “bogus”. You can call it egregious or unwarranted but it’s not bogus. Bogus means fake, the judgement against Trump for fraud is not fake. This is the third time that Trump or one of his companies has been convicted under NY Executive law 63(12).

Secondly, It may look like Democrats are trying to deprive Trump of campaign funds but the reality is the reverse. Trump is depriving his campaign of funds. Trump has the money to pay his own bills but he instead is spending large and small donor contributions to pay his freight. The question to ask is would the civil lawsuit have proceeded whether or not he was campaigning for president. I think the answer is yes.

As far as Dunn and the FTC goes I know very little about it so i’ll not comment. But implying that the two issues are connected by intent is to imply that a criminal conspiracy is afoot between different branches of the executive, the New York AG’s office and the democratic party. That’s venturing into conspiracy theory territory.

Txdot, I certainly don't believe there's a conspiracy afoot. The New York AG is not speaking with the DNC about depriving Trump of funds. That's just the way it's working out. What I'm referring to is highlighted in a link TechPapi posted,

Former President Donald Trump is facing mounting financial difficulties in his campaign — to the point where he is reportedly being forced to triage which states he can afford to hold rallies in....It comes at a moment when the former president has faced intense personal financial struggles, including a pair of legal judgments for $83.3 million and $464 million, respectively — the latter of which he is struggling to raise bond for and could lead to Trump Organization assets and properties being seized by the state of New York.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-rally-cost/

One of the requirements of fraud is that a party was injured or damaged. See https://www.unpredictableblog.com/blog/fraud

According to the highest court in New York, the elements of a common law fraud claim are: 1) a false statement of 2) a material fact 3) that the defendant made while knowing it to be false, 4) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely on it and 5) injury.


That didn't happen IMO with respect to the claims in Letitia James' case that resulted in the imposition of fines.

Executive Law 63(12), on which James' prosecution was based, has an unconventional definition of fraud though,

The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

By that definition, the majority or most attorneys and businessmen in the USA are guilty of fraud. Which is exactly what the state of New York wanted, so it could pursue politically unpopular banks, oil companies, insurance companies and politicians.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Tiny would do well to rail against DWI and speeding laws to the extent he is complaining about Trump’s victimless whining.

Dear Departed Blackman,

Please see my reply to Txdot above. DWI and speeding are well defined laws. You're either speeding or blowing above the limit or you're not. Under New York Executive Law 63(12), fraud can be whatever you want it to be.

Furthermore, handing out a $455 million fine to Trump for falsifying statements of financial condition, when his lenders knew he falsified them and when none were injured, would be akin to fining you $100,000 for speeding or putting you in jail for 3 years for DWI, when no one was injured by your law-breaking.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

If you read the court document, the people of NY are included with James. To answer any further, I would need you to change the parameters of your question so as to address it.

You are right, doesn't make a difference what party AG is. For a law that sucks, it have been used for a few cases for the duration it has been on the books. If it was so suck ass, you'd think it would have been repealed by now.

Please see replies above to Txdot and Blackman. The banks didn't suffer injuries or damages. Thus the banks weren't defrauded.

But that's irrelevant. You said the people of New York were defrauded. I don't understand your reasoning, unless you use a ridiculous definition of fraud like what's in New York Executive Law 63(12).

Of course the law hasn't been repealed. Undoubtedly it's very popular in New York, because it enables prosecutors there to stick it to politically unpopular companies and individuals.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Dear Departed Blackman,

Please see my reply to Txdot above. DWI and speeding are well defined laws. You're either speeding or blowing above the limit or you're not. Under New York Executive Law 63(12), fraud can be whatever you want it to be.

Furthermore, handing out a $455 million fine to Trump for falsifying statements of financial condition, when his lenders knew he falsified them and when none were injured, would be akin to fining you $100,000 for speeding or putting you in jail for 3 years, when no one was injured by your law-breaking.

Please explain the highlighted for us ignoramuses. (Not sure wether it's ignoramuses or ignoramusi)

Is the law so loose there is no clear definition (or line of demarcation) of what is fraud versus legitimate speculation as to violation? (I'm in one of those states of mind, just sayin'.)

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Please explain the highlighted for us ignoramuses. (Not sure wether it's ignoramuses or ignoramusi)

Is the law so loose there is no clear definition (or line of demarcation) of what is fraud versus legitimate speculation as to violation? (I'm in one of those states of mind, just sayin'.)

Eccieuser, It's in the bold text below, from New York Executive Law, Section 63(12). In the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, you can accuse a lot of people of "deception, misrepresentation, concealment", etc.:

The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

Blackman has criticized me for defending Trump specifically on this, and he has a point. As you said, this sort of thing is a threat in Texas and other states too. Harvey Silverglate, a Harvard attorney and activist, wrote a book, "Three Felonies a Day, How the Feds Target the Innocent", based on the premise that an aggressive prosecutor can put just about anybody he wants to in jail. Prosecutors have extracted a lot of guilty pleas from innocent people (by my definition of innocent), who are behind bars and even on death row. I have much more sympathy for them than Trump.

[eccieuser9500]

Any device used to deceive is fraud. So why not his lies about the physically verifiable number of floors in his buildings, the actual value of his depleting assets?

He is fraud as defined. As trite as it might sound, his face should be in the dictionary under fraud.


He never tells the truth! Why defend him? Even when it comes to what he thinks he knows? He knows nothing about business. Nothing about tax law. Nothing about telling the truth.

Why would anyone want that piece of shit to lead our country? To save a few bucks at the expense of his supporters' lives? His supporters?

I know you like money, Chiquito. For the whores. But at the detriment of society?

I love whores too! But they don't love me back! Guess which one is Dumpster. Guess which one is you.

[Supra]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

30 different banks and insurers said Fuck off Trump, you're worthless.

Are those the exact words?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Any device used to deceive is fraud. So why not his lies about the physically verifiable number of floors in his buildings, the actual value of his depleting assets?

He is fraud as defined. As trite as it might sound, his face should be in the dictionary under fraud.


He never tells the truth! Why defend him? Even when it comes to what he thinks he knows? He knows nothing about business. Nothing about tax law. Nothing about telling the truth.

Why would anyone want that piece of shit to lead our country? To save a few bucks at the expense of his supporters' lives? His supporters?

I know you like money, Chiquito. For the whores. But at the detriment of society?

I love whores too! But they don't love me back! Guess which one is Dumpster. Guess which one is you.

Trump has cheated his suppliers and customers. He lost about $900 million of bondholders money with his Atlantic City Casinos, and over $100 million of his banks' money with his Trump International Hotel and Towers in Chicago. He used the legal system to intimidate people. In the process I'm sure he's violated laws that both of us would agree he should have been prosecuted or fined for. And in some instances he was. Trump University comes to mind.

However, none of that applies to the claims by the state of New York to the extent that they would justify $455 million in fines and interest.

We have the rule of law in the United States of America. That's one of the main reasons we live in a prosperous and a "kind of" fair country. (I'm sure innocent people in our prisons would disagree with the later though.)

You start with going after Trump for ridiculous damages and fictitious crimes in Engoron's and Merchan's (Stormy Daniels) cases and where do we go next? Maybe prosecute Hillary Clinton for Benghazi and keeping info on her server? She probably broke laws with her server. But should the Justice Department go after her for that? Make her go to prison or pay an outrageous fine? Hell no.

If I were in a position to do so, I'd never do business with Trump, and I'd never loan money to him unless I were pretty damn sure I could could collect on his collateral and guarantees in the event he stopped paying me back. Anyone who gets in bed with him either knows what he's getting into, or deserves what he gets if Trump cheats him. He's suffered a lot of reputational damage as a result of being a sociopath. That should be his punishment, not prosecution for overblown or baseless charges.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Txdot, I certainly don't believe there's a conspiracy afoot. The New York AG is not speaking with the DNC about depriving Trump of funds. That's just the way it's working out. What I'm referring to is highlighted in a link TechPapi posted,

Former President Donald Trump is facing mounting financial difficulties in his campaign — to the point where he is reportedly being forced to triage which states he can afford to hold rallies in....It comes at a moment when the former president has faced intense personal financial struggles, including a pair of legal judgments for $83.3 million and $464 million, respectively — the latter of which he is struggling to raise bond for and could lead to Trump Organization assets and properties being seized by the state of New York.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-rally-cost/

One of the requirements of fraud is that a party was injured or damaged. See https://www.unpredictableblog.com/blog/fraud

According to the highest court in New York, the elements of a common law fraud claim are: 1) a false statement of 2) a material fact 3) that the defendant made while knowing it to be false, 4) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely on it and 5) injury.


That didn't happen IMO with respect to the claims in Letitia James' case that resulted in the imposition of fines.

Executive Law 63(12), on which James' prosecution was based, has an unconventional definition of fraud though,

The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

By that definition, the majority or most attorneys and businessmen in the USA are guilty of fraud. Which is exactly what the state of New York wanted, so it could pursue politically unpopular banks, oil companies, insurance companies and politicians.

New York is the capital of the International financial system. As you stated the point of this law is to pursue unpopular banks, individuals, companies (oil or otherwise) and politicians. You may see this as an abuse of the system. I would argue that this law is nothing more than a part of the system of checks and balances that allows the financial system to operate properly. Maybe if it was used more often US taxpayers wouldn’t have to bail them out so damn often.

Like it or not by the definition of the law Trump committed fraud. You claim to have sympathy for those wrongly convicted of crimes but Trump actually committed the crime they prosecuted him for. He’s not innocent! Find me someone who was prosecuted under this law who is actually innocent and I’ll be happy to be just as outraged as you are.

[Salty Again]

... Who is the "they" who "prosecuted" Trump??

And WHERE was the trial?? ... One Judge made the "decision"
that Trump was guilty WITHOUT a trial.
Trump was NOT given due process to even defend himself.

... Which is why the Legal Experts surely expect the case
to be Overturned on Appeal.

#### Salty

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Find me someone who was prosecuted under this law who is actually innocent and I’ll be happy to be just as outraged as you are.

I trust you'll be as outraged as I am by this prosecution under the same New York Executive Law 63(12):

https://www.whiteandwilliams.com/res...ain-Unanswered

The state of New York attempted to extract money for alleged misrepresentations by Exxon Mobil to its shareholders. In other words, New York sued to take money out of the pockets of Exxon shareholders, because the company allegedly defrauded said Exxon shareholders. And who would the money have gone to? To the shareholders? Of course not. It would have gone to the state of New York.

The state Supreme Court determined Exxon didn't owe a penny.

Originally Posted by Salty Again

And WHERE was the trial?? ... One Judge made the "decision"
that Trump was guilty WITHOUT a trial.
Trump was NOT given due process to even defend himself.

Yes, Kangaroo Engoron determined the Trump organization committed the alleged crimes and revoked its business licenses in New York without hearing the testimony of a single witness in open court.

[Salty Again]

... And at the "damages" hearing - Judge Engoron barely listened
to the testimony from the banks. Who claimed that Trump did not
do anything differently then most property clients - and all
the monnies were payed back... And even stated that they'd
certainly look forward to business with Mr. Trump again.

THAT surely shows the bias the Judge has AGAINST Trump.
So much for fairness under the Law...

And Letitia James? ... She has said that she's treating Trump
no different than anybody else... So IF that is the truth,
she'll be bringing charges against Jon Stewart next week.

Since Mr. Stewart surely OVERVALUED his-own home.
Greatly overvalued it...

Now we'll see if AG Letitia is "all talk and no cock", so to speak...

#### Salty

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... And at the "damages" hearing - Judge Engoron barely listened
to the testimony from the banks. Who claimed that Trump did not
do anything differently then most property clients - and all
the monnies were payed back... And even stated that they'd
certainly look forward to business with Mr. Trump again.

THAT surely shows the bias the Judge has AGAINST Trump.
So much for fairness under the Law...

And Letitia James? ... She has said that she's treating Trump
no different than anybody else... So IF that is the truth,
she'll be bringing charges against Jon Stewart next week.

Since Mr. Stewart surely OVERVALUED his-own home.
Greatly overvalued it...

Now we'll see if AG Letitia is "all talk and no cock", so to speak...

#### Salty

Well, as you've noted, appellate judges reduced the bond. And they also put a hold on Engoron's attempt last year to jerk Trump's business licenses. Based on that, I suspect you're right, that the fine will be reduced a lot on appeal.