╌>

Trump responds

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  5 months ago  •  554 comments

Trump responds
"There were no victims!" Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform in late September after Judge Arthur Engoron rejected his request to delay the trial. "On the front page of the financial statements there is a strong ‘disclaimer clause’ telling all not to rely on these financial statements."

Link to Qute: Donald Trump's civil trial stemming from New York AG Letitia James begins Monday | Live Updates from Fox News Digital

Donald Trump just effectively responded to Judge Letitia James. Every word he said was true.

"Judge Engoron’s Valuation of Mar-a-Lago, the most spectacular property in Palm Beach, Florida, IS FRAUDULENT! He states a value of 18 Million Dollars, knowing full well that it is worth, perhaps, 50 to 100 times that amount. Engoron is working diligently to misrepresent me, and my net worth, which is substantially MORE than is shown on my fully “disclaimed” Financial Statements. I have not even included my most valuable asset - BRAND!"  Trump wrote  on Truth Social."

Trump expected in Manhattan Monday for trial | Live Updates from Fox News Digital

"He should resign from the “Bench” and be sanctioned by the Courts for his abuse of power, and his intentional and criminal interference with the Presidential Election of 2024, of which I am leading all candidates, both Republican & Democrat, by significant margins. Likewise, Letitia James should resign for purposeful and criminal Election Interference. She is fully aware that Mar-a-Lago, and other assets, are worth much more than what she is claiming. Both of these Democrat Operatives are a disgrace to New York, and to the United States of America!" Trump continued.







The merits of this case works to Trump's advantage.



The AG preceded Trump's entry into the courthouse and she appeared to be positively giddy.

Donald-Trump-NYC-Civil-Case_02.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

"We have a rogue judge," Trump said. "We have a racist attorney general who's a horror show, who ran on the basis that she was gonna ‘get Trump’ before she even knew anything about me--she used this to run for governor she failed in her attempt to run for governor…she came back and she said, 'well, now I'll go back to get Trump again and this is what we have." 

"It's a scam. It's a sham," Trump said. "Just so you know, my financial statements are phenomenal." 

Trump said "no bank was hurt--they don't even know why they have to be involved."

Trump defends ‘phenomenal’ financial statements ahead of ‘disgrace’ of trial out of ‘corrupt’ NYAG James probe | Fox News







Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

An obvious case of a malicious prosecution.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 months ago

If anyone is being maliciously prosecuted here it is the Judge and the AG. @!@

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 months ago

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 months ago

An obvious case of a malicious prosecution.

Well, no, he's guilty Vic. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 months ago

Trump ranting and raving at the judge is the same as fucking with the person making your food...not a great idea, but then trump has the IQ of a turnip so there ya go. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.4.1  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.4    5 months ago
Trump ranting and raving at the judge is the same as fucking with the person making your food...not a great idea, but then trump has the IQ of a turnip so there ya go.

Meh.  When the judge issued the summary judgment on the bank fraud, it immediately became all about the appeals court. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.2  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.1    5 months ago

And ranting and raving  (taunting) at the court "Law-giver" helps the situation he is in,how exactly? It could assist in the Judge meticulously with intent putting him away properly where other considerations might have been factored in instead of ignored.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.4    5 months ago

I saw that - it looked like his attorney and all the police and clerks surrounding the turd were wishing he would just shut the fuck up.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

She ran on promising to get Trump.

The timing of these cases was to keep Trump in Court during the election.

Trump loves the optics because the voters get it.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    5 months ago

All that is irrelevant if Trump is guilty. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @2.1    5 months ago

It will be a while. There will be an appeal. And maybe another.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    5 months ago

Wow, Trump, the 'robber baron,' has got MAGA in the 'bag.' The steal is IN! How GREAT is that?! Republicans used to care, used to matter, now they are just not relevant anymore. It's all about:  A noun, a verb, and Donald Trump! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.2    5 months ago

This is what happens when one party thinks they can prosecute their opponents.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    5 months ago

Trump loves the optics because the voters get it.

Trump loves the optics because his supporters will believe anything and everything he says, no matter how stupid. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

F7b7YTbW0AA5B8J?format=png&name=small


Trump’s Trial Starts Monday. It Will Spotlight What He’s Really Worth. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)




"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward." ........From "Alice in Wonderland."

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    5 months ago

Trump deserves more than just a sentence, he deserves a whole paragraph.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    5 months ago

It's called falsification of business records . Familiarize yourself with it. 

Elements and punishment

Under  New York law falsifying business records in the second degree  is a class A  misdemeanor , while  falsifying business records in the first degree  is a class E  felony .

The  elements  of the crime are set forth by Article 175 of the New York Penal Code. [1]  The statute provides that:

A person is guilty of falsifying  business records  in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

  1. makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
  2. alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
  3. omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position ; or
  4. prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise." [2]

Intent  is an element of the offense; under New York law, the defendant's "intent" is his or her "conscious objective or purpose." [3]   The law does not require prosecutors to show that the defendant intended to cause a pecuniary or commercial loss ( i.e. , depriving a victim of money or property). [4]

Falsifying business records is upgraded to a felony if additional factors are present. [3]  Specifically, falsifying business records in the first degree is committed when an individual "commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." [5]

Under New York law, "in any prosecution for falsifying business records, it is an  affirmative defense  that the defendant was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his employer or of a superior officer or employee generally authorized to direct his activities to direct his/her activities." [6]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @3.3    5 months ago
It's called falsification of business records .

Is that what it's called?

How about putting out political statements in the middle of the trial?

"Today was the third day of our trial against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. Regardless of how many dangerous, racist comments the former president makes, I am not going to back down from my duty to enforce the law."....Letitia James


Will the judge put a gag order out on her?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.1    5 months ago

If Trump would just shut the fuck up Letitia James would have no reason to say anything during the trial. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    5 months ago

We could have said the same thing to Sen John McCain.  It doesn't take much to set off the ideologue who ran on "getting Trump."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.4  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.1    5 months ago

You need to get your contexts straight. A reply to a comment (L. James to Donald Trump's "whining" in the halls - which by the way you partisanly ignored just now) is not a political statement.

Anyway, if you are going to give blatantly partisan comments on this maybe you should put a DISCLAIMER  at the top of your comments!  Just sayin'!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.5  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.3    5 months ago

Your 'service' to Trump is duly noted. It is plain and clear. You want Trump free and clear. . .come hell or high water!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @3.3.5    5 months ago

I want the rule of law back.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.7  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.6    5 months ago

No, MAGA does not want the rule of law to be enforced against Trump at all. Tell the truth! Can you handle the truth?!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4  Thomas    5 months ago

You and your emperor have no clothes. 

The crime was the submission of false documents itself. You know, kind of like Hunter Biden and his handgun application.  You cannot have the one be a crime and the others not.

The head of the argument has come clear around to the point where it is eating its own tail. I wonder what all the proto-fascists will do when they realize they have defeated themselves? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @4    5 months ago

proto fascists now?

well, that's a switch from the usual [deleted misuses of 'fascists'!]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @4    5 months ago

First learn how to direct a comment to someone.

Second: Find out how many people in NYC have been charged with fraud for inflating their income/value on a loan application.


Have a good one.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.1  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    5 months ago

Each case/trial is plainly a case unto itself. Every tub must sit on its own 'bottom' and this is Trump's little red wagon to pull around and try to off-load. That is, it won't matter what Tom, Dick, and Harry got away with to the judge who will rule on the penalty at the end of this. Vic, by now, you should realize all of this after watching the trashing of the Capitol by artless fools who thought protesting and rioting on the street would be a license to pick a target and ACT! Now their asses aren't worth two-cents in the larger scheme of their existences and all they have to show for it is nasty pool of regrets!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @4.2.1    5 months ago

CB, try and remember this:

“It is not a matter of ends justifying means: but of the creation of new means and new ends.”
―  Joseph O'Connor,   Star of the Sea

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @4    5 months ago
all the proto-fascists

*facepalm*

So... a "proto-fascist"... is that some sort of code for 'people who don't agree with you'?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.3.1  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3    5 months ago
So... a "proto-fascist"... is that some sort of code for 'people who don't agree with you'?

Not in all instances, certainly.  In a limited number of instances, such as this one in conjunction with certain people, I feel comfortable calling them that. 

Why the amateurish attempt at deflection? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @4.3.1    5 months ago
Why the amateurish attempt at deflection? 

You imagine it's deflection.  

I would need to be taking it seriously first.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.3.3  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.2    5 months ago
You imagine it's deflection.  
I would need to be taking it seriously first.

OK.  Good Trolling to you! 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @4.3.3    5 months ago
OK.  Good Trolling to you! 

If you want people to take you seriously, don't use asinine sociology class bullshit like "proto-fascist".  WTF?  

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.3.5  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.4    5 months ago

Fzz-zzz, plop. Click. Whrrr 

Gotta beer?

I see plenty of proto-fascist people. Some of them are politicians, some people who follow politicians blindly or with avarice, there are even some people here who are so sure that their way is the "right" way that they agree that legislation should be passed to make others illegal just for being who they are. So, you may call me or my word choice" ...asinine sociology class bullshit" but people who fit the definition will be called that by me. 

Evil doesn't "just happen" overnight. Evil does not just happen to bad people or the lunatic-fringe. Fascism didn't just pop up one day and say "Hello! Everyone in-line with my political ideology! Chop-chop!" It had influential and charismatic people at the helm scheming until it was so.

And right here we have people who do not respect the rule of law when it goes against their wishes on something that was so evident that the judge issued a summary judgement. These same people are convinced that Hunter Biden's lying on a handgun application should result in fines and jail time, yet when the Trump organization did the same,  that should just be let go because he is "one of them." 

So, I will continue to call some people proto-fascists because they are. And you can continue with your non sequitur argument at your leisure.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
4.3.6  GregTx  replied to  Thomas @4.3.5    5 months ago

Mmmmkay 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.3.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @4.3.5    5 months ago
I see plenty of proto-fascist people.

Is that like seeing dead people?  Aren’t proto-fascist people those that predate the fascism of the last century and set the stage for those ideologies and cultural movements that shaped the subsequent fascism?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.3.8  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.3.7    5 months ago

No.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.3.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @4.3.8    5 months ago

Then what does proto-fascist mean?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.3.10  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.3.9    5 months ago

You are intelligent enough to figure out what it is.  

Proto  

proto-

/ˈprōdō/

combining form

prefix: proto -; prefix: prot-

original or primitive.

"prototherian"

first; anterior; relating to a precursor .

"protomartyr"

I use the bolded sense of the word/prefix. 

FASCIST (one of many definitions) from Wikipedia

Historian and cultural critic Ruth Ben-Ghiat has described fascism as "the original phase of authoritarianism, along with early communism, when a population has undergone huge dislocations or they perceive that there's been changes in society that are very rapid, too rapid for their taste." and added that "These are moments when demagogues appeal. Mussolini was the first to come up after the war, and he promised this enticing mixture of hypernationalism and imperialism, like, 'We're gonna revive the Roman Empire.'"[56]

Among the many definitions, this seems to be close to what I am observing in today's societies. Some more, some less. There is a great deal of variance, but most definitions include a highly autocratic figurehead and a powerful governmental structure that promotes not just patriotism, but jingoism. Also frequently in the mix is governmental interference/dictates in social norms and business dealings.  

"Make America Great Again ", "I am the only one who can ______", "Law and Order Party", ....

I see this world-wide, but it is right here too. DJT, the jerk from FL who's name I cannot remember right now are some obvious people who would fall into the category. Ah, DeSantis! 

Since the word "proto-fascist "is already in use to denote certain people inclined towards fascism in the period between WWI and WWII, I can avoid ambiguity by calling them "fascistic" or "pre-facist"... just doesn't sound as good. Maybe "wannabe fascist without the cajones" is a better descriptor. I dunno.  They are all total jerks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @4.3.10    5 months ago

People who know what definitions are but still use the word improperly are a blast.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Thomas @4    5 months ago
The crime was the submission of false documents itself.

I've been thinking about that. We're talking about fraud, right? So, what do you call it when a bank approves a loan that, allegedly, was based on 2,000% inflation of supposed value and they don't notice???? Do you really think, I mean honestly think, the bank wasn't completely aware of this? Do you think people just walk into a bank and claim a certain value on a security and, what, the bank just says, okey dokey, here's a ton of money?  

No. These banks knew what the reasonable value of these securities were and loaned him the money anyway because they wanted to make money. So, whatever fraud was committed, it wasn't against the banks. If anything, the banks should be seen as accomplices. My guess, though, is that there's a lot of people and businesses out there who are watching this intently, because they've done the same thing. In other words, I'll bet this is fairly common among players at Trump's level. 

Personally, I think this whole thing has nothing to do with fraud. That's just a tool. What this is about is politics. This is a Democratic political effort to keep Trump out of the presidency and nothing else. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4    5 months ago

I am assuming the judge understands New York law.

The judge has ruled (based on New York law) that the presentation of fraudulent legal documents to qualify for a loan, etc. is fraud.   It does not matter if the recipient approves or disapproves the transaction.   It does not matter if a fraudulently acquired loan is paid off.   The presentation of the false legal document is the fraud.

If the judge is wrong about the presentation = fraud angle, this case will take quite a turn.

Personally, I think this whole thing has nothing to do with fraud. That's just a tool. What this is about is politics. 

This case certainly seems politically motivated.  But politics alone does not make a case.   The judge here issued a summary judgment which means that the evidence met the very high bar to allow for a summary judgment.   Again, if the judge knows the law, there is something here. 

Since this deals with Trump the citizen, I am far less concerned about this case (in and of itself) than with the cases dealing with Trump's Big Lie.   The documents case is also important because it addresses the precedent that former PotUS' are in some way above the law.

That established, the significance of the New York case is that if it fails, this will make the other —substantially more important— Trump cases look bad.   The mantra of 'it is all political' will be wrongly stronger with those cases.   Not good for the nation.

If the D party was strictly playing politics, it should pursue the strongest case first.   That is not what is happening IMO.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.1    5 months ago

The attorney general in NY says that Trump made 100 million dollars off of his fraudulent financial statements.  That is more than enough reason to drag him to court. No need to call it political. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.4.2    5 months ago

The argument that this case is politically motivated stems from the AG's campaign promise to get Trump.   That makes anything she does vulnerable to being labeled 'political'.

But, as I noted, it can only be partially political.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.4  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4    5 months ago

Side issues. This thief signed documents that contain fraudulent information. He is in court for having done so. Focus! The judge has rendered a decision already.

Trump frauded the state of New York and Others with interest in this case.

Deal with this that is in front of the court!

There is no excuse for lying on contracts. Why? Because Donald Trump is nothing if he is not a man who has signed a few contracts in his life. Properly or improperly. This is his company's doing and Trump's signature or ascribed signing/s.

-----

Why are you defending a thief, Child of God? What does your bible say about calling evil good? What does your bible say about the appearance of evil? What does your bible say about a liar?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.4.5  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.3    5 months ago

People have been making excuses for this guy for 8 years, and truthfully even longer than that. Its time to bring this garbage to an end. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.6  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.1    5 months ago

The Judge has stated that the AG's motivation is not under scrutiny here. As well it should not be. Donald J. Trump signed these documents and a judge ruled that indeed a crime of fraud has occurred. MAGA must deal with the facts and not the spin sooner or later. This is a court of law after all! Built to try adults, not child's play!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.4.6    5 months ago

Is there something in my comments that suggest I am not in favor of holding Trump accountable to New York law?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.7    5 months ago

No not at all. I can interact with you. This comment is in addition to your comment on the subject. That other one just fails at discussion with me, so using an 'economy scale' I just address others present. Otherwise I would be 'speaking to the room-at-large.' 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.4.9  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.1    5 months ago

None of you who responded to me understand the point (This isn't addressed solely to you, TiG). This is not a fraud case. It is about harming Trump in some way. If it really were about fraud, the banks would be getting sued or a fine or whatever for either knowingly accepting a fraudulent document or at least not doing their required due diligence. I am certain that federal regulations have something to say about conditions for loans, especially after the housing fiasco in 08. That's what the regulators are for. To try and make sure it doesn't happen again. 

So. This is not a pursuit of justice. This is a political hit, brought about by political motives according to a political agenda. The power players making this happen don't give a damned about the fraud, probably because half of them have done the same thing themselves in one way or another. If Trump has committed fraud, it pales in comparison to the fraud that is politics and our government. 

That's what pisses me off most about all of this. The people guilty of a much worse fraud concerning public trust virtuously defend the attack on Trump or attack those who are attacking Trump (yes, I'm speaking of all of them on both sides). 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.4.10  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @4.4.4    5 months ago
Why are you defending a thief, Child of God? What does your bible say about calling evil good?

I haven't said one thing in defense of Trump. Not that will matter to you. You seem to take whatever I say, even if I were to post a recipe for shrimp fried rice, and turn it into whatever you want it to say. That's why I seldom respond to you. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.11  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.9    5 months ago

Supposition nonsense. Stand for what is right! Keep your. . .feelings out of it. Watching the written "mulligans" handed out to the insincere, braggarts, who flaunt the laws of this country is nauseating and then there is the Christian 'angle' that flies out the window for all to see. 

No wonder people think Christians are full of it! Many are full of it, and the above is evidence of it. 

Trump has been charged up the wazoo by good people, good cases, and so forth and yet those who defend the corrupt won't cease advocating just one more time for Trump. 

When does this BS 'pact' with Trump get its proper comeuppance? How many more good people must be thwarted and ruined so this wretched human being can have his indulgences and inflicting of terror on the citizenry?

Where is the sense of shame?

Where is the love of God in all of this?

God cannot be pleased with this kind of political 'hanky-panky' coming from the institution of the Church!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.12  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.10    5 months ago

That's untrue. And worse you know it is untrue. You don't respond to me because, well let me let John/Jesus tell you:

John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

The self-righteous think that they do God a favor by imposing themselves and their wishes upon other people in this world. But, God is not a lie. The world turns because God set it on its course. Our 'role' in this world is to serve the good, not to EXPEDITE a stupid, evil man who seemingly lies to get his next breath issued to him! Hyperbole, yes, but its clarifying all the same.

By the way, it is implied assent to Trump when you demonize, second-guess, and opine on the motivations of sitting professionals doing their jobs as you claim you would like to see it done, but do not find any thing worthy of speaking up against from a liar, cheater, thief who has lied about his property holding in court documents!

Trump has many times demonstrated he is as stupid as he is evil. I did nothing to put him in this 'state. I did nothing to lessen or empower his rise or his fall. I simply call him out for being a major BS'er. 

MAGA should forsake this foolish man and fail him once and for all. Fail him. 

As for you, you enable Trump with these alternatives to the truth that not even Trump or his lawyers dare to dream up, because they can sense the hollowness and desperation in such 'deliveries.' 

I would 'bless' Trump tomorrow were he to be a straight-up man and professional forthcoming with the truth. 

I will not applaud his lies, and neither will I 'break bread' with a liar's enablers

Stand up for the truth. Lies can not set one free and that is why Trump will never get off the hook he is on. He won't stand for the truth!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.13  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.9    5 months ago
This is not a fraud case. It is about harming Trump in some way.

I understood your point.   In fact, I even directly acknowledged your point and agreed with it (albeit not as strongly as you).   How did you miss that?   (JR sure did not miss it.)

If it really were about fraud, the banks would be getting sued or a fine or whatever for either knowingly accepting a fraudulent document or at least not doing their required due diligence.

I am highly confident that you are not an attorney and you certainly are not a sitting New York judge.   So I do not see why I should take your legal opinion over that of the actual New York judge who has put his reputation on the line by ruling in an extremely high-profile case.   

The judge has ruled (read the summary judgment) that according to New York state law, the transaction-seeking presentation to an entity of a legal document that contains relevant false information is fraud.   It does not matter if the entity was harmed or if the entity declined the transaction entirely.   The presentation is the fraud.

Do you have a legal argument that shows the judge is wrong?

If not, then I will repeat that while I understand that an AG campaigning on getting Trump will call partisanship into question on anything she does related to Trump, she cannot just 'get Trump'.   She must put forth a case that will survive legal scrutiny.   Apparently (thus far) she has done so.

So regardless of the AG's motives, the evidence is so overwhelming in the view of this New York judge that it meets the bar required to issue a summary judgment.   That is a very strong set of evidence.   Unless you want to argue that this judge is incompetent, corrupt, etc., the most logical assessment at this point, IMO, is that Trump did indeed engage in fraud as defined by the State of New York.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.14  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.9    5 months ago
This is not a pursuit of justice.

That's a nice opinion, I guess. Now can you prove it? (HINT: Courts are not know for their  'body' of politics.) Go ahead, make a case for a lack of justice in this case occurring.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.4.15  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.9    5 months ago

I understand fully the point. There are several, actually. One is political, of course, if only because prosecutors and politicians are elected officials. There is no escape from it. But another point is that when a legal document is submitted it should contain factual information.  

If Trump didn't want to be in this position, all that he had to do is tell the truth. But according to the judge, he did not and he did so blatantly and egregiously. Not just a little, but a lot. What is more is he made money by lying. Not just a little, but a lot. That is fraud, plain and simple. If the banks knew then they should be tried also.  

You are pissed at  government corruption?  Join the crowd. Now how do we address that issue? 

So you say, don't prosecute Trump because there are other people who do it worse? Worse than the fraud he committed on Americans and America when he lied about the election over and over and over? He is still perpetrating the lie to this day, and otherwise decent folk whom one would think aren't somnambulistic believe this lie to their core. And you think that he shouldn't be prosecuted? Is that really what you are saying? 

I say he is a liar and a cheat. Above all else and any way shape or form that we have at our disposal to keep this traitorous, lying deceiver out of office we should use and not be shy about it. There are no exculpatory factors that make him in any way fit to hold any elected office. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.4.16  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.1    5 months ago
If the D party was strictly playing politics, it should pursue the strongest case first.

This may well be it's strongest chance for a win.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.4.16    5 months ago

I do not consider this case to be very important in the big picture.   The cases that are (and have been all along) important to me are those that hold Trump accountable for his actions as PotUS.   I know I was not clear, but my point was to pursue the strongest of those cases first and not risk diluting those cases if this private sector case finds (when all is done) Trump not liable.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.4.18  Drakkonis  replied to  Thomas @4.4.15    5 months ago
I understand fully the point.

I don't think you do, or you wouldn't keep going back to Trump. 

You are pissed at  government corruption?  Join the crowd. Now how do we address that issue?

If you stuck with this, you'd be a lot closer to understanding. 

So you say, don't prosecute Trump because there are other people who do it worse?

Nope. Nowhere have I said Trump should not be prosecuted. although this particular case is a waste of time, in my opinion and I think it's going to bite the Dems in the rear. Nor have I stated that others have done worse.  What I said was, what Trump did is likely a pretty common practice. And that should not be read as "Whether it's illegal or not, since it is common practice, we shouldn't prosecute Trump for it". How it should be read is "If overstating the value of your properties is wrong in every circumstance and should be prosecuted, it is an even worse wrong to only prosecute such individuals because they are the political enemies of those with power.

Worse than the fraud he committed on Americans and America when he lied about the election over and over and over? He is still perpetrating the lie to this day, and otherwise decent folk whom one would think aren't somnambulistic believe this lie to their core.

Again, you show you don't understand my point. Most of what goes on in government right now is as big or bigger fraud than anything Trump ever did at any time in his life. A short list:

  1. Most people in government that actually matter have, as their number one priority, reelection, not the country. They will say anything, use any demographic, make any promise they have no intention of keeping, in order to make that happen. 
  2. In order to make reelection happen, they will sell themselves to whatever source of money they believe will make that most likely.
  3. Because of that, they will push that special interest's agenda for all they are worth, regardless of whether it is good for the country as a whole. 
  4. Some of the ones who enter for ideological reasons are nearly as bad. They don't care what the rest of the country wants, they intend to make the country what they want it to be. 

That's hardly scratching the surface. 

And you think that he shouldn't be prosecuted? Is that really what you are saying? 

So, again, no. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that it isn't justice when those who are as big a problem and, largely, just as corrupt as Trump, go after Trump for political reasons. That isn't justice. That's politics and does not one damn thing to stop the problem, if there actually is one. Like I said, I feel pretty confident that what Trump has done to which this case addresses is pretty common. 

 I say he is a liar and a cheat.

I generally agree with you, although I doubt we'd agree in everything. 

Above all else and any way shape or form that we have at our disposal to keep this traitorous, lying deceiver out of office we should use and not be shy about it.

And that's my problem with your side of this issue. You're willing to do anything to take him down because you believe the end justifies the means. If Trump actually committed real fraud and not simply stretching the term to make it fit then he should be punished for this, as long as he is not the only one. Government regulators have the power to examine banks and the loans they make. They should be looking for others who do the same thing and prosecute them as well. That goes for the banks who make the loans, as well, since they have a responsibility in this as well. If not, this is exactly what it seems. A political hit job. 

There are no exculpatory factors that make him in any way fit to hold any elected office.

I don't think Trump is fit to be president either but not because of this case. If it had been Biden that had done this, I'd feel the same way. In my opinion, if there is a guilty party here in this case, it would be the banks. To say, hey, this is what the application said his property is worth has as much credence as Trump putting a disclaimer on his application. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.19  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.18    5 months ago

Meh.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.4.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.18    5 months ago
Most of what goes on in government right now is as big or bigger fraud than anything Trump ever did at any time in his life. A short list:
  1. Most people in government that actually matter have, as their number one priority, reelection, not the country. They will say anything, use any demographic, make any promise they have no intention of keeping, in order to make that happen. 
  2. In order to make reelection happen, they will sell themselves to whatever source of money they believe will make that most likely.
  3. Because of that, they will push that special interest's agenda for all they are worth, regardless of whether it is good for the country as a whole. 
  4. Some of the ones who enter for ideological reasons are nearly as bad. They don't care what the rest of the country wants, they intend to make the country what they want it to be. 

Nonsense. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.4.21  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @4.4.18    5 months ago

I am saying that he is a threat to our nation. He showed us just what he was willing to do. He is a  traitor to the CotUS and to the presidency.

You say in effect to go after the bigger injustice.  I say first things first and let's remove the Traitor before he has the chance to once again besmirch the country with his pall.

I do get that you want to cleanse the metaphorical temple,  but I see most of the points #1, 2, 3 and 4 as a result of the two party system and allowing those two parties to control the selection of candidates. You are disillusioned that the government, which seemed so promising and elegant in grade school can, later in life,  look tarnished and tawdry.  

I don't think Trump is fit to be president either but not because of this case.

If you think that is my reasoning you are mistaken.  This case is a means to a end. Or rather, this case is one of many means to a single end: Get the traitor Trump and prevent him from attaining any political office ever again. Why? Not just because he lies, but the caliber of his lies and the cache that they carry.  He is not above giving veiled threats that his following may get mad. He is counting on the people and politicians of the country to handle him as if he were special. We all should handle him as if he were especially bad. Don't pussy foot around. He doesn't respect that and he will play the ones who do.

Nail his metaphorical ass to the wall with everything that we have within our legal capabilities, meaning the letter of the law.. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.4.22  CB  replied to  Thomas @4.4.21    5 months ago

He knows all this because it has been posted here "infinitely" and Trump's acts, actions, and antics are well-known (and approved) by republicans, conservatives, MAGA, and the Christian Right! We, liberals, are serenaded by MAGA BS on a daily basis. That is, these folks have no intention of letting us WIN/END the day (even when we do, they don't intend to let us enjoy it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.5  Sparty On  replied to  Thomas @4    5 months ago
I wonder what all the proto-fascists will do when they realize they have defeated themselves? 

Not much, since they are all long dead.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    5 months ago

This article is the essence of gaslighting. 

Donald Trump vastly overstated the size of his Trump Tower apartment, in order to , wait for it, inflate its actual value on various financial documents. His problem is that the size of his apartment is a known quantity. It is not a matter of opinion. 

It is astonishing that anyone could think his Truth Social posts on these topics were "every word true". 

This level of dishonesty may work with MAGA numbskulls, but doesnt fly with everyone else. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @5    5 months ago

How Much Is Trump Worth? Depends on How He Feels

TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN
ON 10/19/15 AT 11:14 AM EDT

"Now, Mr. Trump, have you always been completely truthful in your public statements about your net worth of properties?" my lawyer asked during the deposition.

"I try," said Donald.

"Have you ever not been truthful?"

"My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try."

"Let me just understand that a little bit," my lawyer said. "Let's talk about net worth for a second. You said that the net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?"

"Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day. Then you have a September 11th, and you don't feel so good about yourself and you don't feel so good about the world and you don't feel so good about New York City. Then you have a year later, and the city is as hot as a pistol. Even months after that it was a different feeling. So yeah, even my own feelings affect my value to myself."

"When you publicly state what you're worth, what do you base that number on?"

"I would say it's my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked," Donald responded. "And as I say, it varies."

Yep, it varies. When Donald announced his presidential run in the summer of 2015, he waved around a document claiming his fortune topped $8.7 billion. And when he formally filed campaign papers with the Federal Election Commission about a month after that, his net worth had soared another $1.3 billion to $10 billion—about $8.2 billion more than Deutsche Bank said he was worth a decade earlier (a decade that included the most severe financial and real estate crisis since the Great Depression).

My Bloomberg colleagues Caleb Melby and Rich Rubin recently looked into what keeps Donald's $10 billion hot air balloon aloft, and estimated that his fortune is closer to $2.9 billion.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    5 months ago

Did you see the turd's defense?  Some nonsense about how the documents shouldn't be trusted.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    5 months ago

'disclaimer clause telling all not to rely on these financial statements'

what the huh?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    5 months ago
It is astonishing that anyone could think his Truth Social posts on these topics were "every word true". 

Too bad Timothy L Obien isn't a member here. I'd have to demolish him.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
5.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.3    5 months ago
Too bad Timothy L Obien isn't a member here. I'd have to demolish him.

Do you have any clue how cowardly that sounds?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.3    5 months ago
Too bad Timothy L Obrien isn't a member here. I'd have to demolish him.

That'd be the day. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    5 months ago

The last one who said that is out trimming hedges.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.4    5 months ago

Do you have a clue how often you've tried to skirt the code today?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    5 months ago

Timothy O'Brien was sued by Trump for defamation concerning a book O'Brien wrote about Trumps business dealings.  Guess which one of them won the case?

BTW that was the case where Trump lied 31 times during a deposition. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    5 months ago
Guess which one of them won the case?

I heard about it. That was because of the Sullivan decision which needs to be overturned. 

Btw Trump is also suing Christopher Steele.


BTW that was the case where Trump lied 31 times during a deposition. 

Then he is catching up to Biden and the NYTimes?

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
5.1.10  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    5 months ago

I strive for infinity as soon as I log on.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.11  CB  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    5 months ago

Running joke: So, I go to the bank and I tell the financier I have documents for them to approve in my favor but don't take my word for it that everything I wrote and listed is what I believe it to be. . . . Oh, but I so much do want the heftiest loan I can get because my imagination is nothing if not worth "billions"!

That's it. It's a running joke!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @5.1.11    5 months ago

Here is another running joke:

The bank knows the lender always repays the loan on time, so the lender is asked if he qualifies. The bank always gets the desired answer and a nice return on investment.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.13  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    5 months ago

MAGA obviously sees Trump's lies as food substance (edibles) that makes for a healthy political life!  They wonder why we don't want any of it for our diet.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.11    5 months ago
Running joke: So, I go to the bank and I tell the financier I have documents for them to approve in my favor but don't take my word for it that everything I wrote and listed is what I believe it to be. . . . Oh, but I so much do want the heftiest loan I can get because my imagination is nothing if not worth "billions"! That's it. It's a running joke!

If you've ever actually bought real estate, you understand that the lender doesn't take your word for anything.  They send their own person to appraise the value of the property.  They review your tax returns, your bank statements, your investment accounts, credit rating and anything else they can think of.

They pretend like they know you're lying to them and they're just trying to figure out how.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.15  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.14    5 months ago

Of course and I do understand appraisal processes, but. . . does that explain how the hell this occurred with Trump landing in court over being a prolific Cheat?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.16  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.12    5 months ago

Running joke: The court is in-session today because of a crime of fraud has occurred, and the lenders, insurers, and all affiliated parties now like never before can feel the true loss on their contracts (up to 250 Millions), and a judge is right in stating (Trump's) the check is not in the mail!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.15    5 months ago
Of course and I do understand appraisal processes, but. . . does that explain how the hell this occurred with Trump landing in court over being a prolific Cheat?

Well that's the interesting thing.  And none of us know all the details, so definitive statements about Trump's guilt or innocence from anyone here are a bit silly.

Simply arguing one value before the tax commission and a different value to the lender is not fraud.  If it is, 98% of American homeowners are in deep shit.

But there is a point at which the stated value of a property differs from the generally accepted or appraised value of the property by enough that a "reasonable person" should know better.  Now, Trump has never been a "reasonable person" but that's not a defense.

So a lot of questions start to arise here, including but not limited to:

  • What is that generally accepted value?
  • Where/who/how is that value being determined?
  • Is there a possibility that it's incorrect, and if so by how much?
  • Is it possible that a "reasonable person" could justify the values Trump gave to some of these properties... understanding that they are one of a kind?
  • What has DT been offered for any of these properties, and by whom?  (If Elon Musk offered $2 billion for Mar-a-Lago.. well... he's spent more money on worse investments.)

I'm the first to admit I don't have the answers to any of those.  

But the prosecutor is an elected Democrat who won the office on the promise that she would "get Donald Trump", and this may well be the way she does it.   The judge is also an elected Democrat who presumably will want to be re-elected, and "get Donald Trump" appears to be a pretty good campaign strategy.  So there is certainly an environment that would be unusually favorable for politically based rulings and therefore all the more cause to ask those questions.

Personally, Mar a Lago being worth $1.8 billion seems ridiculous.  But $18 million seems just as ridiculous.  

Here is what $18 million buys you in Palm Beach (it's not on the beach):  

$21 million will get you a condo across the street from the beach:  

So Mar-a-Lago is obviously worth waaaay more than either of those places, which gets us into this really difficult area about "what is one of a kind former presidential real estate actually worth"?  And the truth is it's very difficult to say.  

Are there a few oil sheiks or oligarchs or tech billionaires who would jump at the chance to own Mar-a-Lago at $100m?  Probably.  Who knows?  $400m?  Maybe.  We're talking about people who spend $700m on yachts and buy private islands.  There's only one Mar a Lago in the world, after all, and who knows when it will be for sale again... so who can really say how much some billionaire would pay?

It's not as simple as people want it to be, but then real estate never is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.18  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.17    5 months ago
Well that's the interesting thing.  And none of us know all the details, so definitive statements about Trump's guilt or innocence from anyone here are a bit silly.

STOP! The judge ended the proceeding with a summary ruling already: Trump is guilty of fraud.  Then, immediately moved to the penalty phase. 

What reason/s do you have to present that deny the judge's decision? Please proceed. . . .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.19  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.17    5 months ago
But the prosecutor is an elected Democrat who won the office on the promise that she would "get Donald Trump", and this may well be the way she does it.   The judge is also an elected Democrat who presumably will want to be re-elected, and "get Donald Trump" appears to be a pretty good campaign strategy.  So there is certainly an environment that would be unusually favorable for politically based rulings and therefore all the more cause to ask those questions.

Well, let 'consider' what you suppose. . .  now that we are done considering. . .let's move back into the realm of legality and court proceedings:

1. SUPPOSING is not a legal argument.

2.  All elected officials inherently are elected by constituents and can be said to wish to serve those constituents in any number of ways (and means).

3.  It is a lie to try to "divine" what an elected official is doing to a CRIMINAL/FRAUDSTER simply because s/he is doing his job properly.

4.  Donald Trump has been summarily judged to have committed FRAUD!

5.  Donald Trump in order to be properly judged to have committed FRAUD would have to have done so or the judge's decision will not hold.

Jack_TX, go on the record and state that you believe the Judge is not properly following the law! Moreover, that you believe you have better FACTS than the AG/The State of New York/The Judge to back up your counternarrative!

Otherwise, you are arguing futilely and passionately for a man who lies everyday in every way simply because each day is a brand new day!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.18    5 months ago
STOP! The judge ended the proceeding with a summary ruling already: Trump is guilty of fraud.  Then, immediately moved to the penalty phase.  What reason/s do you have to present that deny the judge's decision? Please proceed. . . .

It seems very likely to be appealed.  We'll see.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.19    5 months ago
go on the record and state that you believe the Judge is not properly following the law!

I don't know whether he has applied the law correctly or not.  

Moreover, that you believe you have better FACTS than the AG/The State of New York/The Judge to back up your counternarrative!

I've just said we (the public) don't have all the details.  

Otherwise, you are arguing futilely and passionately for a man who lies everyday in every way simply because each day is a brand new day!

Ah.  So.... in your mind... "asking questions" is the same as "arguing passionately for Trump".  Are you listening to yourself?

*sigh* I don't know why I bother sometimes.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.22  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.20    5 months ago

Highly likely. And, it is Trump's "due" if he takes it.  And as you well know nothing about an appeal lends itself to the Court or Trump in the meantime. It's the judges' prerogative to guide this case as he as the representative of the law sees fit! Coincidentally, it would be the 'dumbest' of judges to not have the insight to know who this man is and what he is capable of saying and doing in regards to looking for a way to get 'relief' from the case. I take for granted this judge will be meticulous as best he can to get this case right, as all eyes are on this court-politically, socially, legally, and media-wise.

Therefore, with this above understanding of what's fair, I would kindly suggest we color within the lines' outlined in the present proceedings and not 'work' to imagine what other lines might 'break out' on the page!  :)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.23  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.21    5 months ago

Look. . ."Jack" . . . it is not hard in any way to determine from what you write where your "vibes" are. Who cares that you don't explicitly own the vibes you transmit?

In my case, you and others determine that I hate Trump and would never wish him well. Those are my "vibes." And to a point it's true. To a point. I just need that liar, cheat, and thief of the rights of his fellow citizens to have progress work for their circumstances in life - to stand down from being an all around jerk to me, people like me, women, and liberals!

All of us have been home-trained by our parents and communities as to what is right and wrong; I don't choose to forget my manners because Donald Trump wants to be a DICK, BASTARD, STUPIDLY EVIL, AND VICIOUS who expects others to hand over their rights to conservatives and him in some perversion of a TRANSACTION!

Trump is wrong to abuse the systems of society and government by white collar crime as the 'underworld' is for its improper activities.

The fact is it is the duties and responsibilities for AGs' to prosecute offenses where/when/how they find them. It is a judge's duties and responsibility (bench hearing) to decide innocence or guilt. 

What is not the case is for a defendant to declare himself 'free and clear.' Why? Because nearly ALL defendants plead their innocence - and hope to. . .whatever that the facts don't find them out in a court of law! 

Dig?

As to what you know about the AG of New York and the Judge of New York. . . let's just read where you give either of these professionals the benefit of the doubt! That's on you to do and you haven't done so that I can read!

Be a stand up guy and speak truth to power. 

And hey you won't have to make 'clarifying remarks' if you are open and honest-do so and we will get your point 99.99 percent of the time! 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.24  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.22    5 months ago
 I take for granted this judge will be meticulous as best he can to get this case right

How very trusting of you.  I'm more skeptical.  

I would kindly suggest we color within the lines' outlined in the present proceedings and not 'work' to imagine what other lines might 'break out' on the page!

That's absolutely hilarious given your long history of utterly refusing to do this on any topic whatsoever.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.23    5 months ago
Look. . ."Jack" . . . it is not hard in any way to determine from what you write where your "vibes" are. Who cares that you don't explicitly own the vibes you transmit?

Ah yes.  Once again "CB" cannot accept even the most basic, straightforward statements without projecting some hidden meaning.

You've been doing this for years, you have a 100% failure rate, and yet you are not dissuaded.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.26  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.17    5 months ago

I'd like a link to the actual order granting partial summary judgment. I can't find it anywhere. I don't know that I have any desire to read the motion and response, or to view the evidence that is in the record, but this is interesting.

The real estate value is at issue. One side claims the other inflated the value. Both sides have appraisers that have given an OPINION as to value. How can the judge decide the issue? That is the function of the trier of fact, which the judge, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, is not. I find it hard to believe that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that one side is entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, in this situation. 

I'd like to see the entire 35 page order, and any appellate decision that follows. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.27  evilone  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.26    5 months ago

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.28  Jack_TX  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.26    5 months ago
I find it hard to believe that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that one side is entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, in this situation. 

Just don't ask too many questions.  Especially rational ones.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.29  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.24    5 months ago

Prove it. Take your time and do so, alrighty?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.30  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.25    5 months ago

I call it as I see it. Don't like the way you lay it down - change for the better. Don't blame me that you want everybody to live the life of  conservatism in this country and God knows it ain't going to happen. Conservatives had it good for a while, but then reality SOCKED this country and its 'bible belts' between their eyes. The liberals here are done with letting conservatives tell us who we are and whom we can be as people . . .we don't want and we certainly don't crave conservative validation. 

If that means this country continues sliding into its national downfall. . . so be it. Slide the "f" away!

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.31  Transyferous Rex  replied to  evilone @5.1.27    5 months ago

Thanks. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.32  Transyferous Rex  replied to  evilone @5.1.27    5 months ago

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read all of it, including references, at the moment. 

Summary Judgment-Haven't gotten through the entire thing, but the court gives short shrift to the Trump team motion, by stating what the law is, 

"evidentiary facts derived from documents submitted [in opposition to summary judgment motion] are sufficient to present a triable issue of fact"

Nothing after that. 

With regard to OAGs motion:

"The instant motions do not task this Court with determining which appraisals are the most accurate, which would present issues of fact. Rather, time and time again, the Court is not comparing one appraisal to another; it is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a pie-in-the-sky dream of concocted potential."

I have a problem with that. 1st sentence? That's the judge saying that it is not the court's province to weigh evidence on a motion for summary judgment...which is correct. 2nd sentence? That's the court justifying the weighing of evidence on a motion for summary judgment. 

Initial take: With regard to Trump's motion, the court makes no attempt to discuss the facts submitted, but simply kicks the motion to the curb on the stated basis that facts have been submitted in opposition to the motion. When it comes to OAGs motion, the court weighs the evidence. That said, and without the benefit of reading everything in evidence, I can't say that I'm impressed with the apparent arguments made by Trump's team.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.33  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.29    5 months ago
Prove it. Take your time and do so, alrighty?

Don't need much time at all...

To a point. I just need that liar, cheat, and thief of the rights of his fellow citizens to have progress work for their circumstances in life - to stand down from being an all around jerk to me, people like me, women, and liberals!

We're talking about a fraud case and you're talking about him saying mean things about liberals.

So much for "color inside the lines".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.34  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.30    5 months ago
Don't blame me that you want everybody to live the life of conservatism in this country

What were you saying about inside the lines?

You do have a wild imagination.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.35  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.32    5 months ago

original

Image: Page 29 of 35.

It's all good to read above, but you can start at Paragraph 4 for an answer as to why the Judge is not wasting time going back over appraisals: "Bartov is incorrect.  . . . ."  In the Judge's opinion/decision.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.36  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.33    5 months ago

I can write about anything and mention all the characteristics of this 'charming' individual whom you SAY you don't have any special interest in but still you keep finding opportunities to carry his ridiculous arguments around. I wonder when will MAGA get combat fatigue from all the effort!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.37  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.34    5 months ago

Well Jack, if you don't want everybody to live a conservative life . . . you should be more plain about it and write so more often. That way you might not get lumped in with the rest of MAGA! Just sayin'.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.38  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @5.1.35    5 months ago

I read it. Bartov is incorrect. Here, you have a judge telling an appraiser what the best method of determining the "estimated current value" is...in deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Don't get me twisted, at the end of the day, the judge may well be correct in his evaluation. However, that evaluation is not one that should be taking place during review of a motion for summary judgment. Again, note the different treatment of the respective motions. Trumps? Judge said the other side put on evidence, and that it should be tried. OAGs? The judge is weighing the evidence. That's my issue. 

As an aside, I agree with the court's handling of Trumps motion for summary judgment. Don't lose sight of the fact that the court is considering competing motions for summary judgment here. Regardless, on Trump's motion, the court, rightly I believe, refuses to weigh the evidence, and disposes of it with a simple recitation of the law, "evidentiary facts derived from documents submitted [in opposition to summary judgment motion] are sufficient to present a triable issue of fact."

On the OAGs motion, the court kicks what it said, a mere few pages before, straight to the curb, and weighs the evidence. Bartov is incorrect? Not the judge's call on hearing a motion for summary judgment, which the court acknowledges in response to Trump's motion. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.39  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.36    5 months ago
I can write about anything

But you're going to tell other people to "color within the lines".  Got it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.40  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.37    5 months ago
Well Jack, if you don't want everybody to live a conservative life . . . you should be more plain about it and write so more often.

Will that make you feel better?

That way you might not get lumped in with the rest of MAGA! Just sayin'.

I'm fascinated by how far out in looney lefty land somebody has to be to consider a Biden voter part of the MAGA tribe.   If anybody is that big an idiot, I'm just not concerned with what they might think.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.41  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.39    5 months ago

This is Trump we are talking about, right? The 'lines' are broad. But, you can continue to argue (for the "big guy's" right to have special pleading).  To be frank with you, I am not even focused on what you are. . .sharing right about now. . . because I have moved on and largely tuned out whatever it is you are posting right now. I simply am not moved by your personal rant at me and somehow I don't see anything related to the article in that

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.42  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.38    5 months ago
Here, you have a judge telling an appraiser what the best method of determining the "estimated current value" is...in deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Is that what you got from Page 29? Can you affirm what is stated on page 29 which leads you to the assertion above. Please proceed. . . . 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.43  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.40    5 months ago

I write about what I conclude.  An easy solution to this problem if you find one: Be explicit in what/where one stands.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.44  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.1.43    5 months ago
I write about what I conclude.

I know.  You just never conclude correctly.  

  An easy solution to this problem if you find one: Be explicit in what/where one stands.

Not sure what part of "Biden voter" is still unclear.

Not sure what part of "Trump being wrong doesn't make stupid leftist nonsense correct" is still unclear.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.45  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.44    5 months ago

Deal with it. Bye. :)

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.46  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @5.1.42    5 months ago

It is, CB. There are questions of fact the judge is making determinations on. Was Trump able to use a fixed asset approach, as argued? Is Bartov incorrect in asserting that it is false to claim that the fixed asset approach ignores market conditions, or the behavior of informed buyers and sellers?

How about this statement from the court:

The price for which you purchase a property is not necessarily the price for which you can sell it. The latter, not the former, matters to lenders who want adequate collateral.

While I might agree with the statement, generally, it does not hold true for every instance, and the communications and negotiations between Trump's team and the lenders, leading to the submissions that are being called into question, should be informative here. Note the above. Trump's team argued they were able to used a fixed asset approach. Were they? We don't know. The judge is tossing evidence aside, and substituting his own belief of how the forms should have been completed. Not his job. 

Consider the court's reference to the evidence submitted by the State, and Trump's response thereto: "In an attempt to rebut this strong showing of fraud..." Funny. When Trump's team tried that, the court didn't wade through the evidentiary materials submitted in opposition, it simply said that evidentiary material had been submitted, thus creating a triable issue. Again, the issue is not whether the judge is correct in his weighing of the evidence. The issue is that the judge should not be weighing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment. Clearly, he did. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.47  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.46    5 months ago

If the judge gratuitously ignored or downplayed evidence, etc. then his ruling would be legally faulty.   If so, there is a decent chance that it will be overturned on appeal.

Since none of us have access to the evidence and the legal arguments, we can only speculate as to what foul play (if any) took place.

I think it unlikely that a judge in such a high profile case is going to make gross, blatant denials of evidence and legal arguments or that the judge does not understand New York law.   Similarly, (and this is almost humorous), I find it very easy to believe that Trump created false legal documents with the intent to fraudulently secure favorable transactions.   Trump's own excuse where he notes his disclaimer that nobody should just believe his claims and to do their own due diligence is almost comical.

It is possible that this judge is corrupt / incompetent / irresponsibly biased / ....   But we will not know unless we see a legal ruling on this by an appeals court.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.48  evilone  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.46    5 months ago
The issue is that the judge should not be weighing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment. 

If he's wrong it will be overturned on the appeal filed last week. I don't have your confidence it will be overturned.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.50  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.47    5 months ago
I think it unlikely that a judge in such a high profile case is going to make gross, blatant denials of evidence and legal arguments or that the judge does not understand New York law. 

You'd think, or like to believe that to be the case. This is the same guy, who advised his audience that he could overturn a jury decision based on his emotion. The tool he described is a real thing, basing the use thereof on his emotion? He is a jurist, and knows better. To freely speak those words, without correcting himself, is telling. 

Frankly, I don't care what the outcome of the case is. I've already stated that I'm not a fan of the Trump Team's apparent argument. I'll say it again though. Trump argued, on his motion, that the other side had to show a prima facie case in opposition to his motion. The judge, sticking with the law, rightly denied the motion, noting that the submission of evidence in opposition was cause for a trial of the issue. On the State's motion, however, the judge says of Trump's evidence, "In an attempt to rebut this strong showing of fraud..." and proceeds to parse through the evidence submitted in opposition to the State's "strong showing." Clearly weighing the evidence on motion for summary judgment, and placing the burden on Trump to make a prima facie showing. The very thing the judge states is not required to survive a motion for summary judgment, in response to Trump's motion. 

Would anyone be surprised if the numbers were, indeed, fudged on the forms? No. That's the heart of the issue, but unless Trump simply did not put evidence in the record in opposition to the State's motion, the law affords him a trial on the merits, not a trial by brief. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.51  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.47    5 months ago
Trump's own excuse where he notes his disclaimer that nobody should just believe his claims and to do their own due diligence is almost comical.

Yeah, that exchange certainly looks bad. I'll note this though. At the end, he does say that he believed the valuations were good faith valuations. 

As an aside, if they really wanted to get the don, they'd let it all go to trial, and get him on the stand for two days. Can you imagine the testimony he'd give? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.50    5 months ago
This is the same guy, who advised his audience that he could overturn a jury decision based on his emotion.

One word.   Maybe a bad word choice.   I commented on that article and noted that if he had used the word 'judgment' instead, the entire comment he made would make perfect sense.   Might have been poor word choice — he was speaking on the fly rather than writing.   I really doubt a senior judge actually believes it proper to adjudicate based literally on emotions.

Would anyone be surprised if the numbers were, indeed, fudged on the forms?

Of course not.   The judge did find the evidence to be so overwhelming that a jury trial was not necessary.   That is the high bar required for a summary judgment.   So the judge either is mistaken (and will then be publicly embarrassed as this high-profile judgment is overturned) or the evidence really is overwhelming.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.51    5 months ago
Can you imagine the testimony he'd give? 

Not sure we need to imagine.   I think he has been providing previews for weeks now.   jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.54  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.52    5 months ago
One word.   Maybe a bad word choice.

Bad word choice doesn't begin to describe it. Discretion and emotion are vastly different, and he knows it. Even then, a judge's discretion is limited to situations where no reasonable jury could have arrived at its verdict. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.54    5 months ago
Discretion and emotion are vastly different, and he knows it.

That is the whole idea behind bad worse choice.   It makes little sense that a senior judge would actually believe it valid to use one's emotions.   It therefore is reasonable that when speaking, he made a poor real-time choice with a single word.   Use discretion or judgment instead of emotions and everything he said makes sense.

Even then, a judge's discretion is limited to situations where no reasonable jury could have arrived at its verdict. 

Yes, I have been stating that repeatedly.   A summary judgment comes with a high bar.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.56  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.52    5 months ago
The judge did find the evidence to be so overwhelming that a jury trial was not necessary.   That is the high bar required for a summary judgment. 

Ah, but that's the rub isn't it? If the judge found it to be overwhelming, or a "strong showing", as he put it, then he is weighing it. I think he'd have done himself some favors by not parsing through the evidence. And, the following statement isn't a good look either.

The instant motions do not task this Court with determining which appraisals are the most accurate, which would present issues of fact. Rather, time and time again, the Court is not comparing one appraisal to another; it is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a pie-in-the-sky dream of concocted potential.

Yeah, he's totally comparing appraisals here, and taking the matter out of the hands of the trier of fact. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.57  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.55    5 months ago
It therefore is reasonable that when speaking, he made a poor real-time choice with a single word.   Use discretion or judgment instead of emotions and everything he said makes sense.

I like your approach TiG. I tend to be more cynical, though, and believe that a judge would immediately recognize the misstatement and correct, in real time. I watched the video, and he actually backs up in a couple of spots...but not on that one. The last thing any jurist would want to be accused of would be of letting emotion dictate their rulings. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.57    5 months ago
...  believe that a judge would immediately recognize the misstatement and correct, in real time ...

I think that I would have caught myself and made the correction.   But we are all different.   He might have been processing his argument when he uttered emotion.   Dunno.   We cannot know.

The last thing any jurist would want to be accused of would be of letting emotion dictate their rulings. 

That is how I see things too.

Having been around quite a few lawyers in my day, the idea of a judge using emotions runs counter to the very nature of jurisprudence.   Emotions are trained out of lawyers (intent) and critical thinking fills the void.   I would expect this applies even stronger with judges.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.59  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.47    5 months ago

Thank you! I have been away all day and just read this tonight. I will go with your answer as well. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.60  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.46    5 months ago

We're going to need more facts from the case. At least, I will. Because I am having difficulty following your. . . question, or is it a concern. Maybe you can restate in a different way what you are writing about here. Because, maybe I am on a whole other way of looking at this than you. Restate it or we can wait for more information to come out.  Thanks for putting forth the effort. Sorry, I have gotten lost in it (for the time being). 

One more thing. I want Trump to get a fair civil trial. Despite him being a big "Jerk" - Jerks need decent trials just like decent people!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.61  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.50    5 months ago
Would anyone be surprised if the numbers were, indeed, fudged on the forms?

It's a legal document, that's why it is in civil court. Please quantify 'fudging on the Trump forms. Based on the court filing: What amount of numbers are you personally considering "fudgeable"?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.62  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.51    5 months ago
Yeah, that exchange certainly looks bad. I'll note this though. At the end, he does say that he believed the valuations were good faith valuations. 

It also speaks to the mealy-mouth verbiage that Trump is "famous" for now. He never shuts up and ultimately tries to 'hit' all areas of "me-good-legit" because _________  ad nauseam. Trump loads the front and the back of his sentences and paragraphs. It's a bizarre way of speaking and yet people let him get away with it too often.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.63  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.1.57    5 months ago

TR, for the record, you are correct in pointing out that the judge is a "jurist" personality. However, it is equally important to point out that this judge is an active New York Supreme Court Justice too.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.64  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @5.1.60    5 months ago

CB,

There is no other way to state it. The court cannot weigh evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment. Period. The court's response to the states motion should have been the same as the response to Trump's motion. Clearly it wasn't. 

Read the Summary Judgment section, bottom of Page 11 and continuing on page 12. That's the law on motions for summary judgment. (with exception to the rule that the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party) Moving party has to make a prima facie showing, meaning it has to address each and every element of the claim, and support each with admissible evidence. If the moving party makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party. But, unlike the moving party's burden of making out the entire case, the non-moving party simply has to offer evidence to rebut the claim, raising a dispute concerning all or a single element of the claim. 

2nd full paragraph, page 12. From what I have seen, that should have been the response to both motions. It wasn't. The court, instead, is arguing with the evidence submitted by Trump.  

The instant motions do not task this Court with determining which appraisals are the most accurate, which would present issues of fact. Rather, time and time again, the Court is not comparing one appraisal to another; it is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a pie-in-the-sky dream of concocted potential.

That sounds like grandstanding to me. No reason to put that in the order. The judge is also ignoring the first sentence, and has taken the matter out of the hands of the trier of fact, and declared that the evidence submitted by Trump is not evidence. 

The thing missing from the court's order is the rule that all evidence submitted is to be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The court, instead, starts from a standpoint that the State proved liability, and argues with the evidence submitted by Trump. The court dismisses expert opinions, as to values asserted years ago, claiming them to be conclusory. That's not considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bottom line, Trump submitted evidence. As the court noted several times, it is not tasked with determining which side should prevail on the evidence submitted...but proceeds to do just that. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
5.1.65  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @5.1.62    5 months ago
It's a bizarre way of speaking and yet people let him get away with it too often.

I'm not a fan of the condescending tone. Frankly, most in DC think themselves above everyone else. I'd agree that Trump is a little more grating.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.66  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.52    5 months ago
 I really doubt a senior judge actually believes it proper to adjudicate based literally on emotions.

The quote at the beginning of that article was not uttered by the judge. The quote accompanies a social media post by someone claiming he said those words. He did not, at least in the video that the seeder gave me. However, he does make reference to several situations where he has had to make decisions that he found distasteful, but he made them all the same, emotions notwithstanding.  And, he makes the point earlier in the video that jury findings of fact are much stronger and actually states(at 10:35 in the video ):

where all right, everybody has to swear, put in a sworn statement, and let's see, is there a real issue for trial, or is the outcome predetermined?
Finally, there are trials, sort of the most exciting part of the whole business, and there are two types, jury trials and non-jury trials. I once worked for a judge, and he had a non-jury trial. I said that's great, you get to decide the law and the facts.

I don't wanna decide the facts. I want a jury to decide the facts. Oh, okay, and now that I do a lot of non-jury trials, I feel the same way.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @5.1.66    5 months ago
The quote accompanies a social media post by someone claiming he said those words. 

This is a post from another article where I addressed the issue of the judge's use of the word 'emotion':

The judge used the word emotions instead of the word judgment .   I disagree with a judge taking action based on their emotions , but am not against a judge having the right to take actions based on their judgment .   No way to ask the judge if he meant judgment / legal-opinion rather than emotions but we do have more than that one word to consider.   Given he is a judge and recognizes the importance of being an " impartial referee ", it seems likely that he does not believe that judges should operate (literally) on emotion .

Here is the relevant portion of the transcript of the seed video:

Juries get it wrong a lot.  That's my own opinion.  I do only civil trials personal injury cases, contract disputes but I've had situations where like Oh My My Heaven's Sake how could they have thought that?  Well, I have a um I have a tool that I can deal with that it's called jury not withstanding the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  I can say there is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion.  And all right am I following the law or am I making law?  Okay I'm I'm I'm following law I'm I'm an impartial referee but it's hard to factor out my own emotions

Here is the legal tool the judge was referring to:    

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a  judgment by the trial judge after a jury has issued a verdict , setting aside the jury's verdict and entering a judgment in favor of the losing party without a new trial. A JNOV is very similar to a directed verdict except for the timing within a trial. A judge will issue a JNOV if he or she determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the jury’s verdict based on the evidence presented at trial, or if the jury incorrectly applied the law in reaching its verdict. 
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.68  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.67    5 months ago

This judge went on to say that he overruled a jury on two occasions. In one of those cases he was overrruled.

According to the obvious plan, guilty verdicts will be delivered before the election and overturned after the election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.69  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.68    5 months ago
This judge went on to say that he overruled a jury on two occasions. In one of those cases he was overrruled.

Do you find this to be remarkable??

According to the obvious plan, guilty verdicts will be delivered before the election and overturned after the election.

Ahh ... here we go with the conspiracy crap.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.70  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.69    5 months ago
Ahh ... here we go with the conspiracy crap.

I think if Tail gunner Joe were alive today watching all of these trials, he'd be wondering where he went wrong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.71  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.69    5 months ago
Do you find this to be remarkable??

That he was wrong 50% of the time when he overruled a jury?

I find it troubling.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.71    5 months ago
That he was wrong 50% of the time when he overruled a jury?

Okay now this is just a perfect display of intellectual dishonesty.

In his career, you stated that he overruled two juries and in one of those cases his ruling was overturned on appeal.

Yet you spin this into the judge being wrong 50% of the time as if this is a statistically relevant quantification.   As if we are talking about numbers like 50 out of 100 or 500 out of 1000.

That is like someone telling you that Trump is a loser simply because 50% of the time he has run for PotUS, he has lost.

Ridiculous misrepresentation, right?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.73  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.67    5 months ago

I was aware of that post. That is why I looked at the source of the quote and found its proximity to the judges picture disturbing. Thank you for posting it here as well. 

Some people cannot admit they are wrong to the point of twisting themselves into positions which a contortionist would be amazed at.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5    5 months ago

See comment 3 above. "The bank(s) did not rely on financial statements that MS. James believes are a work of fiction. So, how could he be guilty of providing false documents.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2    5 months ago

Is that supposed to be a serious question?

Trump has essentially confessed to inflating the value of his properties in order to get better financing. He admits he is a liar in this regard and all MAGA can do is stand by his side. 

I guess they love liars. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    5 months ago

Is it his fault they didn't want/need/use financial records? Seems they didn't care...............

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.2.3  Thomas  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2    5 months ago

Once again,  it is the filing of the documents that the organization knew to be false that is the crime.  It doesn't matter one bit if any person or business can show harm from the same.  

Think of Hunter Biden and his handgun related application. If he is guilty of lying (fraud) then one must also see how the Trump organization is also guilty.  

Do I expect anyone to accept this sound logic? No. I expect the people on NT who are obviously partisan to keep their fingers in their ears screaming" I can't hear you ".

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.2.4  Thomas  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.2    5 months ago
Is it his fault they didn't want/need/use financial records? Seems they didn't care...............

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @5.2.3    5 months ago
it is the filing of the documents that the organization knew to be false that is the crime.

If it is a crime, just about everyone to ever apply for a loan is guilty. NYC is one of the few places where such BS charges could even be filed.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
5.2.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.5    5 months ago

If it is a crime, just about everyone to ever apply for a loan is guilty.

Wtf are you rambling about?!  The lengths that [Deleted] Trump supporters will go to to defend and [Deleted him is nauseating.]

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.2.7  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.5    5 months ago
If it is a crime, just about everyone to ever apply for a loan is guilty. NYC is one of the few places where such BS charges could even be filed.

Do they do it as a matter of course?  That is systemically and with repetition, over and over? I don't think so. But, if that is the case, why is Hunter Biden being prosecuted on the handgun application? 

Why would anyone for that matter tell the truth on any document?

You do know that when one signs and dates a document one is affirming that information to be as correct as possible, "to the best of one's knowledge"? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Thomas @5.2.7    5 months ago

Trump has been playing this game for 20 or 30 years

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.2.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @5.2.3    5 months ago
Once again,  it is the filing of the documents that the organization knew to be false that is the crime.

It's not a criminal case.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.8    5 months ago
Trump has been playing this game for 20 or 30 years

Quite possibly much longer than that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @5.2.7    5 months ago
I don't think so

 we all doubt it.

Few places have such laws especially when it comes to property assessments, which are more an art than a science.


But, if that is the case, why is Hunter Biden being prosecuted on the handgun application? 

Evidently it is the only crime he committed that doesn't involve his father.


Why would anyone for that matter tell the truth on any document?

People tend to be truthful when they know their statements are checked for accuracy. Seldom when a bank when a bank deems people qualified for a loan and asks questions that benefit consummating the loan.


You do know that when one signs and dates a document one is affirming that information to be as correct as possible, "to the best of one's knowledge"? 

And that is very easy to do when assessing property values.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.2.12  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.9    5 months ago
It's not a criminal case

BFD. 

What do you want to call it? Fraud is Fraud.

In this case it is lying on an official document, in effect making a proclamation of truth in order to obtain something.  The very fact that it is signed is significant.  Probably many of these documents required notarization.  The reason that we go through all of this rigamarole is to make sure that the information contained within the documents is as accurate as possible. 

Trump believes he can bully his way through: "My valuations vary with my eyeshadow " Bullshit. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.2.13  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.11    5 months ago
People tend to be truthful when they know their statements are checked for accuracy. Seldom when a bank when a bank deems people qualified for a loan and asks questions that benefit consummating the loan.

You will have to do better than that, [Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    5 months ago
His problem is that the size of his apartment is a known quantity.

By whom?

You get the same question Thomas got:

 how many people in NYC have been charged with fraud for inflating their income/value on a loan application?


Every word was true. The fact that Letitia James won an election as an AG in NYC goes directly to the devolution of a once great city and what now lives there. If Malcome X were alive today, he most likely would have run for mayor and most likely would have won.


 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3    5 months ago

Keep MAGA racism out of this. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
5.3.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3    5 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.1    5 months ago

Keep progressive racism out of this.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
5.3.4  Hallux  replied to  Hallux @5.3.2    5 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.3.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3    5 months ago
You get the same question Thomas got:

 how many people in NYC have been charged with fraud for inflating their income/value on a loan application?

You know you are never going to get an answer to this. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.3.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.3.5    5 months ago

As soon as I read Post # 5.2.7 I knew the crew here couldn't find any precedent for it.

Nope, there will not be an answer.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.3.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3.6    5 months ago
Do they do it as a matter of course?  That is systemically and with repetition, over and over? I don't think so. But, if that is the case, why is Hunter Biden being prosecuted on the handgun application? 

5.2.7 is just another "they don't matter, but Trruuummmmppppp" answer.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    5 months ago

If a law enforcement person or prosecutor of color makes a case against Trump he knee jerk says it is racism. Sadly, his MAGA cult eats that disgusting nonsense up. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    5 months ago

She is a racist and I'm sure many of the people who voted for her and Chicago's last 2 mayors are racists.

What did we learn from the O J Simpson verdict?   Remember John?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7  Nerm_L    5 months ago

So, New York Democrats are worried that helpless banks and insurance companies could, possibly, have been cheated (but weren't).  And Democrats are going to do everything to protect banks and insurance companies.  Yeah, we know Democrats are money grubbing grifters afraid they'll miss out on a skim.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7.1  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @7    5 months ago

Read the court finding. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Thomas @7.1    5 months ago
Read the court finding. 

The court finding doesn't indicate Trump attempted to defraud the government or the public.  Trump wasn't selling Obamacare or electric vehicles to get his hands on public money.  Trump wasn't inflating housing prices for illegal immigrants, either.  

How could Trump commit fraud while the banks and insurance companies did not?  The banks and insurance companies pleading gullible ignorance won't pass the smell test.  But the courts, DAs, and prosecutors going after banks and insurance companies would hit their own stock portfolios.  Nothing like a little Menendez payola as a side hustle to ensure justice is blind and the out of court settlements are not too large.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.1    5 months ago

That is today's A+ response.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    5 months ago

Where did you all get your law degrees?  trumpu?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    5 months ago

I was born with common sense.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.5  evilone  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.1    5 months ago
The court finding doesn't indicate Trump attempted to defraud the government or the public. 

Intent will be determined during the trial. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @7    5 months ago

So, in other words, whatever I write on a loan application is accepted without the lender ever investigating?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2    5 months ago
So, in other words, whatever I write on a loan application is accepted without the lender ever investigating?

That's the basis of Letitia James civil suit against Trump.  In fact, the banks and insurance companies are so helpless that the state of New York must litigate on their behalf.

Everyone is conveniently ignoring that this is not a criminal case.  Trump has not been indicted for committing a crime.  Letitia James is not prosecuting Trump.  Letitia James is representing a plaintiff and not a victim.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.1    5 months ago

Fraud.  Repeated Fraud.  Fraud.  For many years.  That is the crime.  No one is ignoring anything except you and the defenders of the indefensible.

We know it's not a criminal case.  It's a civil case.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.2    5 months ago

What is a crime?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.2    5 months ago
Fraud.  Repeated Fraud.  Fraud.  For many years.  That is the crime.  No one is ignoring anything except you and the defenders of the indefensible. We know it's not a criminal case.  It's a civil case.

So?  Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in state and Federal courts before he was elected President.    None of these cases disqualified Trump from running for President.

Democrats are only exploiting sensational headlines to influence public opinion and rig another election.  Democrats are employing the dirtiest of dirty politics.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.4    5 months ago

Sheer projection.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.1    5 months ago
In fact, the banks and insurance companies are so helpless that the state of New York must litigate on their behalf.

lol and there it is

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.4    5 months ago

Is it your opinion that Trump has not engaged in fraud?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.8  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.7    5 months ago
Is it your opinion that Trump has not engaged in fraud?

Trump was (is) a New York real estate developer.  So, the answer to your question is 'duh'.  

Is it your opinion that big banks and insurance companies are not complicit in this type of fraud?

Too bad Trump chose a profession that requires fraud.  Trump could has engaged in the honest business of venture capital like Paul Pelosi.  Venture capitalists may scam, skim, swindle, bamboozle, and flimflam but they don't defraud.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.8    5 months ago
Trump was (is) a New York real estate developer.  So, the answer to your question is 'duh'.  

Then you should not be surprised that Trump has been found liable for fraud based on overwhelming evidence.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.10  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.9    5 months ago
Then you should not be surprised that Trump has been found liable for fraud based on overwhelming evidence.

Liable to who?  New York is going to squeeze money out of Trump.  And New York will use that settlement to pay inflated prices to house illegal immigrants.  The citizens of New York will not benefit from this settlement.  And nothing about the civil fraud case against Trump will change the business practices of banks and insurance companies.

Democrats get a headline.  And that's about all.  This won't change public opinion about Trump because the public already knew about Trump.  And Trump is still a better choice than Biden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.10    5 months ago
Liable to who? 

Logically, they committed fraud on each instance where they submitted false legal documents in an attempt to get a favorable transaction.

The citizens of New York will not benefit from this settlement. 

Of course they will.   The Trump organization will no longer be able to engage in fraud in New York.

And nothing about the civil fraud case against Trump will change the business practices of banks and insurance companies.

That was not the intent.

This won't change public opinion about Trump because the public already knew about Trump. 

Much of the public is living in a delusion about Trump.

And Trump is still a better choice than Biden.

Case in point.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.12  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.11    5 months ago
Logically, they committed fraud on each instance where they submitted false legal documents in an attempt to get a favorable transaction.

But that doesn't tell us who was defrauded.  And it doesn't explain the harm done to the public.  Trump inflating values to obtain lower interest rates only works if the loan amount is small compared to the bank's assessed value.  And inflating values for insurance purposes typically increases the cost of the premiums; Trump had to pay extra for the inflated value. 

Maybe the banks and insurance companies haven't complained because they weren't actually defrauded.

Of course they will.   The Trump organization will no longer be able to engage in fraud in New York.

The banks and insurance companies will be allowed to continue the same practices.  The banks and insurance companies seemed happy with their arrangement with Trump.  If they weren't happy with the arrangement then the banks and insurance companies would be the plaintiffs in this civil suit.  

Much of the public is living in a delusion about Trump.

Well, the delusion isn't any different than that of the 'burn it down' left.  The left has based their political planning and strategies on resistance to their 'burn it down' politics.  That's what makes the culture wars effective political weapons.  But now the right is demanding to 'burn it down', too.  And the status quo politics of Reagan/Clinton cannot hold the center any longer.  There isn't a middle to resist 'burn it down' politics any longer.

The global world order of Reagan/Thatcher/Clinton is under attack within western democracies.  This isn't a phenomena limited to the United States.  The left has demanded to 'burn it down' and now everyone has matches.  The delusion is to think there is some way to turn back the clock.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.12    5 months ago

Per the judge, fraud is committed by presenting a false legal document to secure a favorable transaction.

If the judge is correct on the law and the long record of evidence is indeed as stated, then Trump is liable for fraud (large scale even).

You can complain all you wish, but that will not change reality.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.13    5 months ago
Per the judge, fraud is committed by presenting a false legal document to secure a favorable transaction.

If the judge is correct on the law and the long record of evidence is indeed as stated, then Trump is liable for fraud (large scale even).

You can complain all you wish, but that will not change reality.

Per the judge, Trump's exaggerated financial statement was used to obtain lower interest rates on loans and lower premium rates on insurance.  So, the judge is claiming Trump defrauded the banks and insurance companies out of excess profits.  

The state of New York is defending and protecting the banks' and insurance companies' practice of overcharging to get excess profits.  Judge Engoron is upset because the banks and insurance companies did not cheat Trump.

BTW, interest rates and insurance premiums (along with any other financial fees, charges, or costs) are negotiable; they're not set by law.  The exaggerated financial statements may or may not have been a factor. 

And Judge Engoron has unilaterally declared Trump liable (on behalf of banks and insurance companies) without allowing a defense.  There was never a trial so Trump was not allowed to defend himself.  

The case provides proof that the system is rigged.    

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    5 months ago
"Judge Engoron’s Valuation of Mar-a-Lago, the most spectacular property in Palm Beach, Florida, IS FRAUDULENT! He states a value of 18 Million Dollars, knowing full well that it is worth, perhaps, 50 to 100 times that amount.

So, Mar-a-Lago is worth between 900 Million and 1.8 Billion dollars??? From what I’ve read, probably not quite that much. But not 18 million, either. Perhaps something like $300-$500 million.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @8    5 months ago

What does Judge Engoron base his "assessment" on?

Remember Tacos, this is the same judge that so far has forced Trump to sit for a deposition, held him in contempt of court and fined him more than $100,000.

How does Trump draw these judges (this one in particular?)

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    5 months ago
What does Judge Engoron base his "assessment" on?

Usually, somebody submits a report to the judge. In this case, I have no idea. I’m not invested enough to research it.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.2  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    5 months ago
What does Judge Engoron base his "assessment" on?

One of the properties in the ruling is Seven Springs Estate and given non-party as-is appraisals from Royal Bank of Pennsylvania of $25M,  $30M and $700K. The Seven Springs Estates LLC self appraised at $261M and $291M.  You can read this all in the ruling yourself. The judge is quite thorough. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @8.1.2    5 months ago
The judge is quite thorough.

Lol. The word isn't thorough.

And it's my job to plow through 35 pages to find an assessment on one of the properties?

I'll say it again. A property assessment is more an art than a science. The bank offering the loan should have assessed it. Why didn't they?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.1    5 months ago
Usually, somebody submits a report to the judge.

There is another usually coming in this case. It's called proving INTENT to defraud.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.5  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.3    5 months ago
And it's my job to plow through 35 pages to find an assessment on one of the properties?

The answer to your question is found there. IF you don't really want answers why ask the questions?

I'll say it again. A property assessment is more an art than a science.

Being artfully 200 to 400 percent is also fraud.

The bank offering the loan should have assessed it. Why didn't they?

Again read the ruling - it tells you why it's irrelevant - stating the law and legal precedent.  

If you don't think the judge is correct you are free to quote us an actual legal rebuttal other than, "no it's not".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @8.1.5    5 months ago
The answer to your question is found there. IF you don't really want answers why ask the questions?

That is ok. I did want to know if there was a legit basis for his assessment.


Being artfully 200 to 400 percent is also fraud.

I sold a house for $215,000 in 1994. Five years later it was valued at $750,000. RE values are very fluid these days.

Trying to prosecute someone and only a certain someone for an assessment on a loan application is purely political.


stating the law and legal precedent.  

A legal precedent for prosecuting someone for a property assessment?  Is that like all the precedent in Roe V Wade?

This law in NYC is bad law and it gets used here. Kind of like The Espionage Act that basically only got used on Woodrow Wilson's opponents.


 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.7  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.6    5 months ago
Trying to prosecute someone and only a certain someone for an assessment on a loan application is purely political.

Interesting take. We'll see how that holds up on appeal. Considering the last appeal on narrowing the scope of the current trial was denied by a 5 judge panel last Thursday, I'd not want to put bets on either side.

A legal precedent for prosecuting someone for a property assessment? 

You didn't read the ruling did you? The summary was ruled under Executive Law § 63(12) and The People vs Apple Health & Sports Club LTD., Inc. All that IS pertinent was the amount an extreme dishonesty in Trump's company business. For fuck's sake he claimed his apartment was 300% larger than it is. That's not artful that's flat out fraud.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @8.1.7    5 months ago
I'd not want to put bets on either side.

Smart move.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @8.1.5    5 months ago

Oh I have to come right back at you.

I just went through all 35 pages and there is no mention of a Mar-A-Lago assessment.



IF you don't really want answers why ask the questions?

When I ask a question, I want an HONEST answer. You tried to get one by me.

I never forget.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.10  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.9    5 months ago
I just went through all 35 pages and there is no mention of a Mar-A-Lago assessment.

Why would you think Mar-A-Lago has anything to do with NY businesses when it's a FL business? This is a NY State civil court case. Why do you keep bringing in things that have no bearing as if you've found some gotcha idea?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @8.1.10    5 months ago
Why would you think Mar-A-Lago has anything to do with NY businesses when it's a FL business?

To say it is a business is debatable.

First of all, it is a national historic landmark.

It was built by what some might consider the shrewdest businesswoman that ever lived, Marjorie Merriwether Post (her father created Post Cereal). It has sometimes been used as a residence (by Post and Trump.) The name itself is Spanish for "Sea to Lake," because it is a very unique waterfront property, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Intracoastal waterway.

Do you still think that many people would value the property the way this judge did?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.11    5 months ago
To say it is a business is debatable.

People pay to stay at Maralago. 

The Mar-A-Lago Membership Costs  $200,000  and will go through a committee before being accepted. And this is just the initiation cost. Members will also have to pay a membership fee of around $14,000 every year to keep their membership at the club active. Members also have to spend a $2,000 annual minimum on food. https://www.thepricer.org/mar-a-lago-membership-cost/#:~:text=The%20Mar-A-Lago%20Membership%20Costs%20%24200%2C000%20and%20will%20go,to%20spend%20a%20%242%2C000%20annual%20minimum%20on%20food.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.12    5 months ago

Yes John, that is also part of what Mar-A-Lago has become.

Do you still think the judge's estimate is correct?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    5 months ago

Why Trump’s Alleged Real-Estate Shenanigans Went Too Far

You can get away with a lot when appraising property. But not this much.


By Adam Chodorow

Sep 21, 2022 09:20 PM

4 min. read

There’s an old saying that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered—that is, while there’s room for some playing around in the pen, the consequences could be quite severe if you go too far. Former President Donald Trump, his organization, and his three oldest children have just been   accused   some of some very hog-like behavior:   allegedly inflating   the value of his properties and overall net worth to potential lenders and insurers to get preferential interest rates. This is a civil, not criminal,   suit , but New York State Attorney General Letitia James has referred the case to those responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws. Until now—with a few exceptions, like   Trump University —Trump has avoided consequences for a variety of supposed wrongs. But the sheer scope of his allegedly false claims, and the documentary proof contained in James’   complaint , may finally have crossed that line. It should serve as an object lesson for all who are tempted to cheat the system.

Property values are difficult to assess absent a sale. Appraisers are notorious for valuing properties in ways that benefit their clients. Practically speaking, there’s some wiggle room. But at some point, valuations can be so high or low that no reasonable person could believe them to be accurate. On Wednesday, James alleged, and seems to have clear proof, that Trump and his organization routinely increased the value of his properties with no basis in fact to gain a variety of benefits, including both the ability to get loans and to get them with very low interest rates. While Trump might argue that the dispute over the values offered simply reflects a difference of opinion or was done without the intent to deceive, the attorney general has also asserted that Trump and his organization misrepresented cold, hard facts, like the square footage of his own apartment.

As I like to tell my law students, there is always a tax angle, and this case is no exception. As detailed in the complaint, some of the strongest evidence that Trump   intentionally   inflated the value of his properties—and hence his net worth—are found in claims he contemporaneously made for state property tax purposes. Not surprisingly, he gave low valuations to tax authorities, while giving much higher ones to his possible lenders. As the attorney general sees it, either he committed tax fraud by using unreasonably low valuations when dealing with tax authorities, or he committed fraud on his lenders and insurers by using valuations significantly higher than those he reported to the state and federal governments.

And there is some evidence in the complaint that Trump was fully aware of the difficulties of claiming one value for tax purposes and another for financial purposes.  For instance, he apparently took the position that Trump Tower in Chicago was worthless, creating a substantial loss that could lower his tax liability. Not wanting to contradict that claim, he excluded the value of that building from his Statements of Financial Condition, which he provided to lenders. He was apparently less careful with his Las Vegas property, tinkering with assumptions and the discount rate to provide one lower valuation to Clark County, and a much higher one to potential investors and bankers.

Tax issues also come into play with his Trump Seven Springs property in Westchester County, New York. He represented that estate was worth almost $300 million, based on the notion that the property could be developed into a number of $23 million estates, despite the fact that he did not have approval from various towns to do that. At the same time, he was working on creating a conservation easement for the land that would preclude the very development he described in his valuation.

A conservation easement binds current and future owners from developing property, which arguably creates a public benefit and reduces the value of the property in question. To compensate taxpayers for creating such easements, Congress permits them to deduct the value of a conservation easement as a charitable donation. As such, this is one of the few times when a higher valuation is good for tax purposes, because it increases the value of the easement created. According to the complaint, contemporaneous valuations done for tax purposes yielded a number much lower than the almost $300 million asserted in financial documents, and even that smaller number overstated the property’s value, leading to an improperly high tax deduction.

Inflating the value of the property for lenders induces them to make loans they might not otherwise have made and to charge less in interest rates, on the theory that they were taking less risk. As it stands, many of those loans are coming due in the next few years, and it is not clear whether or how Trump and his organization will be able to repay them. Meanwhile, understating the value of property for tax purposes allows Trump to pay less in taxes than he otherwise should, leaving the rest of us to make up the difference in the form of higher taxes or reduced government services.

While the vagaries of valuation create some wiggle room in either direction, submitting radically different valuations for different purposes at the same time falls more on the hog side of the spectrum than the pig one. New York’s civil complaint may only be the beginning. Tax and criminal actions may be in the offing. In this case no one is talking about slaughter, but the defendants could earn a ticket to a different kind of   pen.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 months ago
As I like to tell my law students, there is always a tax angle, and this case is no exception. As detailed in the complaint, some of the strongest evidence that Trump intentionally inflated the value of his properties—and hence his net worth—are found in claims he contemporaneously made for state property tax purposes. Not surprisingly, he gave low valuations to tax authorities, while giving much higher ones to his possible lenders. As the attorney general sees it, either he committed tax fraud by using unreasonably low valuations when dealing with tax authorities, or he committed fraud on his lenders and insurers by using valuations significantly higher than those he reported to the state and federal governments.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    5 months ago

OMG...He is teaching law?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    5 months ago
Not surprisingly, he gave low valuations to tax authorities, while giving much higher ones to his possible lenders. As the attorney general sees it, either he committed tax fraud by using unreasonably low valuations when dealing with tax authorities, or he committed fraud on his lenders and insurers by using valuations significantly higher than those he reported to the state and federal governments.

There is always a difference between the market value of a piece of real estate and the tax appraisal.  Almost always, the tax appraisal value is lower.  The most elementary level explanation of this idea would be individual homeowners.  Almost no homeowner would agree to sell you their house for the value on the tax rolls.  It's generally worth significantly more.

The taxing authorities don't really care what you say your property is worth.  They assess it based on their own formulas.  If you think they are too high, there is an entire industry of people called "property tax consultants" who make their living appearing before tax boards and arguing that buildings are worth less than the taxing authority says they are.  

All of that is a normal part of real estate and not fraudulent in any way.

The question here is the degree of difference. 

If the tax rolls say my home is worth $600k, but I wouldn't sell it for less than $800k, I'm perfectly within legal rights to say to my bank that my home is worth $800k.  I'm also perfectly within my legal rights to argue to the tax board that it's only worth $400k.  Neither of them is going to take my word for it anyway.  It's all part of the negotiations.

All of that is also a normal part of real estate, and not fraudulent in any way.

If I try to say it's worth $800m, then we have a different issue.  Again, nobody is going to take my word for it, so it's very difficult to defraud anybody, but I would certainly be making a dishonest representation.

Trump's real estate holdings differ dramatically from normal properties because they are so high profile, and because they belong to a former US president. That's to be expected.  Barack Obama's house is going to cost you a lot more than it would if it were owned by some nameless investment banker, for the same reasons.

In the case of Mar-a-Lago, it's a truly unique property.  It's undoubtedly worth way more than $18m, but it's probably not worth anything close to "50 or 100 times that".

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.2    5 months ago
In fact, the judge had cited Palm Beach County Property Appraiser valuations putting the property at between $18 million and $28 million, depending on the year, from 2011 to 2021. Trump might think Mar-a-Lago is worth $1.8 billion, but in 2020, his own company said the Palm Beach appraiser was right.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.4  CB  replied to  Kavika @9.1.3    5 months ago
Jack_TX wrote: The question here is the degree of difference. 

Kavika, $18 million to $28 million jumping to 1.8 billion in an attested document is a wild exaggeration. The judge called it out as fraud. The reason/s for the fraud may be pointed out in the appeals process when the time comes and such reasoning could win the day, but it is safe to say for now its decided to be legal FRAUD up the wazoo!

(This is why those individuals who are as stupid as they are evil should take care when signing contracts- lawyers write contracts and they are trained to think about many things when they do!)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @9.1.3    5 months ago

Oh, that's where he got it.

Tell him for me that the true worth of any property is what a buyer is willing to pay.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.5    5 months ago
Tell him for me that the true worth of any property is what a buyer is willing to pay.

Trump's own company agreed with the valuation so it's best that you try to explain that to yourself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @9.1.6    5 months ago

Notice I didn't mention Trump's company. My statement stands by itself.

Why do you think Trump is using the NY trials? They are obviously political. His support is not just growing with Republicans. He is also now beating Biden in open polls.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.7    5 months ago
Notice I didn't mention Trump's company. My statement stands by itself.

I noticed that probably because the company agreed with the valuation, kind of difficult to duck that. 

Why do you think Trump is using the NY trials? They are obviously political.

In your opinion.

His support is not just growing with Republicans. He is also now beating Biden in open polls.

Pretty sad that Trump is the horse that your backing. 

Cheers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @9.1.8    5 months ago
I noticed that probably because the company agreed with the valuation, kind of difficult to duck that. 

The company once agreed with $27 million, not $18 million.  The bank accepted Trump's evaluation. End of story.


In your opinion.

In the opinion of normal adults.


Pretty sad that Trump is the horse that your backing. 

I'm a proud American. I'm proud of everything he has done.


Cheers.

Keep googling.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.9    5 months ago
Pretty sad that Trump is the horse that your backing.  I'm a proud American. I'm proud of everything he has done.

John Kelly was Trump's longest serving chief of staff. Yesterday he confirmed stories previous reporting that on numerous occasions Trump derided American servicemen and women, including that Trump refused to visit a World War I American military cemetery in France .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.10    5 months ago

Proud of that? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.10    5 months ago

Actually, it doesn't. At best it is one man's word vs another's and, in this case, there are many others who say Trump never spoke that way.

"Former national security adviser John Bolton disputed the  main thesis of The Atlantic's recent report  alleging that  President Trump  disparaged fallen American  soldiers  in France, calling the claim "simply false" in an appearance on "The Story" Monday.

"According to what that article said, the president made disparaging remarks about soldiers and people buried in the cemetery in connection with the decision for him not to go to the ceremony that was planned that afternoon, and that was simply false," Bolton said."

John Bolton denies claim Trump disparaged fallen American soldiers in France: 'Simply false' | Fox News

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.12    5 months ago

At least we now know that there was a source to the slander.

John Kelly, you are a scum bag.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.9    5 months ago
The company once agreed with $27 million, not $18 million.  The bank accepted Trump's evaluation. End of story.

As usual, you didn't read the link the property was valued at $18 to $28 million depending on the year. The bank and Trump's company accepted the appraiser's value. 

In the opinion of normal adults.

Another unsupported opinion.

I'm a proud American. I'm proud of everything he has done.

Sadly, I'm sure you are.

Keep googling.

You should try it sometime, it would help with your unsupported responses.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.12    5 months ago

John Bolton was also on the CNN show yesterday where Kelly's statements were discussed. Suffice it say that Bolton had nothing good to say about Trump. He also said he believes John Kelly over Trump, and said he didnt personally hear Trump talk like that in France but Kelly was with Trump in France more than he was. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.13    5 months ago

To you VIc, everyone who says something negative about Trump is lying scum. Meanwhile Trump is suggesting patriotic US generals be executed, and justice system officials are racists and radicals (because they indict him). Your tunnel vision about Trump is amazing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.15    5 months ago

Bolton is not the only one to say he never heard Trump make such statements.

You are far too wrapped up in what Trump says & tweets. I'm concerned with performance.

One more thing: I never seen such hatred and manipulation of the law as I have seen over one man as I am witnessing with Trump. We the people are going to defeat the radical left. Believe me on that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.9    5 months ago
I'm proud of everything he [Trump] has done.

You are proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.17    5 months ago

Do you believe Trump is innocent on all counts in all indictments?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.18    5 months ago

He did a great job as President despite being under a cloud of suspicion/investigations which were in reality a coup attempt by the top echelon of the FBI.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.17    5 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.19    5 months ago

I believe all of this has been carefully coordinated to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.

The two New York cases in particular are purely political.

Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen if Trump won the Presidency in 2024 AND democrats retook the House?  Don't you think there would immediately be a third impeachment? 

You need to look at what has been done to Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.20    5 months ago

You are dodging the question.   I know you like his policies.   You said you were proud of everything Trump did.   In addition to his actions on policies, he engaged in behavior unfitting a PotUS.

So are you proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.24  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.21    5 months ago

John, I could call you an extremist as well, but it really doesn't get us anywhere.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.22    5 months ago
I believe all of this has been carefully coordinated to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.

Again you dodge.   I asked if Trump was innocent.   Are all the charges brought against him without merit?  

The two New York cases in particular are purely political.

Do you believe Trump was innocent in both cases?

What do you think would happen if Trump won the Presidency in 2024 AND democrats retook the House?  Don't you think there would immediately be a third impeachment? 

Of course there will be an impeachment attempt.   And in this case I would support it if they can produce constitutional merits because Trump has proven that he should never be allowed access to the power of the presidency.

You need to look at what has been done to Trump.

You need to open your eyes and recognize that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who is bad for this nation and truly horrible for the GOP.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.22    5 months ago
What do you think would happen if Trump won the Presidency in 2024

Hopefully millions and millions of Americans would take to the streets and demand his immediate resignation. There is no way in hell Trump will be allowed to have a "peaceful" second presidency. He is a traitor, and before "moderate" Republicans vote for him they damn well better think about what his election would do to this country. You think we have chaos now? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.27  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.23    5 months ago

I'm not dodging anything. The lengths that the Trump haters have gone to are incredible. You have been blind to all of it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.27    5 months ago

You are dodging every question I ask you.

Are you proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??

Are all the charges brought against him in all contemporary cases without merit?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.29  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.26    5 months ago
Hopefully millions and millions of Americans would take to the streets and demand his immediate resignation.

You mean an insurrection?


There is no way in hell Trump will be allowed to have a "peaceful" second presidency. 

Perhaps not. He wasn't allowed a peaceful first term.


He is a traitor, and before "moderate" Republicans vote for him they damn well better think about what his election would do to this country. You think we have chaos now? 

I'm ready for it John.  We must go one way or the other.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.28    5 months ago

Take your blinders off TiG.  Trump is being politically persecuted.

It is election interference.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.29    5 months ago

If Trump is put back in office we should have a national strike.  If they can do mass citizen action in Israel and Iran and other places, we can do it here. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.30    5 months ago

They're okay with that..................

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.30    5 months ago

Are you proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??

Are all the charges brought against him in all contemporary cases without merit?  


Clearly you are NOT going to answer my questions.   It is obvious why.   I posted them one last time for the record.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.32    5 months ago

Wrong.   At least for me.  There is always an element of politics.  It is inevitable.   I do NOT approve of partisan-based aggression.

In Trump's case, what he has done is worse than any other PotUS in US history.   You can ignore the merits of his indictments and claim they are all bullshit and merely political, but that would be true partisan blindness.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    5 months ago

See how some are confusing the fuck out of this and bringing Mar-A-Lardo into this when it's in response to HIS FRAUD CASE IN NY

So why does it matter what a judge in Palm Beach says about the former 'president turd's fraud in NY?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.17    5 months ago

The revenge and retribution tour.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.37  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.17    5 months ago

This is surreal.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.38  CB  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.34    5 months ago

It means that MAGA does not care what Trump does as long as he takes the country away from the libs and 'restore' the entirety of the "American Dream" to conservative control. MAGA has been pining away about the loss of the country since liberals and secularists (we're joined at the hip in the political sphere) began to acquire CONTROL over their lives. (It really has not been that long, and conservatives are 'whining and bitchin' to high heaven.)

It is sad to think that anybody who loves freedom can hate their fellow citizens as much as MAGA does. And did you catch it? @9.1.29? MAGA wants this chaos to taek control and certain individuals won't do or say a thing to stop chaos from coming upon the American citizenry (you and me).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 months ago

It's Bull Shit and it will only get more votes for Trump.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.1  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2    5 months ago

The Courts try legal matters. Voting inherently is not a legal matter. So, what is your point for repeating polls, voting power, and campaigns? Please explain it!

BTW, everybody eligible votes! Or we should want everybody eligible to vote. So what is the conservative fascination or delusion that because a person is a liberal or votes for democrats that the simply act of voting alone disqualifies him/her from prosecuting conservatives in a court of law?  PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS ONE AS CLEARLY AS YOU CAN.

Do you really want to imply that liberals should try only liberals and conservatives should only try conservatives? 

What country are we in again? Where do you think we are? Who do you think we are as a country? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @9.2.1    5 months ago
Please explain it!

I'm glad you asked.

democrat voters, in general terms, fall into three categories: 

A) Those who get something from government (sucking off the government tit so to speak) such as: Federal employees, public sector unions, welfare or snap beneficiaries, students looking for loan debt forgiveness and illegal migrants holding drivers' licenses in places like California.

B) Groups who are in various ways, beneficiaries of progressive legislation such as: The pro-abortion mob, the LGBQ mob, the "climate" fanatics and the Teacher's unions.

C) The indoctrinated such as: Minorities how are constantly being told that they are victims, certain College educated people who were dumbed down in college to believe in a Marxist type philosophy, and feeble-minded people who believe the 24/7 spin of the msm.


Republican voters, in general terms, fall into two categories:

A) Conservatives who want to preserve a civilization. (You find many of them in the military.)

B) America First Republicans who are looking for a kind of a Pax Romana for the United States. (You find many at Trump rallies)




What country are we in again? Where do you think we are? Who do you think we are as a country? 

Right now, we are living under a Totalitarian Regime.


Quiz tomorrow.



 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.2    5 months ago
two categories:

 Conservatives who want to preserve a civilization.
America First Republicans who are looking for a kind of a Pax Romana for the United States.

Code language for white Christian nationalists. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.3    5 months ago
Code language for white Christian nationalists. 

People whom you don't seem to like.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
9.2.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.2    5 months ago

That is the most insulting, inaccurate, intellectually dishonest, laughably stupid mischaracterization I’ve seen in a long time.    [removed]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.4    5 months ago
People whom you don't seem to like.

When "white" and "Christian" are the descriptors of nationalism, yes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.2    5 months ago
College educated people who were dumbed down in college to believe in a Marxist type philosophy

Did you attend a college and earn a degree?

I have a master of science degree.   I have quite a bit of experience with universities.   The word 'Marxist' never appeared in any of my courses or texts.   Not once was there a suggestion of replacing capitalism with anti-capitalism (Marxism).  

There are liberal professors in our universities, no doubt about it.   But you seem to have the idea that higher education is necessarily an indoctrination in some wild-assed philosophy (which you wrongly label Marxist).

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.7    5 months ago
you seem to have the idea that higher education is necessarily an indoctrination in some wild-assed philosophy 

People like that need new reading and viewing material. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.2.5    5 months ago

Agreed!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.10  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.2    5 months ago

That comment shows "perpetual" partisan nonsense, and I did not ask you about why you demonize your fellow Americans (without whom this country could not lead the world (we're in this together as "parties"). Again, here are the relevant questions asked:

1.  [Regarding courts]  What is your point for repeating polls, voting power, and campaigns? Please explain it!

2.  What is the conservative fascination or delusion that because a person is a liberal or votes for democrats that the simple act of voting alone disqualifies him/her from prosecuting conservatives in a court of law?  

Please answer if you will without the emotional overflow. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.11  CB  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.7    5 months ago

MAGA conservatives are telling 'us' that (as it was in the 20th century) any attitude or behavior or policy proposal or policy making which decreases the conservative nature of national politics is Marxism or Socialism (of some kind). Immediately, it is hurled to make people afraid, very fearful, of change—any change not supportive by conservatives no matter what it is. BTW, civil rights is called socialism, the social gospel is called socialism, secularism is called socialism. Care about people over ideology- THAT'S SOCIALISM in the conservative/MAGA vocabulary. 

Any attitude or behavior which favors caring about people over in quotes 'emotional-less' TRANSACTING with people we live with all our lives decade after decades is, yep - socialism!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.2.11    5 months ago
attitude or behavior or policy proposal or policy making which decreases the conservative nature of national politics is Marxism or Socialism (of some kind).

Kind of like the default labeling of conservative efforts as racist programs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

The only crime here is malicious prosecution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

"I don't want to know what the law is, I want to know who the judge is."

Roy Cohn

And the judge in this case said:  he had once participated in “huge, sometimes boisterous, Vietnam War protests.” He has described himself as a free-speech absolutist and a member of the American Civil Liberties Union since 1994.

Who is Arthur Engoron, the New York judge taking on Donald Trump? (msn.com)
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    5 months ago

All Trumps judges are either commies or racists.  Since this judge does not appear to be black or brown, he is obviously a commie. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    5 months ago

When you use the word "commies" you are intentionally downplaying real concerns about Marxism. We do have Marxists in our society. The founders of BLM proudly proclaimed that they were MARXISTS. Many teaching in the university have done the same. Remember the Red Scare. There was a reason for that. The secrets of the Atomic Bomb were stolen or given away.  The old people I know that use the word "commies" are progressives trying to downplay a valid point.

As for racist, people on the left have called just about EVERYBODY that. So, none of you can really point fingers.

 James did get elected by promising to "get Trump."

NOBODY CAN DENY IT.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.1    5 months ago

It is undeniable that Trump attacks every single judge in all his various cases as a defendant. Usually he says they are racist or a "radical leftist". 

Leaving aside the absurdity of this -  oh wait a minute we cant leave aside the absurdity of this. 

You express so much devotion to Trump he should give you a position in his imaginary next administration. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.2    5 months ago
You express so much devotion to Trump he should give you a position in his imaginary next administration. 

I want the position in his next administration of draining the swamp.

I'll clean out the DOJ on day 1.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.3    5 months ago

LOL

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1.4    5 months ago

And I'd seek to prosecute Merrick Garland.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.5    5 months ago

Same answer.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1.6    5 months ago

Same shit?

We've come to expect it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @11.1.6    5 months ago

The revenge & retribution tour . . .

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.1.9  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.7    5 months ago

I believe I have posted 'LOL' twice in my 2 years here ... I guess that is the "same shit"! Can't wait to see your response when I post my first emoji ... (never going to happen).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1.9    5 months ago

It's only been two years?

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.1.11  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.10    5 months ago

All of 750 +/- Tuesdays.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1.11    5 months ago

Use this day to familiarize yourself with what a show trial looks like:

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.13  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.12    5 months ago

Something is really wrong with MAGA, I mean a brief relaxation of court rules to allow for A camera in the court room and a judge removes his READING GLASS causes MAGA to remark on a 'GOTCHA" - damn MAGA that's petty!

How petty does MAGA have to be to expect people not to remove their READING GLASSES in a photo? I mean, it happens every day somewhere on the planet that people in the news do NOT get photographed in relatively cheat READING glasses. Besides that, reading glasses are for READING-not for focusing on distant objects like cameras in the court room or people holding them!

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.1.14  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.12    5 months ago

I don't see Jim Jordan.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    5 months ago
"I don't want to know what the law is, I want to know who the judge is."

Had I became a lawyer and defended the likes of Fat Tony, Galante and Galotti, I would have said the same thing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.2    5 months ago

Don't forget he put the Rosenbergs in the electric chair as a prosecutor. Those were his early days. Joe McCarthy wanted democrat Bobby Kennedy as lead Counsel and Roy wanted that job. He asked Joe how it would look if two Irishmen went after a bunch of Communist Jews. He told Joe that only a Jew could pull it off. And within no time Roy had the job.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
11.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.1    5 months ago

You made him look so much better ... /s

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @11.2    5 months ago

Cohn was a real scumbag, no wonder he and the former 'president' were such good friends.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    5 months ago

Oh my, the spin machine has engaged on behalf of Trump. Trump can't get proper justice and its stunted his growth and development in this country.  Trump is like a tired, old, kid who never grew up to understand what other people go through because he had other grown folks standing in for him. 

Just look at this 'spin machine' Go!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @11.3    5 months ago

Is it like pulling a fire alarm?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

Trump is now blasting him & James again.

This judge is a disgrace.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    5 months ago
This judge is a disgrace.

This JUDGE is a disgrace ?  LOL.  In five minutes I could compile a hundred disgraceful things about Trump but we should focus on the judge in his cases?  This is unintentional comedy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1    5 months ago

So is the AG and many others who were elected to important positions. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13  JohnRussell    5 months ago

TV says Trump's lawyers used arguments today that the judge has already thrown out. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @13    5 months ago

That seems to have changed.  Read post 15

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14  JohnRussell    5 months ago

During lunch break today Trump once again told reporters that the AG is a "racist". 

Why in hell don't one of these "reporters" ask him just exactly what he means by that?  But they dont. Pitiful. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

UPDATE: 


Donald Trump is leaving the courthouse and he said the Judge indicated that the statue of limitations has run out on most of this case.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
15.1  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    5 months ago

Oh, man this is going to piss off some of the leftists on here.

They believe that statute of limitations are only allowed to go out on their own...especially if the name is Biden.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bugsy @15.1    5 months ago

Isn't it the truth!

Well, at least they'll be trying to find out what the judge said tonight.

The judge can relax a bit. Trump said he's not so rotten after all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    5 months ago

and you believed it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15.2    5 months ago

Can you tell us what the Judge said?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.1    5 months ago

Can you?

The only one talking now is the turd former 'president', not the judge

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15.2.2    5 months ago
Can you?

Now, now!  I asked you first.


 not the judge

You don't know what the judge said.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @15.2.2    5 months ago

He's ranting on and on about something from Palm Beach.  Three hours ago.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15.2.4    5 months ago
He's ranting on and on about something from Palm Beach.  Three hours ago.

I thought he just left a NYC courthouse.

Maybe he is omnificent!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.3    5 months ago

Neither do you obviously.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.5    5 months ago

Maybe that was his 8 minute delusional rant at lunch.  He's always got diarrhea of the mouth of how he is the victiim.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.5    5 months ago

The rant is something the turd said was coming from Palm Beach, not the judge presiding over this case.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.3    5 months ago

You obviously never knew either - has the judge agreed with the former 'president turd' statements?  What did the judge say?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15.2.9    5 months ago
What did the judge say?

It is easy to find. Here:

The Manhattan judge deciding the  $250 million civil fraud case  against Donald Trump on Tuesday clarified comments he made about the statute of limitations that the former president had hailed as a win.

Trump, appearing jovial as he left Manhattan Supreme Court on Monday afternoon, proclaimed that Justice Arthur Engoron had agreed that “80 percent” of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit was thrown out due to the statute of limitations.

“The last five minutes was outstanding because the judge essentially conceded that the statute of limitations, that we won at the court of appeals, is in effect,” Trump, 77,  said to reporters as he left  court on the first day of trial. “Therefore about 80% of the case is over.”

Engoron had suggested the day prior that testimony from Donald Bender, Trump’s former accountant, about the ex-president’s 2011 financial statements might be time-barred — meaning having taken place before the time period where claims could be brought.

Judge pushes back on Trump's 'statute of limitations' claim at $250M civil fraud trial (nypost.com)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.2.11  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.10    5 months ago

MAGA can't be trusted to give proper context in 'reporting' - Watch out!  Here is what. . . "MAGA" left out of the NYPost.com article (deliberately):

Engoron had suggested the day prior that testimony from Donald Bender, Trump’s former accountant, about the ex-president’s 2011 financial statements might be time-barred — meaning having taken place before the time period where claims could be brought.

The AG claims in her lawsuit that from 2011 through 2021, Trump lied on his statements of financial condition, exaggerating his net worth to get better loan and insurance terms.

NYPICHPDPICT000055014435.jpg?w=1024
Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron cleared up comments that Donald Trump took as a partial win in the $250 million civil fraud case he faces.
Steven Hirsch

An appeals court in June  ruled that the statute of limitations  in the case is set at 2014.

While claims relating to alleged conduct from before 2014 can’t come into the case, Engoron set the record straight Tuesday — saying that evidence from before that time could still be used to help prove newer claims.

MAGA can't be trusted in any shape, form, or fashion. Don't trust a damn thing any of them say! Read for yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.10    5 months ago

None of that is true - the judge said he rules on evidence, not claims  - so the former 'president' lied as usual, about everything - you left out the part that I included, how convenient!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  CB @15.2.11    5 months ago

That's perfect thanks CB!  I didn't have a chance to look it up but you provided it - I got it backwards in my comment.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.2.14  CB  replied to  Tessylo @15.2.13    5 months ago

:)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    5 months ago

Someone from Palm Beach said that - not the judge.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    5 months ago
the Judge indicated that the statue of limitations has run out on most of this case.

and you believe him ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @15.4    5 months ago

An appeals court ruled that the statute of limitations have run out on all the charges before 2014.

Evidently the Judge agreed. However, the judge is going to explain it in the morning.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.4.1    5 months ago

So, when will we hear what the judge had to say, regarding agreeing with the turd?  You've never said?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
15.4.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @15.4.2    5 months ago

" Trump’s legal spokesperson stated, “Based on the judge’s comments at the end of the trial today, it would appear that he is agreeing that all the transactions that closed prior to 2014 are now out of the case.”

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
15.4.4  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @15.4.3    5 months ago

Trump's legal spokesperson wasn't entirely truthful in their assessment - 

While claims relating to alleged conduct from before 2014 can’t come into the case, Engoron set the record straight Tuesday — saying that evidence from before that time could still be used to help prove newer claims. 

“If you were here for yesterday’s excitement, welcome back,” Engoron said as Trump looked on.

“As I stated yesterday, the statute of limitations bars claims, not evidence.”

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @15.4.3    5 months ago

You and vic are both wrong, as usual, see CB's comment at 15.2.10 for the COMPLETE and TRUTHFUL AND IN CONTEXT remarks that the judge made.

 [removed]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
15.4.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @15.4.5    5 months ago

You are wrong. No one said the evidence couldn't be used. The evidence may be used but the charges cannot live and will be dropped. And 15.2.10 is Vic's comment. Suggest you slow down when attempting to post a gotcha so you don't make mistakes. I know how you hate being wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    5 months ago

A judge in Palm Beach which has nothing to do with this judge in NY or the fraud in NY

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
15.5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @15.5    5 months ago

I am sure he/she is privy to the dates of said crimes. That being said, what has Mar-A Lago have to do with the fraud in NY? Ask the judge in NY who is using it as part of his rationale..........or lack thereof.

A New York judge ruled last week that former President Donald Trump inflated the value of his Mar-a-Lago estate by an eye-popping 2,300%.

That finding, part of   shocking ruling that found Trump and his adult sons liable for fraud,   was just one of multiple examples in which Judge Arthur Engoron found the Trump real estate empire to have been grossly inflated in value.

But the Mar-a-Lago finding in particular is raising eyebrows among real estate and legal experts because of the metric Judge Engoron relied on: the county tax assessor’s appraisal value.

“From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a-Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million,” Engoron wrote in   his ruling .

The judge noted Trump valued Mar-a-Lago at between $426.5 million and $612 million, “an overvaluation of at least 2,300%, compared to the assessor’s appraisal.”

But it’s widely known that the tax assessor valuation is typically, though not always , less than what a property would command on the open market.

In other words, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH