Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Found Liable For Real Estate Fraud; Business Certificates Dissolved

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JimL View Post

    The judge in the case is well versed in the law, probably even more so than you, MM and Sparko. Trump defenders are. And you can be sure that if your arguments in defense of Trump had any validity to them, then Trumps lawyers would have used them in his defense. You can also be sure that the prosecutor would have taken all and any arguments Trump could have put forth in his defense to account before deciding to prosecute.
    Likely true. But a valuation of Mar-a-largo at $18,000,000 seems awfully low given the size of the property and its location. It raises even my eyebrows a bit.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sam View Post

      This is addressed in the ruling:

      Source: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028

      Defendants assert that overvaluations of two hundred million dollars are immaterial, as the "NY AG has produced no evidence to suggest. . . that Ladder Capital would have been uncomfortable allowing President Trump to guarantee the 40 Wall Street Loan if his net worth was only $1.9 billion, as the NY AG contends." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 48. They further emphasize that "Ladder Capital has received in excess of $40 million in interest and 40 Wall Street LLC has never defaulted under the Loan."20 Id.

      Defendants' argument misses the mark. As has been explained to defendants many times, in many legal proceedings, and in painstaking detail, "where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity [under Executive Law 63(1 2)], disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution." Ernst & Young at 569 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is not significant that the banks made money ( or did not lose money )21 , or that they would have done business with the Trump Organization notwithstanding. The law is clear that the only requirements for liability to attach under a standalone Executive Law 63( 12) cause of action are (I) a finding that the SFCs were false and misleading; and (2) that defendants repeatedly or persistently used the SFCs to conduct business.

      20 The defendant borrowers did not default on any loans; but we only know that with hindsight. Markets are volatile, and borrowers come in all shapes and sizes. The next borrower, or the one after that, might default, and if its SFCs are false, the lender might unfairly be left holding the bag. This will distort the lending marketplace and deprive other potential borrowers of the opportunity to obtain loans and create wealth.

      21 The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principal of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did.

      © Copyright Original Source



      The Trumps' fraud was a good con for bank executives willing to lend, too. As some folks have remarked, over-valued loans get good bonuses. If the loan defaults and the assets aren't equitable, it's not the executives who pay out, it's the shareholders.

      And fraud is fraud: c'mon, people, it fills the eighth circle of Hell.

      blakepitdiseasefalsifiers.jpg

      -Sam
      Thx
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post

        Not to mention that the bank got its money back since Trump paid the loan back on time. I ask those with TDS Who lost anything and what was the fraud? *From what I see no one lost anything Since Trump paid off the loan and the bank was satisfied with the value Trump estimated because they did not do their own evaluation of the property as Trump through his lawyers suggested so there was no fraud, only judicial overreach by a corrupt judge who wants to interfere with the election.




        *For those of you who seem to not know the difference between someone stating their opinion and bringing up facts This is My Opinion.
        The law in question doesn't require a loss to have occurred for someone to be guilty of the fraud.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          Likely true. But a valuation of Mar-a-largo at $18,000,000 seems awfully low given the size of the property and its location. It raises even my eyebrows a bit.
          Mar-a-Lago was valued by the Palm Beach Assessor's office "at between $18 million and $27.6 million" between 2011 and 2021, according to the ruling (Ibid., pg. 26/35). The higher number reflects the later date and Trump, in 2020, did not contest the appraisal (actually, he appealed the appraisal but then withdrew his appeal).

          The Trumps argued that the value was much higher (by >2000%) because the property could maybe be sold as a private residence. But Mar-a-Lago, while under Trump's ownership, cannot be used as such (he waived any right to convert it back from a social club) and the valuation must reflect the current worth of the property, not some possible future worth.

          -Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

            You've apparently never owned a home. A person can sell their home for any price they want. The reason Trump's lawyers lost is because the NYC machine is corrupt and is capable of railroading people.
            Of course, it isn't Trump that's corrupt, it's everybody else. NYC is corrupt, the judges are all corrupt, the prosecutors are all corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt, all the witnesses are corrupt, the media, the journalists are all corrupt, the the attorney generals are corrupt, the secretary's of state are corrupt, anyone who stands up to his corruption is corrupt, everybody is corrupt. Except for Trump of course. LOL !!

            The only ones being railroaded are you Trumpsters and really, its an embarrassment to watch. The most corrupt person probably to ever appear in U.S. politics and he's got you all bamboozled. It really is an embarrassment to the country.
            Last edited by JimL; 09-27-2023, 09:49 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              At no point have I said Trump was not guilty,
              Nor do you need to in order to have made my case.

              though banks quite logically would do their own loan assessments. If the banks did not agree to Trump's valuation, they wouldn't have agreed to the loans. If the banks felt themselves defrauded, why would they stay silent? The would have taken Trump to court long ago.

              If there's no complaint of fraud, there's no case.
              Not under the law in question.

              Do you deny running on the campaign promise to target Trump creates a target of interest?
              No moreso than Trump running on 'Lock her up'. In any case that's not relevant as the AG did not make the decision, a judge did.

              It's strange to see a libertarian support overreach by the State.
              That's because it's not overreach by the State, it's the individual state upholding its law.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sam View Post

                This is addressed in the ruling:

                Source: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028

                Defendants assert that overvaluations of two hundred million dollars are immaterial, as the "NY AG has produced no evidence to suggest. . . that Ladder Capital would have been uncomfortable allowing President Trump to guarantee the 40 Wall Street Loan if his net worth was only $1.9 billion, as the NY AG contends." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 48. They further emphasize that "Ladder Capital has received in excess of $40 million in interest and 40 Wall Street LLC has never defaulted under the Loan."20 Id.

                Defendants' argument misses the mark. As has been explained to defendants many times, in many legal proceedings, and in painstaking detail, "where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity [under Executive Law 63(1 2)], disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution." Ernst & Young at 569 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is not significant that the banks made money ( or did not lose money )21 , or that they would have done business with the Trump Organization notwithstanding. The law is clear that the only requirements for liability to attach under a standalone Executive Law 63( 12) cause of action are (I) a finding that the SFCs were false and misleading; and (2) that defendants repeatedly or persistently used the SFCs to conduct business.

                20 The defendant borrowers did not default on any loans; but we only know that with hindsight. Markets are volatile, and borrowers come in all shapes and sizes. The next borrower, or the one after that, might default, and if its SFCs are false, the lender might unfairly be left holding the bag. This will distort the lending marketplace and deprive other potential borrowers of the opportunity to obtain loans and create wealth.

                21 The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principal of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did.

                © Copyright Original Source



                The Trumps' fraud was a good con for bank executives willing to lend, too. As some folks have remarked, over-valued loans get good bonuses. If the loan defaults and the assets aren't equitable, it's not the executives who pay out, it's the shareholders.

                And fraud is fraud: c'mon, people, it fills the eighth circle of Hell.

                blakepitdiseasefalsifiers.jpg

                -Sam
                As Diogenes pointed out the bank did not have to accept the Trumps valuation they could have done one of their own so no fraud. and you are wrong about the share holders losing money it is the bank not the shareholders that pays if the loan is not paid off but that is a moot point since Trump did not default on the loan so the shareholders would not have lost anything any way.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post

                  As Diogenes pointed out the bank did not have to accept the Trumps valuation they could have done one of their own so no fraud. and you are wrong about the share holders losing money it is the bank not the shareholders that pays if the loan is not paid off but that is a moot point since Trump did not default on the loan so the shareholders would not have lost anything any way.
                  As others have said and as explained in the ruling at issue, whether banks could or did perform their own valuations is wholly irrelevant under the law, as is the question of repayment. And if the banks lose enough money (because if Trump can commit fraud, anyone can commit fraud), the bank goes under and its own valuation goes from $X to $0, making its shares worthless. Naturally, that would constitute a loss to any given shareholder.

                  Arguing that the law doesn't matter because the bad outcome didn't even happen this time is fondly called the "Bob Terwilliger Defense"



                  -Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post

                    Of course, it isn't Trump that's corrupt, it's everybody else. NYC is corrupt, the judges are all corrupt, the prosecutors are all corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt, all the witnesses are corrupt, the media, the journalists are all corrupt, the the attorney generals are corrupt, the secretary's of state are corrupt, anyone who stands up to his corruption is corrupt, everybody is corrupt. Except for Trump of course. LOL !!
                    I suspect Trump is corrupt too, but not in this instance. They're throwing everything and anything they can find against the wall to see what sticks. This is scary banana-republic stuff. I'm sure Cuba and Venezuela are very proud.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      Arguing that the law doesn't matter because the bad outcome didn't even happen this time is fondly called the "Bob Terwilliger Defense"
                      I think that's called a "victimless crime."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post

                        This is addressed in the ruling:

                        Source: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028

                        Defendants assert that overvaluations of two hundred million dollars are immaterial, as the "NY AG has produced no evidence to suggest. . . that Ladder Capital would have been uncomfortable allowing President Trump to guarantee the 40 Wall Street Loan if his net worth was only $1.9 billion, as the NY AG contends." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 48. They further emphasize that "Ladder Capital has received in excess of $40 million in interest and 40 Wall Street LLC has never defaulted under the Loan."20 Id.

                        Defendants' argument misses the mark. As has been explained to defendants many times, in many legal proceedings, and in painstaking detail, "where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity [under Executive Law 63(1 2)], disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution." Ernst & Young at 569 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is not significant that the banks made money ( or did not lose money )21 , or that they would have done business with the Trump Organization notwithstanding. The law is clear that the only requirements for liability to attach under a standalone Executive Law 63( 12) cause of action are (I) a finding that the SFCs were false and misleading; and (2) that defendants repeatedly or persistently used the SFCs to conduct business.

                        20 The defendant borrowers did not default on any loans; but we only know that with hindsight. Markets are volatile, and borrowers come in all shapes and sizes. The next borrower, or the one after that, might default, and if its SFCs are false, the lender might unfairly be left holding the bag. This will distort the lending marketplace and deprive other potential borrowers of the opportunity to obtain loans and create wealth.

                        21 The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principal of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        The Trumps' fraud was a good con for bank executives willing to lend, too. As some folks have remarked, over-valued loans get good bonuses. If the loan defaults and the assets aren't equitable, it's not the executives who pay out, it's the shareholders.

                        And fraud is fraud: c'mon, people, it fills the eighth circle of Hell.

                        -Sam
                        Except the banks themselves say they were not misled. Therefore, no fraud.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          I think that's called a "victimless crime."
                          A victimless crime is where another party can't be materially harmed by a violation of the law (e.g., destroying a penny by placing it on a railroad track). You maybe didn't kill anyone this time by rocketing through the school zone at 135 MPH but we don't consider that a victimless crime, nor could you successfully contest it as such.

                          The judge's ruling provides a clear explanation of the black-letter law and why even a potential harm provides adequate rationale for it being the way it is. A person can argue with that ... but they have to actually address the points made by the ruling if they want to go about it earnestly.

                          -Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                            I think that's called a "victimless crime."
                            I'm thinking you need to think about what you are pushing for here. After all, one kid lifting one shirt out of a department store is no big deal right? Or one fellow running a red light. No big deal as long as no-one is hit right? Or hey, what's the big deal if I write a couple of bad checks. As long as I pay the guys eventually - right?

                            But the Laws against stealing etc are not based on what happens when one kid streals one shirt. Or one person runs a red light and No-one else Is there. Or one person writes a few small dollar checks he can't cash.

                            The laws are based on the consequences when a large portion of the population breaks them. And they are enforced to keep the number of people breaking them low, and to make sure when people ARE hurt, restitution is made.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                              I think that's called a "victimless crime."
                              So the gangbanger that pulls a gun out and shoots into a crowd but doesn't hit anyone should be free because that was a 'victimless crime', right?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                He's going to hurt himself a lot more with the stuff that comes out of his mouth -- "heartbeat bills" are "terrible" things -- and keypad -- his anti-1A promise to "investigate" NBC. On the former, I believe Lila Rose already said Pro-Life voter can no longer support him. Her saying that might have played a part in his remarks about Pro-Life organizations caring more about money than babies.

                                We knew or suspected he was a shady businessman back in 2016. We took a chance and voted for him on his Pro-Life and Pro-Bill-of-Rights promises. If we get the idea he'll govern differently if reelected, he'll lose support.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 12:51 PM
                                8 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:29 AM
                                6 responses
                                77 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, 02-20-2024, 06:18 PM
                                12 responses
                                94 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Diogenes  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 02-20-2024, 02:55 PM
                                12 responses
                                92 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Working...
                                X