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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    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.
    You "suspect" he's corrupt, do you? I suspect you "know" he is corrupt but don't really care. So instead you have to tell yourself that everybody else is corrupt, that this is a banana republic, that everybody else (which you call "they") must be corrupt.
    You know what the scary thing is, the scary thing is that there are so many otherwise intelligent people that can be so completely bamboozled by such an obvious con man to the point where you say "I suspect he's corrupt", but I still support him!

    Comment


    • #47
      Soooooo.....what was the fraud exactly? That he said his properties were worth a gazillion dollars? Now, he is uber wealthy, and could have been in a position to influence underwriters for loans, but as it has been pointed out already, simply stating that your own property is worth way more than market value is not fraud. Who and how did he defraud anyone exactly? Everyone thinks there own property is worth way more than it is...and it is...to them. It's called value in use.

      Was Trump a member of a board at some bank where he wielded his influence over loan regulations or something?

      Simply saying my house is worth a million dollars when comparable sales only reflect $250K isn't fraud. There has to be more to the story than this.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sam View Post

        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
        Well, the "crime" part didn't even occur since this wasn't criminal court. And since this was civil court, it basically demands an injured party - which is the whole point of the court.

        To begin a civil lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and “serves” a copy of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff’s damages or injury, explains how the defendant caused the harm, shows that the court has jurisdiction, and asks the court to order relief. A plaintiff may seek money to compensate for the damages, or may ask the court to order the defendant to stop the conduct that is causing the harm. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff in a particular situation.

        https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...es/civil-cases

        So since there was no criminal prosecution and no injured party, this was a monkey trial. No matter how much you hate Trump, twisting the purpose of our courts just to punish a person sets a really, really bad precedent.

        Who's next?
        Last edited by Ronson; 09-28-2023, 08:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Machinist View Post
          Soooooo.....what was the fraud exactly? That he said his properties were worth a gazillion dollars? Now, he is uber wealthy, and could have been in a position to influence underwriters for loans, but as it has been pointed out already, simply stating that your own property is worth way more than market value is not fraud. Who and how did he defraud anyone exactly? Everyone thinks there own property is worth way more than it is...and it is...to them. It's called value in use.

          Was Trump a member of a board at some bank where he wielded his influence over loan regulations or something?

          Simply saying my house is worth a million dollars when comparable sales only reflect $250K isn't fraud. There has to be more to the story than this.
          It helps to read the thread. And the Judge's decision

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            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?
            That's shoplifting. That's a criminal offense.

            Or one fellow running a red light. No big deal as long as no-one is hit right?
            That depends on the details. What if there was obviously no one else at the intersection? The light is broken - are you going to wait forever?

            Or hey, what's the big deal if I write a couple of bad checks. As long as I pay the guys eventually - right?
            If the person who received the bad checks says he was hurt, he can sue.

            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.
            Again, I think you are focused on criminal court.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

              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?
              He should be prosecuted. Someone in the crowd who didn't get hit would have a lousy civil case. Actually, none - but this country's justice system is broken.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                Nor do you need to in order to have made my case.
                A judge whimsically deciding the valuation of a property does not entail "flagrant fraud" on Trump's part. Nor am I "completely unbothered". I'm more bothered by Democrats' so called "lawfare" in general that goes back to Carter Page. We've had OMB narratives since Trump announced his candidacy for the 2016 election.


                Not under the law in question.
                Fee free to cite the portion of the New York code Trump is alleged to have violated.

                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.
                The president does not have the power to bring charges against individuals.

                That's because it's not overreach by the State, it's the individual state upholding its law.
                I'll wait for a code citation.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                  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?


                  Recklessly endangering people is not a "victimless crimes". You're quite desperate to equate Trump's alleged actions to shooting into a crowd.
                  P1) If , then I win.

                  P2)

                  C) I win.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    It shows quite a difference between the two sides. If Biden had been found guilty in something like this, the party would have dropped him immediately. The Dem voters would never be willing to vote for a criminal candidate.

                    The Republican voters on the other hand seem to love the criminality. They just psychotically reinterpret it as persecution of their cult leader.

                    Well, okay. Tells me a lot.
                    I guess we will find out when Biden is charged with influence peddling and taking bribes. Will the democrats defend him or dump him?


                    With respect to Trump. the Democrats have a history of using fake information to try to impeach him (like the Steele Dossier). At this point their accusations are basically treated like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling. If they had just stuck with one true accusation and followed through maybe we would have accepted it. But they started with a lie, and now they are dog-piling him with lawsuit after lawsuit, on mostly nonsense and more lies, and they expect his supporters to "drop him?" - it just angers them.
                    Last edited by Sparko; 09-28-2023, 08:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      He should be prosecuted. Someone in the crowd who didn't get hit would have a lousy civil case. Actually, none - but this country's justice system is broken.
                      Why should he be prosecuted? It was a "victimless crime" by your standards

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        Well, the "crime" part didn't even occur since this wasn't criminal court. And since this was civil court, it basically demands an injured party - which is the whole point of the court.

                        To begin a civil lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and “serves” a copy of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff’s damages or injury, explains how the defendant caused the harm, shows that the court has jurisdiction, and asks the court to order relief. A plaintiff may seek money to compensate for the damages, or may ask the court to order the defendant to stop the conduct that is causing the harm. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff in a particular situation.

                        https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...es/civil-cases

                        So since there was no criminal prosecution and no injured party, this was a monkey trial. No matter how much you hate Trump, twisting the purpose of our courts just to punish a person sets a really, really bad precedent.

                        Who's next?
                        I wrote:

                        Originally posted by Sam
                        Arguing that the law doesn't matter because the bad outcome didn't even happen this time is fondly called the "Bob Terwilliger Defense"
                        To which you responded:

                        Originally posted by Ronson
                        I think that's called a "victimless crime."
                        And now you're trying to use my response explaining why this wasn't a "victimless crime" to hinge my argument on the existence of a criminal proceeding? You introduced the word "crime".

                        Trump was found liable for rape in a civil trial; there doesn't have to be a criminal proceeding to determine, as a factual matter, whether wrongdoing occurred.

                        The "injured party" is the state of New York. That's what the "People of the State of New York" means in the plaintiff section. The Trumps' fraudulent behavior poses a significant risk to the New York economy and other businesses.

                        You're not making a serious argument for Trump's lack of culpability; you're not reading, processing, and responding to the ruling, even when the relevant morsels are hand-picked out and laid before you. You are arguing points of law that are not only wrong but are explicitly refuted multiple times in the primary document you should have read by now.

                        Here is another morsel; it would be appropriate to respond to the law instead of repeating the incorrect argument "No victims, no case".

                        Source: Ibid., pg. 3

                        Executive Law § 63( 12)

                        Executive Law § 63( 12) provides, as here pertinent, as follows: Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.

                        ...

                        Parens Patriae and Consumer Ambit

                        Defendants repeat the erroneous argument that the complaint must be dismissed because OAG cannot demonstrate the requirements of a parens patriae action, which is one in the public interest. "Parens patriae is a common-law standing doctrine that permits the state to commence an action to protect a public interest, like the safety, health or welfare of its citizens." People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 72 at n 4 (2008). Invocation of such doctrine, or its requirements, is not necessary where, as here, the New York legislature has specifically empowered the Attorney General to bring such an action pursuant to Executive Law§ 63(12). People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 31 NY3d 622, 633 (2018) ("it is undisputed that Executive Law § 63(12) gives the Attorney General standing to redress liabilities recognized elsewhere in the law, expanding the scope of available remedies"); People v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 137 AD3d 409,417 (1st Dept 2016) ("[E]ven apart from prevailing authority, the language of the statute itself appears to authorize a cause of action; like similar statutes that authorize causes of action, § 63(12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek"). In any event, even if compliance with the requirements of the parens patriae doctrine is necessary, which it is not, OAG has easily satisfied those requirements, as it is well-settled that "[i]n varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace."

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        You would all do much better to argue that the law itself is wrong from some philosophical grounds rather than argue that the law is being wrongly applied to target Trump. The first argument is simply a matter of personal disagreement. The second argument makes a person look unscrupulous or illiterate.

                        -Sam
                        Last edited by Sam; 09-28-2023, 08:43 AM.
                        "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


                        • #57
                          Earlier this year, Forbes estimated the property is worth a more generous $325 million, after reviewing its financial history and consulting eight real estate experts.


                          I'll take Forbes' valuation over a New York judge any day of the week. The judge may be going by the tax valuation which is not the same as a market valuation. The infamy and general notoriety of Trump would inflate the property value on the open market.

                          Apparently Trump is so bad to Dems that they are willing to nuke judicial credibility (as they've already been doing with Trump's SXOTUS appointees) in order to get Trump.
                          P1) If , then I win.

                          P2)

                          C) I win.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post



                            Recklessly endangering people is not a "victimless crimes". You're quite desperate to equate Trump's alleged actions to shooting into a crowd.
                            Thank you for proving my point

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                              Thank you for proving my point
                              Thank you for proving mine.
                              P1) If , then I win.

                              P2)

                              C) I win.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                                Why should he be prosecuted? It was a "victimless crime" by your standards
                                I was trying to be clever with what Sam was saying.

                                In reality, there were no injured parties here, no damages, so there should be no civil suit. The state of New York didn't prosecute Trump for fraud so they apparently didn't feel there was any crime, so James misuses the civil court. Was James an injured party and suffered damages?

                                Trump haters are too blinded by their hatred to see this is a miscarriage.

                                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