Trump Found Liable For Real Estate Fraud; Business Certificates Dissolved

[Sam]

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.

If we were to take the Forbes valuation (for some unstated reason) as the controlling valuation over the Palm Beach Assessor's office (which the judge relied on), you're still in a position of the Trumps' over-valuing their asset by a large percentage. But the Trumps were compelled by the law to properly state their properties' current value; without a concrete offer to buy a property at their inflated price, the current value is the property's assessment, not some number Donald Trump invents.

He also massively inflated the square footage of his Trump Tower Triplex in financial documents. Are y'all really going to try to argue that square footage can be a matter of opinion?

-Sam

[Ronson]

I wrote:



To which you responded:



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

I seriously believe you are hurling elephants now. Plain and simple: Criminal courts are for crimes, civil courts are for damages. There were no damages - not to James or anyone else - so this should have been immediately thrown out.

I get it that people hate Trump and they want to prevent him from running for POTUS again. But setting precedents like this is positively frightening. What happens when the next New Yorker runs for POTUS now and the opposing party is in power? What happens to the average citizen that someone in office doesn't like and wants to punish them? The precedent has been set that their civil courts can be used as quasi-criminal courts and punish people for crimes that they were never convicted of.

[Sam]

I seriously believe you are hurling elephants now. Plain and simple: Criminal courts are for crimes, civil courts are for damages. There were no damages - not to James or anyone else - so this should have been immediately thrown out.

I get it that people hate Trump and they want to prevent him from running for POTUS again. But setting precedents like this is positively frightening. What happens when the next New Yorker runs for POTUS now and the opposing party is in power? What happens to the average citizen that someone in office doesn't like and wants to punish them? The precedent has been set that their civil courts can be used as quasi-criminal courts and punish people for crimes that they were never convicted of.

I am citing the judge's ruling, which is citing relevant law and case studies. That it involves some reading of actual legal proceedings is not elephant hurling: it is entirely responsive to your claim that there were "no victims" and that a case against the Trumps can only be brought if there is an "injured party".

In response, you're repeating your assertion without processing and responding to the facts of law that have been presented to you.

I suggest that an honest discussion requires more change in your approach than in mine.

-Sam

[Ronson]

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".

As I said elsewhere, I was attempting to be clever with that phrase.

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.

And that was questionable too, but at least there were identifiable damages.

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.

How was the state injured when all parties involved continued doing business with each other without complaint?

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.

© Copyright Original Source

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."[/cite]

The first part claims "persistent fraud" - again - without showing fraud was committed - and then showing any injured party. Just saying the state was injured without evidence of damages doesn't work.

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.

Call me illiterate, I guess.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, the drones tend to get angered when their queen is threatened

Let me get this straight: before Trump gets indicted for or convicted of something, his drones will not bother supporting him, but afterward, they all jump onboard?

What are you smoking? Are you willing to share?

[Diogenes]

If we were to take the Forbes valuation (for some unstated reason) as the controlling valuation over the Palm Beach Assessor's office (which the judge relied on), you're still in a position of the Trumps' over-valuing their asset by a large percentage.

If a bank knowingly agrees to a wildly overly inflated market value (which likely doesn't include the valuation due to Trump' ownership) then there still isn't fraud.

But the Trumps were compelled by the law to properly state their properties' current value; without a concrete offer to buy a property at their inflated price, the current value is the property's assessment, not some number Donald Trump invents.

A market value appraisal need not an offer to buy. Literally very house on the market is priced "without a concrete offer to buy". All appraisals are done "without a concrete offer to buy".

He also massively inflated the square footage of his Trump Tower Triplex in financial documents. Are y'all really going to try to argue that square footage can be a matter of opinion?

-Sam

I don't how multi-story skyscraper apartments are valued though likely the square footage used by multiple floors would be included as it consumes multiple floors without the same linear square foot. A three storied apartment only having say two floors of square footage still occupies three floors of square footage.

[tabibito]

If a bank knowingly agrees to a wildly overly inflated market value (which likely doesn't include the valuation due to Trump' ownership) then there still isn't fraud.

Wouldn't that simply move part of the responsibility for the fraud to the bank? It would favourably but falsely affect the bank's assets sheet, after all.

[JimL]

Wouldn't that simply move part of the responsibility for the fraud to the bank? It would favourably but falsely affect the bank's assets sheet, after all.

Of course,.their argument is that the bank was in on the illegal scheme therefore it's not illegal. LOL!

[Sam]

If a bank knowingly agrees to a wildly overly inflated market value (which likely doesn't include the valuation due to Trump' ownership) then there still isn't fraud.




A market value appraisal need not an offer to buy. Literally very house on the market is priced "without a concrete offer to buy". All appraisals are done "without a concrete offer to buy".




I don't how multi-story skyscraper apartments are valued though likely the square footage used by multiple floors would be included as it consumes multiple floors without the same linear square foot. A three storied apartment only having say two floors of square footage still occupies three floors of square footage.

Yes, as explained before and cited in the ruling, the statute does not evaporate because a bank agrees to a loan using fraudulent data or value. I encourage you to reread (or read) that citation and, if still in disagreement, explain why you disagree with the relevant passage. Just repeating "no fraud", as I've said, looks like aggressive ignorance when the law has been cited for you.

You can't price your $200k house to sell at $20M and then go get a loan for $20M using your house as equity. Unless you fraudulently claim that your house has a $20M valuation, of course. The appraisal that you reference is the $18M-$27M figure from the assessor's office that you seem to think was the judge's crazy undervaluation.

I would read the ruling and examine the nature of Trump's gross inflation of his Triplex's square footage before meandering through a guess as to why he claimed it was 30k+ ft² when it was actually only 10k+ ft².

-Sam

[JimL]

Let me get this straight: before Trump gets indicted for or convicted of something, his drones will not bother supporting him, but afterward, they all jump onboard?

What are you smoking? Are you willing to share?

What are you smoking? That reply makes no sense, OBP.

[Ronson]

I was just reminded about a somewhat comparable case. OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" of murder in a criminal trial, but then was found "liable" in a civil trial for the same event. I hate to say it because of my dislike for Simpson, but this seems like a miscarriage as well. If the state and the courts deem someone to be innocent of a crime, a civil court should not be conducted against that person for damages for that crime. It seems like double jeopardy to me.

[Sam]

I was just reminded about a somewhat comparable case. OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" of murder in a criminal trial, but then was found "liable" in a civil trial for the same event. I hate to say it because of my dislike for Simpson, but this seems like a miscarriage as well. If the state and the courts deem someone to be innocent of a crime, a civil court should not be conducted against that person for damages for that crime. It seems like double jeopardy to me.

It is not because the two cases have different standards of proof:

A criminal trial requires a finding of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

A civil trial has a variety of standards, the most commonly-known being "a preponderance of evidence".

I imagine the burden of evidence in this case is "clear and convincing evidence".

A civil case can proceed against someone who has been acquitted of criminal conduct because while the state may not be able to to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, a litigant may well be able to prove a claim with "clear and convincing evidence" or a simple preponderance of evidence.

-Sam

[Diogenes]

Yes, as explained before and cited in the ruling, the statute does not evaporate because a bank agrees to a loan using fraudulent data or value. I encourage you to reread (or read) that citation and, if still in disagreement, explain why you disagree with the relevant passage. Just repeating "no fraud", as I've said, looks like aggressive ignorance when the law has been cited for you.

You can't price your $200k house to sell at $20M and then go get a loan for $20M using your house as equity. Unless you fraudulently claim that your house has a $20M valuation, of course.

Wouldn't that simply move part of the responsibility for the fraud to the bank? It would favourably but falsely affect the bank's assets sheet, after all.

If a house is worth $200k on the market without material misrepresentation and the bank agrees to a loan on their own appraisal of $20M, there's no fraud on the part of the loanee. It is the bank's responsibility to do due diligence before loaning money. If a bank doesn't do due diligence, that's the bank's failure. If a bank overvalued and lost money, that would also be the banks liability. If it was discovered that Trump lied to and defrauded the bank, the bank logically would have already initiated legal action. Fraud first has to be proved and there has to be a party harmed. People willingly entering into agreements with full knowledge can't be defrauded. If Trump repaid an overvalued loan, there's no harm.

The appraisal that you reference is the $18M-$27M figure from the assessor's office that you seem to think was the judge's crazy undervaluation.

Tax appraisal is not the same as market appraisal.

I would read the ruling and examine the nature of Trump's gross inflation of his Triplex's square footage before meandering through a guess as to why he claimed it was 30k+ ft² when it was actually only 10k+ ft².

-Sam

If the apartment took up three floors despite only having one habitable floor, I would have no issue with a person claiming all three floors of square footage as three floors worth of square footage would still be consumed despite one habitable floor.

[Gondwanaland]

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.

Under the state statute in question (which had been around since 1956), damages do not need to be realized for the person to be held liable for fraud in their inflation of assets, etc.. You may disagree with the law/statute if you wish, but you are not being accurate here in your assertion that the law is being misused.

[Gondwanaland]

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.

Except the judge didn't issue a valuation. You just listened to Donny Jr and his lies. The judge issued no valuations. Indeed the Judge relied on two different valuations made by the literal County Assessor in the literal County that Mar a Lago is built in, in 2011 and in 2021.