Trump Found Liable For Real Estate Fraud; Business Certificates Dissolved

[Gondwanaland]

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?

Interesting strawman. Maybe you should smoke that because you're clearly high as hell already.

[Diogenes]

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.

Again, tax assessments are no market value appraisals. Loans would be based on market value at the time of the loan, just like a mortgage. By the judge's logic, any house sold above tax assessed value would be fraudulent. Any HELOC based not on tax assessment would be fraudulent.

[Sparko]

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.

There is something called "standing" in civil cases. Only someone who has standing in a case is allowed to sue someone civilly. That means the person who was materially harmed by the defendant. If I know you cheated your neighbor out of his savings, only the neighbor can actually sue you civilly. I have no standing and so I can't sue you on his behalf. Or on my own behalf.

The only person who should be able to sue Trump civilly for cheating on a bank loan in civil court should be the actual bank he got the loan from.

If he broke the law, then the state can sue him criminally, but not civilly. He didn't harm the state, they have no standing. Why are they choosing to sue civilly instead of criminally if he committed actual fraud?

[Gondwanaland]

Again, tax assessments are no market value appraisals. Loans would be based on market value at the time of the loan, just like a mortgage. By the judge's logic, any house sold above tax assessed value would be fraudulent. Any HELOC based not on tax assessment would be fraudulent.

I take this as your tacit admittance and withdrawal of the false claim about the Judge issuing a valuation.

[Gondwanaland]

There is something called "standing" in civil cases. Only someone who has standing in a case is allowed to sue someone civilly. That means the person who was materially harmed by the defendant. If I know you cheated your neighbor out of his savings, only the neighbor can actually sue you civilly. I have no standing and so I can't sue you on his behalf. Or on my own behalf.

The only person who should be able to sue Trump civilly for cheating on a bank loan in civil court should be the actual bank he got the loan from.

If he broke the law, then the state can sue him criminally, but not civilly. He didn't harm the state, they have no standing. Why are they choosing to sue civilly instead of criminally if he committed actual fraud?

Again, I understand you might not like the statute in question. But your dislike of it does not make its application any less valid.

[Sparko]

Again, I understand you might not like the statute in question. But your dislike of it does not make its application any less valid.

The law is meant to allow a means for the state to recover funds from a fraudster to recompense the injured parties. The banks have not claimed to be victims. They have not been injured or lost any money, so what is the civil suit attempting to get the money for and who are they giving it to?


They would first have to actually convict him of such fraud before they could use that in a civil case. So if what he did was illegal and fraud, why haven't they gone after him criminally first? That would not only open the door to the civil case, but allow them to put him in jail.

[Diogenes]

I take this as your tacit admittance and withdrawal of the false claim about the Judge issuing a valuation.

He's issuing a valuation contrary to what the banks agreed to for the purpose of re-examining the documents Trump gave to the banks. He's forcing the banks to be a victim when the banks did not believe themselves to be victim as they did not pursue legal action against Trump for fraud. So the judge is still issuing a valuation upon which the loans would have been made. No retraction.

[Sam]

There is something called "standing" in civil cases. Only someone who has standing in a case is allowed to sue someone civilly. That means the person who was materially harmed by the defendant. If I know you cheated your neighbor out of his savings, only the neighbor can actually sue you civilly. I have no standing and so I can't sue you on his behalf. Or on my own behalf.

The only person who should be able to sue Trump civilly for cheating on a bank loan in civil court should be the actual bank he got the loan from.

If he broke the law, then the state can sue him criminally, but not civilly. He didn't harm the state, they have no standing. Why are they choosing to sue civilly instead of criminally if he committed actual fraud?

Insisting, again, that people complaining about the application of law actually read the ruling, which patiently explains the question of standing:

Source: Ibid., pg. 3

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

By memory, you have some experience in law. If that memory is correct, I don't think you have reason to be confused on this point.

-Sam

[Diogenes]

Insisting, again, that people complaining about the application of law actually read the ruling, which patiently explains the question of standing:

Source: Ibid., pg. 3

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

By memory, you have some experience in law. If that memory is correct, I don't think you have reason to be confused on this point.

-Sam

A bank's dealings with one person does not constitute public interest per se. If the action was against the bank where the loans would have made the bank insolvent in case of default or if there was a practice and pattern of behaviors, there would be better standing under the doctrine. More lawfare against Trump.

[Sparko]

Insisting, again, that people complaining about the application of law actually read the ruling, which patiently explains the question of standing:

Source: Ibid., pg. 3

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

By memory, you have some experience in law. If that memory is correct, I don't think you have reason to be confused on this point.

-Sam

Again, if Trump broke the law and committed fraud, why haven't they charged him criminally? And how can they just assume he committed fraud in order to sue him civilly? They are bootstrapping themselves into a position of standing with no prior criminal act being proven.

And who is that "equitable relief" they are suing for going to? If there is no injured party, then how are they suing for monetary relief? It's just a government money grab without any injured parties to give the money to.

The whole thing stinks. It is an obvious partisan attempt to further injure Trump and dog-pile on other lawsuits to try to keep him from running for President.

[Gondwanaland]

The law is meant to allow a means for the state to recover funds from a fraudster to recompense the injured parties. The banks have not claimed to be victims. They have not been injured or lost any money, so what is the civil suit attempting to get the money for and who are they giving it to?


They would first have to actually convict him of such fraud before they could use that in a civil case. So if what he did was illegal and fraud, why haven't they gone after him criminally first? That would not only open the door to the civil case, but allow them to put him in jail.

Again, the statute in question does not require injury or loss of money to have been inflicted. You might not like it, but that's the statute as-is. And no, they are not required to have convicted him criminally of anything for a civil case to occur. Not sure what pundit told you that lie.

[Gondwanaland]

He's issuing a valuation contrary to what the banks agreed to for the purpose of re-examining the documents Trump gave to the banks. He's forcing the banks to be a victim when the banks did not believe themselves to be victim as they did not pursue legal action against Trump for fraud. So the judge is still issuing a valuation upon which the loans would have been made. No retraction.

So now you're back to falsely claiming the judge issued a valuation when he did no such thing. SMDH

[Sparko]

Again, the statute in question does not require injury or loss of money to have been inflicted. You might not like it, but that's the statute as-is. And no, they are not required to have convicted him criminally of anything for a civil case to occur. Not sure what pundit told you that lie.

Working at a civil-law law firm for 17 years told me that.

Of course the plaintiff will have pulled up some obscure case law to justify their actions and ruling. That does not make it law or legal. It just opens the door for a higher court to review upon appeal.

The statute that Sam quoted:

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.

They would first need to prove that he did commit fraud before starting the lawsuit. That would be a criminal act. They could have put him in jail for that. But they didn't. Instead, they ASSUMED he committed fraud, then started a lawsuit based on that assumption without any conviction, and then proceeded to use biased information to show that fraud, without any injured parties, and then rule that they won. Bootstrapping.

Also notice "directing restitution and damages" - There is no injured partied to pay restitution to, and no damages.

If we read the law like you want to, the State Attorney could just go around suing any business person he wanted to, claim they committed fraud and then take their money and stick it in his own pocket.

[Sam]

Again, if Trump broke the law and committed fraud, why haven't they charged him criminally? And how can they just assume he committed fraud in order to sue him civilly? They are bootstrapping themselves into a position of standing with no prior criminal act being proven.

And who is that "equitable relief" they are suing for going to? If there is no injured party, then how are they suing for monetary relief? It's just a government money grab without any injured parties to give the money to.

The whole thing stinks. It is an obvious partisan attempt to further injure Trump and dog-pile on other lawsuits to try to keep him from running for President.

You are aware that different standards of evidence exist and you are aware that a state AG may decide they can meet one standard of proof but possibly not another. You are aware that a civil proceeding against a business entity can be justified even when a personal criminal conviction may be difficult to obtain.

Still, you are complaining that a state AG chose to not target Trump with a criminal indictment that might not meet a 12-person jury's standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and instead chose to obtain, in full compliance with black-letter law, a judgement in a civil case. If memory serves and you do have a legal background, you are aware that your complaint RE: unusual treatment under the law is without backing in either statute or case history.

"Equitable relief", in this case, refers to the dissolution of the businesses that engaged in persistent fraud. The potential disgorgement of illicit profits is a matter for trial court:

Source: Ibid., pg. 34

Remaining Issues to be Determined at Trial Anything presented in the parties' moving papers that this Court has not ruled upon in this Decision and Order, including determinations on liability for the second through seventh causes of action, the amount of disgorgement of profits to which OAG is entitled, and determinations on the third through ninth prayers for relief sought by OAG in its complaint, presents disputed issues of fact that shall proceed to trial.

© Copyright Original Source

-Sam

[Diogenes]

So now you're back to falsely claiming the judge issued a valuation when he did no such thing. SMDH

Let see what I said:

A judge whimsically deciding the valuation of a property does not entail "flagrant fraud" on Trump's part.

Given that the "validation" in question is the validation for a loan which would be a market valuation, the statement would read:

A judge whimsically deciding the [market] valuation of a property does not entail "flagrant fraud" on Trump's part.

I have no problem with that. The best determination would have been historical market appraisal for the property itself, other properties, nearby sold properties, improvements, income generation, etc. if you wish day the judge considered those factors when deciding the $18m, that would be different.

Or, if it is to be maintain that Trump defrauded the bank based on not using the tax assessed value, then the entire housing market globally is based on fraud. It strange to see a libertarian say a person who agreed to a loan willingly and with knowledge was defrauded. Should people be forced to sell homes or take out loans based on the tax assessment or on market value?