Kevin O’ Leary Advocates Billionaire Anarchy

[Mountain Man]

The official evidence is here and described in detail:

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/file...um_-_final.pdf

Tell me when you’ve read it so we can continue the discussion.

That Letitia James happens to disagree with the estimated value of Trump's properties (of course she does ) is not proof of fraud.

And we always return to the fact that the banks Trump did business with have said under oath that they were not defrauded, and that they did their due diligence and did not rely on Trump's estimates.

[Stoic]

There's no evidence that the President did any of those things.

Actually, Trump and his organization did ALL of those things.

During these on-site reviews at the Trump Organization, which occurred in late 2018 and early 2020, Markarian was shown the 2018 and 2019 SFCs, respectively, which listed as assets real estate holdings with valuations that Allen Weisselberg represented to Markarian had been determined each year by an outside professional appraisal firm. Markarian considered Weisselberg’s representation, which she recorded in her contemporaneous notes, to be favorable and an indication that the valuations were reliable. Notwithstanding Weisselberg’s explicit representation to Markarian, the Trump Organization never retained a professional appraisal firm to prepare any of the property valuations for the 2018 and 2019 SFCs.

In February 2014, Dillon’s firm once again engaged Cushman & Wakefield to appraise Briarcliff. In April 2014, Cushman & Wakefield submitted a written appraisal to Dillon, valuing the hypothetical 71-unit development at Briarcliff at $43.3 million. Dillon confirmed that it would have been her practice to share the values with her client along the way. Notwithstanding, beginning in November 2015, Eric Trump instructed McConney to leave the value of the 71 units at just over $101 million. He continued to do this for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 SFCs.

By at least June 2014, Dillon became aware that the Trump Organization’s rights to build units at Briarcliff had been reduced from 71 units to 31 units. Notwithstanding, the supporting data for every SFC from 2015-2021 values Briarcliff as if it had the right to build 71 units, and, indeed, explicitly states: “Sale of 71 Mid-Rise units approved.”

Trump International Realty employed Kevin Sneddon from 2011-2012 as the managing director of its brokerage office. He recalled Allen Weisselberg asking him to assess the value of Donald Trump’s Triplex apartment. In response to the request, Sneddon asked Weisselberg if he could see the Triplex, to which Weisselberg responded that that was “not possible.” Sneddon then asked if Weisselberg could send him a floorplan or specs of the Triplex to evaluate, to which Weisselberg also said “no.” Sneddon then asked Weisselberg what size the Triplex was, to which Weisselberg responded “around 30,000 square feet.” Sneddon then used the 30,000 square foot number in ascertaining a value for the Triplex.

[Stoic]

Did he do that? If he got an appraiser that said his property was worth 2X, then submitted that to the bank, that is not fraud. That is the professional opinion of the appraiser.

Unless the appraiser was given false information about the property.

If Trump lied about the appraisal, how would that work? He would have to submit the actual document to the bank. They could and would check with the appraiser.

In deciding whether to accept Trump's personal guarantee for a loan, the banks asked for Trump's SFCs, and assumed that they were "broadly accurate". They probably wouldn't have done so if the SFCs hadn't been prepared by a respected accounting firm, and the accounting firm definitely would not have issued those SFCs if they hadn't been lied to by the Trump Organization.

If he just said "My property is worth 2X" without getting an appraisal, then that is not fraud, that is just his opinion.

As long as he didn't claim that it was the result of an appraisal.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, Trump and his organization did ALL of those things.

During these on-site reviews at the Trump Organization, which occurred in late 2018 and early 2020, Markarian was shown the 2018 and 2019 SFCs, respectively, which listed as assets real estate holdings with valuations that Allen Weisselberg represented to Markarian had been determined each year by an outside professional appraisal firm. Markarian considered Weisselberg’s representation, which she recorded in her contemporaneous notes, to be favorable and an indication that the valuations were reliable. Notwithstanding Weisselberg’s explicit representation to Markarian, the Trump Organization never retained a professional appraisal firm to prepare any of the property valuations for the 2018 and 2019 SFCs.

In February 2014, Dillon’s firm once again engaged Cushman & Wakefield to appraise Briarcliff. In April 2014, Cushman & Wakefield submitted a written appraisal to Dillon, valuing the hypothetical 71-unit development at Briarcliff at $43.3 million. Dillon confirmed that it would have been her practice to share the values with her client along the way. Notwithstanding, beginning in November 2015, Eric Trump instructed McConney to leave the value of the 71 units at just over $101 million. He continued to do this for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 SFCs.

By at least June 2014, Dillon became aware that the Trump Organization’s rights to build units at Briarcliff had been reduced from 71 units to 31 units. Notwithstanding, the supporting data for every SFC from 2015-2021 values Briarcliff as if it had the right to build 71 units, and, indeed, explicitly states: “Sale of 71 Mid-Rise units approved.”

Trump International Realty employed Kevin Sneddon from 2011-2012 as the managing director of its brokerage office. He recalled Allen Weisselberg asking him to assess the value of Donald Trump’s Triplex apartment. In response to the request, Sneddon asked Weisselberg if he could see the Triplex, to which Weisselberg responded that that was “not possible.” Sneddon then asked if Weisselberg could send him a floorplan or specs of the Triplex to evaluate, to which Weisselberg also said “no.” Sneddon then asked Weisselberg what size the Triplex was, to which Weisselberg responded “around 30,000 square feet.” Sneddon then used the 30,000 square foot number in ascertaining a value for the Triplex.

So where's the fraud? It is within a property owner's right to disagree with an appraisal. If my house is appraised at $300,000, it would be no crime for me to put it on the market for $600,000.

[Stoic]

So where's the fraud? It is within a property owner's right to disagree with an appraisal. If my house is appraised at $300,000, it would be no crime for me to put it on the market for $600,000.

If that was all that Trump did, he would not have been accused of fraud, much less convicted.

The fraud is in the deception and misrepresentation in his SFCs, the punishment is because it happened repeatedly and persistently.

[whag]

So where's the fraud? It is within a property owner's right to disagree with an appraisal. If my house is appraised at $300,000, it would be no crime for me to put it on the market for $600,000.

Stop saying the same thing over and over. It’s obnoxious. Read Sam’s courteously color-coded response to Sparko and respond to each point, or leave this thread. I can kick you out for deliberately repeating one point ad nauseam and ignoring the actual documented deception.

[Mountain Man]

If that was all that Trump did, he would not have been accused of fraud, much less convicted.

The fraud is in the deception and misrepresentation in his SFCs, the punishment is because it happened repeatedly and persistently.

There was no misrepresentation, because property valuations are nothing more than an estimate, and a property owner is well within his rights to disagree with that estimate. If you take that estimate to a bank and ask for a loan, then the bank is also well within its rights to disagree and present their own estimate. Which is exactly what happened here, as testified under oath by Deutsch Bank representatives.

If that's a crime, then every business owner in the world is guilty. It's a self-evidently absurd ruling. Which brings us full circle back to the point O'Leary was making.

[Mountain Man]

Stop saying the same thing over and over. It’s obnoxious. Read Sam’s courteously color-coded response to Sparko and respond to each point, or leave this thread. I can kick you out for deliberately repeating one point ad nauseam and ignoring the actual documented deception.

Sam posted the same thing you did, which I already responded to. I didn't bother with Sam's post directly because the color coding is obnoxious and added nothing of value to the discussion.

The worst part about all of this is Judge Engoron handing down a summary judgement without even allowing the defendant to contest the evidence. It's one of the worst cases of judicial corruption I've ever seen.

[Sam]

Sam posted the same thing you did, which I already responded to. I didn't bother with Sam's post directly because the color coding is obnoxious and added nothing of value to the discussion.

Given that your response to whag was non-responsive to anything in the citation, I don't think color coding was the issue — especially since the same citation has been provided three times, without color and without bolding.

"There's no evidence Trump did anything on the OP list" is directly refuted by the findings of the court. And recognizing an inability to refute those findings, you (and others) keep trying to fall back on a false presentation of the AG's points of complaint and associated violations of the law.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

Given that your response to whag was non-responsive to anything in the citation, I don't think color coding was the issue — especially since the same citation has been provided three times, without color and without bolding.

"There's no evidence Trump did anything on the OP list" is directly refuted by the findings of the court. And recognizing an inability to refute those findings, you (and others) keep trying to fall back on a false presentation of the AG's points of complaint and associated violations of the law.

-Sam

An indictment is not evidence in of itself, because it deliberately excludes anything exculpatory -- for instance, the fact that bank representatives said the estimates presented by the President were not deceptive. That's just the nature of an indictment. Furthermore, the President was never given an opportunity to contest the accusations because the judge issued his ruling without even bothering with a formal trial. This whole thing is a farce.

[Stoic]

There was no misrepresentation, because property valuations are nothing more than an estimate, and a property owner is well within his rights to disagree with that estimate. If you take that estimate to a bank and ask for a loan, then the bank is also well within its rights to disagree and present their own estimate. Which is exactly what happened here, as testified under oath by Deutsch Bank representatives.

If that's a crime, then every business owner in the world is guilty. It's a self-evidently absurd ruling. Which brings us full circle back to the point O'Leary was making.

You are still not understanding, or pretending not to understand, what Trump was found guilty of.

It has been spelled out to you multiple times, so you might want to go back and look at some of those posts.

[Sam]

An indictment is not evidence in of itself, because it deliberately excludes anything exculpatory -- for instance, the fact that bank representatives said the estimates presented by the President were not deceptive. That's just the nature of an indictment. Furthermore, the President was never given an opportunity to contest the accusations because the judge issued his ruling without even bothering with a formal trial. This whole thing is a farce.

1) It's not an indictment, it's a judicial ruling.

2) The judicial ruling was made after the Trump Organization, in a formal trial, was given full opportunity to defend itself against the complaint.

3) There was no jury trial because the Trump Org's lawyers did not request one.

An inability to accurately restate the evidentiary and procedural facts of this case make your opinion of its merits rather unpersuasive.

-Sam

[rogue06]

That Letitia James happens to disagree with the estimated value of Trump's properties (of course she does ) is not proof of fraud.

And we always return to the fact that the banks Trump did business with have said under oath that they were not defrauded, and that they did their due diligence and did not rely on Trump's estimates.

A legitimate question is how did James and the judge come up with their estimate, which has left Florida realtors scratching their heads.

Until recently there was an empty lot a little over one-tenth the size of Mar-a-lago which was for sale for $200,000,000 -- over ten times what they claim that Mar-a-lago is worth.

[Mountain Man]

1) It's not an indictment, it's a judicial ruling.

2) The judicial ruling was made after the Trump Organization, in a formal trial, was given full opportunity to defend itself against the complaint.

3) There was no jury trial because the Trump Org's lawyers did not request one.

An inability to accurately restate the evidentiary and procedural facts of this case make your opinion of its merits rather unpersuasive.

-Sam

I know what I'm talking about. Yes, it's a judicial ruling, but what is that ruling based on? Did the judge just pluck it out of thin air? Of course not. He's just repeating what was in the indictment, right?

It's also a fact that the judge issued his guilty ruling without a trial and then effectively challenged the President afterwards to prove his innocence in a clear violation of due process.

A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.

[...]

Engoron’s ruling, in a phase of the case known as summary judgment, resolves the key claim in James’ lawsuit, but six others remain.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-estate-empire

And what is a summary judgment?

A summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment

And what did I say?

Let's go to the tape:

Furthermore, the President was never given an opportunity to contest the accusations because the judge issued his ruling without even bothering with a formal trial.

Huh, looks like I was right after all.

Here's what the President's attorneys had to say about this nonsense:

“The Court ignored fully the Appellate Division mandate and basic legal, accounting and business principles,” [Attorney Chris Kise] said. “Without even conducting a trial, the Court substituted its own judgment for that of nationally recognized experts from the NYU Stern School of Business and beyond. More importantly, the Court disregarded the viewpoint of those actually involved in the loan transactions who testified there was nothing misleading, there was no fraud, and the transactions were all highly profitable.”

Another Trump attorney, Alina Habba, in a statement said, “It’s important to remember that the Trump Organization is an American success story and the fact that a judge without trial would say there is no question of fact and issue a decision like this in summary judgement is concerning.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/trum...dge-rules.html

[Sam]

I know what I'm talking about. Yes, it's a judicial ruling, but what is that ruling based on? Did the judge just pluck it out of thin air? Of course not. He's just repeating what was in the indictment, right?

It's also a fact that the judge issued his guilty ruling without a trial and then effectively challenged the President afterwards to prove his innocence in a clear violation of due process.

A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.

[...]

Engoron’s ruling, in a phase of the case known as summary judgment, resolves the key claim in James’ lawsuit, but six others remain.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-estate-empire

And what is a summary judgment?

A summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment

And what did I say?

Let's go to the tape:


Huh, looks like I was right after all.

Here's what the President's attorneys had to say about this nonsense:

“The Court ignored fully the Appellate Division mandate and basic legal, accounting and business principles,” [Attorney Chris Kise] said. “Without even conducting a trial, the Court substituted its own judgment for that of nationally recognized experts from the NYU Stern School of Business and beyond. More importantly, the Court disregarded the viewpoint of those actually involved in the loan transactions who testified there was nothing misleading, there was no fraud, and the transactions were all highly profitable.”

Another Trump attorney, Alina Habba, in a statement said, “It’s important to remember that the Trump Organization is an American success story and the fact that a judge without trial would say there is no question of fact and issue a decision like this in summary judgement is concerning.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/trum...dge-rules.html

The judicial ruling was made after a "formal trial" and is not merely a repetition of the complaint (not indictment). Rather, it is a finding of fact; i.e., what the plaintiffs were able to prove and what the defendants were able to rebut.

This was a civil case. The judge did not "issue a guilty ruling". One of the seven points of complaint was decided by a summary judgement. That point of complaint was that the Trump Org overvalued assets, knowing that third-party valuations were much lower. This point of fact was clearly true — you and others have yourselves acknowledged that Trump et al. routinely did this — and there are no facts or arguments to rebut the point. Trump acknowledged he did this in depositions. When the defendant is on record, under sworn testimony, confessing to the point of complaint, a summary judgement is justified.

The other six points of complaint — all of which deal with the bullet list described in the OP and are the topic of consideration in this thread — were subject to trial judgements.

So, no, you were very far from "right after all" — to the point of embarrassment.

-Sam