Marener
Platinum Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 27,072
- 12,721
- 973
Not if you’re speculating on something that may or may not happen in the future.It is the current value.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not if you’re speculating on something that may or may not happen in the future.It is the current value.
The testimony you provided proved that two different appraisers did multiple appraisals for multiple properties. I gave you both of their names. How did you miss that?Where did you determine that? The testimony I provided said they used Trump’s numbers.
You know what I found to be the most amazing and appalling thing in that summary by the judge, Marener? It's this statement:Not if you’re speculating on something that may or may not happen in the future.
"Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments onNot if you’re speculating on something that may or may not happen in the future.
How could you, Marener...they don't exist! There is no other case where a real estate developer was charged with fraud and fined a huge amount of money over a loan that they repaid on time!I never claimed to have any knowledge about any other such cases.
If you're referring to Doug Larson and David McArdle, they were employed by Trump, not the bank. The testimony they provided demonstrated that Trump had third party assessments of his property values which he did not use, instead relying on his own much higher assessments.The testimony you provided proved that two different appraisers did multiple appraisals for multiple properties. I gave you both of their names. How did you miss that?
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know.How could you, Marener...they don't exist! There is no other case where a real estate developer was charged with fraud and fined a huge amount of money over a loan that they repaid on time!
I don't think you understand one of the things appraisers look at when they determine the value of a piece of property, Marener. Highest and best use is something that always needs to be examined. If you've got someone using an acre lot in a prime location as a parking lot you wouldn't value that acre by how much income charging for parking will make you when that lot could be developed and a skyscraper built on it. The highest and best use for that parcel of land would be to develop it. It doesn't really matter what the current use is.It's not. It's the definition of current.
Doug Larson is employed by Newmark Valuation & Advisory, Marener. He's an independent appraiser hired to give an independent valuation which he did. David McArdle is employed by Newmark Valuation & Advisory. He also was hired to give an independent valuation on a Trump property which he did. These are not appraisers employed by Trump. If you look at McArdle's testimony he says that he felt pressure to come back with a higher appraised value than what he thought it was. I'm amused by you on the left that somehow think that type of pressure is uncommon or even sinister. It's not! It happens to appraisers all the time but that goes with the job. You put a valuation on property and quite often it's not as high as the seller or the buyer want it to be. That doesn't indicate fraud however and anyone who thinks it does is uneducated about real estate.If you're referring to Doug Larson and David McArdle, they were employed by Trump, not the bank. The testimony they provided demonstrated that Trump had third party assessments of his property values which he did not use, instead relying on his own much higher assessments.
You don't think that's relevant?Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know.
I don't find it relevant.
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know.
I don't find it relevant.
The highest and best use needs to be legal use.I don't think you understand one of the things appraisers look at when they determine the value of a piece of property, Marener. Highest and best use is something that always needs to be examined. If you've got someone using an acre lot in a prime location as a parking lot you wouldn't value that acre by how much income charging for parking will make you when that lot could be developed and a skyscraper built on it. The highest and best use for that parcel of land would be to develop it. It doesn't really matter what the current use is.
What about the "equal protection clause" makes it relevant?You don't think that's relevant?
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!
That clause MAKES it relevant!
Neither of them were employed by Deutsche Bank.Doug Larson is employed by Newmark Valuation & Advisory, Marener. He's an independent appraiser hired to give an independent valuation which he did. David McArdle is employed by Newmark Valuation & Advisory. He also was hired to give an independent valuation on a Trump property which he did. These are not appraisers employed by Trump. If you look at McArdle's testimony he says that he felt pressure to come back with a higher appraised value than what he thought it was. I'm amused by you on the left that somehow think that type of pressure is uncommon or even sinister. It's not! It happens to appraisers all the time but that goes with the job. You put a valuation on property and quite often it's not as high as the seller or the buyer want it to be. That doesn't indicate fraud however and anyone who thinks it does is uneducated about real estate.
That is the essence of real estate.Not if you’re speculating on something that may or may not happen in the future.
Again, you struggle with the definition of “current”.That is the essence of real estate.
Do you have any real estate experience?Again, you struggle with the definition of “current”.
It's SOP. They've seen his disclosure for year. They knew all his properties. THey've been lending to him for years. His history of paying back RE loans was excellent. Their opinion that the Trump company was a low credit risk accurate, They paid back every dime, on time. They testified for him. Wanted to do more business with himI don't trust you. If they trusted him to repay the loan because of his credit history (which is far from pristine), they wouldn't have required the statement of financial condition and a personal guarantee and covenants.
No, but I have experience with the word current and the word future.Do you have any real estate experience?
So, you don't know how real estate is valued. And just because a judge says something does not make it a correct answer.No, but I have experience with the word current and the word future.
They don’t look eager to me.It's SOP. They've seen his disclosure for year. They knew all his properties. THey've been lending to him for years. His history of paying back RE loans was excellent. Their opinion that the Trump company was a low credit risk accurate, They paid back every dime, on time. They testified for him. Wanted to do more business with him
Your ignorance of the process does not equal fraud. This bullshit will be reversed on appeal.
Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, Marener...which essentially means you can't charge me for a crime that you don't charge anyone else for when we're all doing the same thing. That's selective prosecution and it's a violation of the 8th Amendment.What about the "equal protection clause" makes it relevant?