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.
You keep saying that. It's a strawman. If course they know the rules. What they didn't know is Trump was lying on the documents he submitted.
It's bad enough I have to do all this research for but when I have to explain it as well, it gets frustrating...but I suspect that is the point.
He also said he appraised a Trump-owned Wall Street building at $540 million in 2015, while McConney valued it at $735.4 million on Trump's financial statement.
Because he was unfamiliar with those valuations.
I already linked it.
Are you sea lioning?
Yep, it doesn't matter what you point out or ask, all they do is repeat the talking points, it's all they know.
So you don't you want verification, you want vindication. You will have to go to Turley or other right wing media sources for that.Bullshit.
How much have property values gone up since 2015? We were talking about Mara Lago, what did Trump value it at on his statements.
With which valuations?
I'm not reading your bogus court document, it's worthless even as toilet paper.
The crime is fraud.You go one question deep on their Biden admin talking points to any of these fools and they are lost.
You see it all the time.
No one can articulate the crime or the victim in this Trump/SDNY case.
MADOFF? VICTIMS AND $ STOLEN WERE CLEAR.
SAM BANKMAN FRIED….SAME THING.
It is so stupid.
Still waiting on your link that they know.
Your thots and feels are not proof.
So you don't you want verification, you want vindication. You will have to go to Turley or other right wing media sources for that.
So if you won't believe the court document, what/who will you believe?
I hope it's not trump because this is the third time he has been found liable for fraud. What a joke.
The crime is fraud.
The victim is irrelevant.
The crime is fraud.
The victim is irrelevant.
They are required to recognize fraud and follow the law, they don't get a free pass.
Even if they didn't know?You have no comprehension of the processes implemented in order to ensure that they are not in violation, you are clueless. They should have been fined by the SEC for not reporting the fraud to the state of New York.
And you're full of shit.
Not my job.You better get on the phone with the SEC and ask why Duetsche Bank hasn't been fined for not reporting the fraud.
Was the much smaller palm beach property a deed restricted private club?Everyone that lives in reality understands that the court is corrupt, except you TDS fools who live in fantasy land.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...valuations-are-at-the-core-of-his-fraud-trial
Siding with New York's attorney general in a lawsuit accusing Trump of grossly overvaluing his assets, Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump consistently exaggerated Mar-a-Lago's worth. He noted that one Trump estimate of the club's value was 2,300% times the Palm Beach County tax appraiser's valuations, which ranged from $18 million to $37 million.
But Palm Beach real estate agents who specialize in high-end properties scoffed at the idea that the estate could be worth that little, in the unlikely event Trump ever sold.
“Ludicrous,” agent Liza Pulitzer said about the judge citing the county’s tax appraisal as a benchmark. Homes a tenth the size of Mar-a-Lago on tiny inland lots sell for that in the Town of Palm Beach, a wealthy island enclave.
“The entire real estate community felt it was a joke when they saw that figure,” said Pulitzer, who works for the firm Brown Harris Stevens.
“That thing would get snapped up for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Rob Thomson, owner of Waterfront Properties and a Mar-a-Lago member. “There is zero chance that it’s going to sell for $40 million or $50 million.”
Eli Beracha, chair of Florida International University's Hollo School of Real Estate, agreed it's difficult to assess the value of any unique property. The fact that Trump owned Mar-a-Lago would likely increase its sale price.
“Some people are going to argue that not everyone likes Trump — some people would actually pay less because of that. ... But the high bidder is probably going to be a person who buys it because it belonged to Trump,” Beracha said.
Pulitzer said the rock-bottom price for Mar-a-Lago would be $300 million. Thomson said at least $600 million. If uber-billionaires got into a bidding war, they said, a sale of a billion dollars or more would be possible.
The much smaller Palm Beach compound once owned by the Kennedy political dynasty sold for $70 million three years ago.
I guess they missed this one. Will be charged for not knowing Trump was fraudulent?
Even if they didn't know?
Funny thing is you seem to finally be accepting Trump committed fraud. Now you just need to blame Trump for his fraud instead of trying to malign banks.
One of those was a suit against Exxon Mobil for global warming, which was dismissed.It wouldn't even if I hadn't already linked two cases.
Not according to the court document you won't read.
Not my job.
Was the much smaller palm beach property a deed restricted private club?
Are the above people basing their opinions on the fact that it is a deed restricted club?
Do those people know Trump claimed 26 million was to high a valuation of Mar Lago?
Do you have a link the bank knew Trump was being fraudulent yet?You should really quit, you're too ignorant to realize how stupid you sound.
Your 'logic' fails you miserably. You're the idiot that believes fraud was committed but the bank didn't recognize it when you claim the valuation was 2300% in excess of actual market value. You have zero knowledge of how banks operate and the systems, processes, and policies in place to prevent the exact 'fraud' you're claiming took place. They didn't report fraud because there was none.
Sounds like you don't like the law and have many opinions about that it.One of those was a suit against Exxon Mobil for global warming, which was dismissed.
The other one was her suing a school bus contractor for the buses idling for more than 5 minutes.
It's a "one size fits all" law, and if it ever gets to the SCOTUS it will be struck down for being over-broad.
Engoron explained why Trump was not being charged with an actual fraud- because it was too hard, and the elements of fraud aren't there.
-------------------------------
Common Law Fraud
The instant action is not a garden-variety common law fraud case. Common law fraud (also known as “misrepresentation”) has five elements: (1) A material statement; (2) falsity; (3) knowledge of the falsity (“scienter”); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) damages. (“[T]he elements of common law fraud” are “a false representation . . . in relation to a material fact; scienter; reliance; and injury.”).
Alleging the elements is easy; proving them is difficult. Is the statement one of fact or opinion? Material according to what standard? Knowledge demonstrated how? Justifiable subjectively or objectively? In mid-twentieth century New York, to judge by contemporary press reports and judicial opinions, fraudsters were having a field day.
Along came Executive Law § 63(12), which began life as Laws of 1956, Chapter 592, “An act to amend the executive law, in relation to cancellation of registration of doing business under an assumed name or as partners for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” Jacob Javits, then the Attorney General of the State of New York (the position that Attorney General James now occupies), pushed for the bill, as did the Better Business Bureau of New York City.
State Comptroller Arthur Levitt asked, “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings.” The preponderance of the evidence standard, the one used in almost all civil cases would apply. Comptroller Levitt noted: “In a suit for an injunction, there is no need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case—a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient.”
In the subsequent six decades, the State has toughened the statute. In Laws of 1965, Chapter 666, the definitions of the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” were expanded to include “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretence [sic], false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.” The statute casts a wide net.
“The general grant of power to the Attorney General under section 63(12) has traditionally been his most potent.”
--------------------------------------
Alleging the elements is easy, proving them is difficult. What was needed was a law that would allow for the punishment, without requiring the elements of fraud, or proving the crime.
It's a one-size-fits-all law that can be used against anyone for anything...
And will you accept the appeal decision?Your court document will be meaningless once appealed.
One of those was a suit against Exxon Mobil for global warming, which was dismissed.
The other one was her suing a school bus contractor for the buses idling for more than 5 minutes.
It's a "one size fits all" law, and if it ever gets to the SCOTUS it will be struck down for being over-broad.
Engoron explained why Trump was not being charged with an actual fraud- because it was too hard, and the elements of fraud aren't there.
-------------------------------
Common Law Fraud
The instant action is not a garden-variety common law fraud case. Common law fraud (also known as “misrepresentation”) has five elements: (1) A material statement; (2) falsity; (3) knowledge of the falsity (“scienter”); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) damages. (“[T]he elements of common law fraud” are “a false representation . . . in relation to a material fact; scienter; reliance; and injury.”).
Alleging the elements is easy; proving them is difficult. Is the statement one of fact or opinion? Material according to what standard? Knowledge demonstrated how? Justifiable subjectively or objectively? In mid-twentieth century New York, to judge by contemporary press reports and judicial opinions, fraudsters were having a field day.
Along came Executive Law § 63(12), which began life as Laws of 1956, Chapter 592, “An act to amend the executive law, in relation to cancellation of registration of doing business under an assumed name or as partners for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” Jacob Javits, then the Attorney General of the State of New York (the position that Attorney General James now occupies), pushed for the bill, as did the Better Business Bureau of New York City.
State Comptroller Arthur Levitt asked, “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings.” The preponderance of the evidence standard, the one used in almost all civil cases would apply. Comptroller Levitt noted: “In a suit for an injunction, there is no need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case—a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient.”
In the subsequent six decades, the State has toughened the statute. In Laws of 1965, Chapter 666, the definitions of the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” were expanded to include “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretence [sic], false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.” The statute casts a wide net.
“The general grant of power to the Attorney General under section 63(12) has traditionally been his most potent.”
--------------------------------------
Alleging the elements is easy, proving them is difficult. What was needed was a law that would allow for the punishment, without requiring the elements of fraud, or proving the crime.
It's a one-size-fits-all law that can be used against anyone for anything...
